Gene Kelly

Very cool ... I lived in Lafayette Hill when first married, and used to ride my bike on the Valley Green trail.

http://www.visitphilly.com/restaurants-dining/philadelphia/valley-green-inn/ 

Chris:

I recently attended a wedding at the Valley Green Inn, on the bike path and trail along the Wissahickon Creek, near trendy Chestnut Hill.  The most famous dish at the Valley Green Inn is one that has made the Inn’s brunch a rite of passage for locals ... the famous brie-stuffed French toast which inspired the Food Network to call brunch at the Valley Green Inn as one of the best in the country. The Valley Green Inn is built on land that was part of a several hundred-acre tract purchased from William Penn in 1685. It had absentee owners in England and Ireland until 1791 when it was bought by a family who ran a large grist mill downstream. In 1868, the newly created Fairmount Park Commission appropriated the creek and its banks. The Livezey family sold the hotel to the Park in 1873.  In 1901, a committee of women was given permission by the Park to manage the newly restored Valley Green Hotel, serving served light refreshments and afternoon tea to riders, pedestrians and wintertime skaters. At this time, the restaurant became officially known as the Valley Green Inn. The Inn remains under the joint care of the friends of the Wissahickon and the Park Commission ever since, yet remains a privately-run business.

Gene

Ron:

The Phillies are alive and well, although not playoff contenders recently.   Ritchie Ashburn is a fan favorite, and broadcast their games for many years after he stopped playing (he passed away a few years ago).  Today they play in a well-laid out Citizens Bank park (a far cry from the old Connie Mack Stadium).  They had a great team five years ago, but have lost much of that talent to free agency and age.    

Michael/Chris:

As far as additional Philadelphia connections, add the name Igor Vaganov to the list. Several articles have been written about Vaganov, and he was researched by no less than Josiah Thompson, Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi and Bill Kelly … all of whom have Philly roots and became interested in Vaganov because he came from Philadelphia.  Igor Vladimirs Vaganov was a Latvian émigré who lived in Germany during WWII and came to America at the age of nine, was a credit manager for General Electric in suburban Philadelphia (Upper Darby and Broomall) for two years.  He served in the Navy, spoke four languages, and also had been in jail in California. Vaganov is reported to have used several  aliases including John Nicholson, Kurt Kullaway, Vince Carson and Igor Baganov. He allegedly owned a high-powered rifle and liked to hunt.

On November 5^th (after unsuccessfully requesting to be transferred by GE to Dallas), Vaganov suddenly left his job, and showed up in Dallas with a rifle in his red Ford Thunderbird. By November 12^th, he was living on Sunset Manor, Oak Cliff with a girlfriend. He knew “Mike” (a short stocky man “from the CIA”) and worked for a plumbing supply company and (for a day and a half) at Texas Consumer Finance Corp., which had offices next to the Carousel Club.

Vaganov was allegedly an expert shot and master of the 'double-tap … an aspect of Tippet’s shooting which was observed by witness Benavides. Oswald’s alleged jacket dropped at the Tippit murder scene had a laundry ticket that could not be traced, but the jacket was said to have been traced to the Philadelphia Strawbridge & Clothier department store, and somehow affiliated with Vaganov.  Igor allegedly had a role in the Tippit murder… he used the fact that he was having his tires changed as part of an alibi associated with a red convertible seen parked near the murder scene.  Interestingly, the infamous Oswald jacket (linking him to Tippit’s murder) was discovered in the parking lot of Ballew's Texaco, directly behind the Abundant Life Temple where it was believed that the murder suspect hid out in the basement, on the corner of Jefferson and Crawford. Six months after the assassination the FBI found a bundle of his clothes in a Dallas telephone booth. It's interesting that Vaganov's alibi at the time of the Tippit shooting was that he was changing tires on his Ford Thunderbird (similar to jams earl Ray alibi in the King assassination).

Vaganov’s red Thunderbird convertible apparently became a problem… likely the reason that Vaganov headed back to Philadelphia before sunrise on the 23rd. Vaganov possibly was a driver for the other Oswald (Harvey or 'Mike from the CIA’) and was observed at the El Chico restaurant up to the time witnesses observed Harvey being driven away. It seemed as though Vaganov wanted to be highlighted as a suspect, so that he would be immediately investigated by the FBI and then cleared ... which is what occurred on the afternoon of the 22nd. On the Sunday after the assassination, he was back in Philadelphia where he remained briefly, before ditching the red Thunderbird in a friend's garage, picking-up a Sting Ray, and driving back to Texas.  By early December his girlfriend (and alibi/cover) had taken the train back to Philadelphia and left him.

Hard to  make this stuff up ...

Gene

Chris: Just had dinner in Ambler, at a nice Italian restaurant called "From the Boot"

Ty: In 1965, Arlen Specter was elected District Attorney of Philadelphia, a position that he would hold until 1973.  He had a 30-year senate career, switched parties (several times), and was a dominant force during the Judiciary Committee’s Supreme Court nomination battles. He helped defeat conservative nominee Robert Bork in 1987, and his aggressive (and unpopular) questioning of law professor Anita Hill four years later — accusing her of “flat-out perjury” — helped secure Judge Clarence Thomas’s confirmation.  He voted to acquit President Bill Clinton on articles of impeachment, using a Scottish law term "Not proved, therefore not guilty".  He performed standup comedy after he lost his senate seat. 

YO ... Yoose guys may be onto something ... Frank Sturgis, (real name Frank Angelo Fiorini) was born in Philadelphia where he lived from 1930 to 1942.  He went to Catholic school and then attended Roosevelt Junior High School, Philadelphia, and Germantown High School, Philadelphia.  In his senior year of high school, Frank joined the Marines on October 5, 1942. He was only 17 years old, and would later claim that before the war, he had strong leanings toward becoming a Catholic priest. He attained the rank of Corporal and survived intensive combat including Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Guadalcanal.  He later suffered from combat fatigue, and escaped three times from the Sun Valley Naval Center before he was given a medical release.  Fiorini was honorably discharged from the Navy on August 30, 1948 and the next day he joined the Army, his third and final armed services branch. During his Army tenure in Berlin and Heidelberg, he worked in an intelligence unit and had a top secret clearance. After receiving an honorable discharge he joined the United States Merchant Marines in 1950 and traveled to and from Europe.
 

Attended University of Pennsylvania (Mascot is a Quaker)

City of Brotherly Love...?

Paul:

 I appreciate your feedback on the coincidences that I've listed.  They can all be sourced, as you probably know ... Probe and Jim's work is a worthy place to start but not necessarily a finish, as you also are aware. I see no logic in this distinction being made of primary versus secondary sources.  I suppose that we will simply continue to agree to disagree about the Paines. Regarding the point about Quakers, I stand by my observation that they have been popularly characterized as a middle-class average couple who just happened to associate with a Marxist assassin and his Russian wife.  A virtuous Quaker -Unitarian couple who belonged to the ACLU (ideologically liberal) but ironically did nothing to help Oswald (or Marina) with legal assistance. Portrayed as charitable, but lacking in any notable track record of philanthropic achievements (save their devotion to the Oswalds for a year or so) either before or after the assassination.  I find such dichotomies to be interesting.  Speaking of assassination, I would also note that (imho) they performed a skillful/scripted character assassination of the alleged assassin.  

Regarding my familiarity with Quakers and Unitarians, I'd remind you that I grew up in Philadelphia, went to college on the Main Line where both Michael and Ruth come from (Paoli, PA), and pass by Swarthmore College (where Ruth's papers are kept, and Michal attended) every morning on the way to work.  I used to live near the Friends school in Germantown where Ruth was a principal.  I have many friends and colleagues who are Quakers, and regularly pass by Quaker Meeting Houses and communities where I work.  

Gene

Jason:

Most authors whom I've read (e.g. Simpich, Newman, Scott) point to the machinations in Mexico City in late September and October as setting the plot/patsy in motion. They point to the secret backchannel Castro negotiations by William Atwood and Lisa Howard on September 23rd, negotiated by Carlos Lechuga, the Cuban ambassador in Mexico City.  In "State Secret", Bill Simpich states that: 

"Mexico City is as an 'epicenter' of sorts although other authors have pointed to the Atwood back-channel event as a precipitating event, springing the plotters into actual action. Orchestrated visits to the Cuban consulate and Soviet embassy are major milestones ... it's seems clear these drove the cover-up (i.e. reluctance to investigate more effectively) after the assassination."

Harvey and Angleton are implicated in these Mexico City intrigues, as are Morales and Phillips. Authors such as John Newman point to an FBI memo (October 9th Gheesling) taking Oswald off of the security watch list; others point to internal intelligence file manipulations as 'dimming the switches" and "planting a virus".  Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are being effectively neutralized by the plotters ... plotters who have insider information about how such things work.  Bill Simpich goes on to write about the specific dates when certain key things begin to happen:  

Oswald was apparently selected by the planners after Hosty wrote his September 10th memo saying that Oswald was active with the FPCC and was seeking CPUSA membership. Within days Tilton and Anderson set up their anti FPCC operation... a day later Oswald obtained a Mexican visa. On the 25th Harvey's colleague Potocki got a copy of the Hosty memo. On the 27th ‘Oswald’ showed the Cubans his FPCC and CPUSA cards; that and the Soviet Embassy visit the next morning closed out the Tilton/Anderson operation. Oswald was impersonated in the calls of 9/28 and 10/1 … and these were then tied to the plans to kill JFK as one of several options including attempts in Chicago and Tampa and Miami.

 Gene

Michael:

Regarding the level of detail in her testimony , Bill Simpich offered that "Ruth Paine’s interviews - her precise answers and details – seem scripted".

Gene

Jason:

You pose good challenges that stimulate discussion.  if you study the TSBD job story closely, you'll find that the neighbor (Ms. Randle) did not suggest a job opening, as commonly understood. The Warren Report claimed that on October 14, 1963:

“At the suggestion of a neighbor, Mrs. Paine phoned the School Book Depository and was told that there was a job opening. She informed Oswald who was interviewed the following day... and he started to work there on October 16, 1963.”

What the Warren Commission didn't report was that the neighbor whom Mrs. Paine claimed had informed her of the job opening (Linnie May Randle) contradicted Ruth's testimony. Randle swore before the Commission, “I didn't know there was a job opening over there.” Just as suspiciously, as the Commission also knew, Ruth Paine had withheld from Oswald information that may have led to a better, higher paid job.  So, there appears to be a lot more to the employment anecdote ... the devil's in the details. Moreover, this one point about the TSBD (alone) doesn't tip the scales for me ... but the preponderance of coincidence surrounding the Paines does.  And I wouldn't simply characterize the Paines as institutionally CIA or even FBI, as some suspect, but rather as puppets used unwittingly (or perhaps not) to nurture, harbor and indict the patsy ... puppets manipulated by larger more powerful forces.   

Gene

Michael:

I consider Walt Brown is a reliable source and good writer, and he obviously studied and analyzed WC testimony carefully.  While the number of questions asked may be a bit imprecise and misleading, the number of days in the witness chair is perhaps a better gage.  I'm not sure how anyone has the patience and attention to detail to count questions from a court reporter's record; more than likely, they were estimating the numbered lines in the margins of such reports.  Nonetheless, Ruth and Michael were questioned over a period of nine days ... in comparison, George de Morenschildt was questioned over two days (April 22-23, 1964) by Albert Jenner.    

In reading through some (but not all) of the Paine testimony, what also stands out in contrast to de Morenschildt's interrogation is that not only counselors Wesley Liebeler and Albert Jenner but also Commissioners Gerald Ford and (notably) Allen Dulles participated in the questioning than began around March 20, 1964. Furthermore, some of Ruth's testimony was conducted in Washington DC and the remainder was conducted at her residence in Irving.

I'd consult the Brown book for more detail, but the Paines received extensive questioning by the Commission, by any measure.  

Gene

Chris:

The source of the extensive Paine WC testimony is an article by Jim DiEugenio in Kennedys and King, dated June 20, 2014 and entitled "On its 50th Anniversary: Why the Warren Report Today is Inoperative".  In that article, Jim quotes a Walt Brown book ("The Warren Omission") where he states (on pages 262-263) that the Paines:

" ... were in the witness chair on a combined nine days and asked well over 6,000 questions ... in fact, Ruth was asked the most questions of any single witness".

Gene

Jason:

All good points raised, and welcome to the Forum; your fresh views are valued.   I don't think the idea is to link the Paines with the CIA, which I agree is circumstantial and speculative. Frankly, done properly, there would never be any primary sources or evidence in that regard (imho).  Rather, the abundant skepticism about the Paines centers about the many "coincidences" surrounding them --  key primary facts in the JFK murder case against Oswald -- as to strain credibility. 

I'd submit that no one was more instrumental in making the factitious case against Oswald that this couple. With all due respect to Paul's thesis, the primary LHO connections to General Walker come from Michael and Ruth: the Walker note, the photo of Walker's house, even the first person (i.e. Michael Paine) to cite Oswald's role in the April Walker shooting ... all these originate with Ruth and Michael Paine.  When Oswald's presence in Mexico was in question, Ruth provided the evidence. And when the Minox camera became a topic of intrigue, the FBI agents were referred to Ruth Paine. There are simply way too many coincidences at the heart of Oswald's legend and incrimination ... all of which emanate from primary sources and factual information (not speculation):

1. The Paines moved from Pennsylvania to the community of Irving (where Marguerite lived) the same September 1959 week that Oswald left his mother and defected
2. When Oswald returned to Dallas in 1962, the Paines were still there ... as though they had been waiting for him
3. When the enigmatic George de Morenschildt left for Haiti, Ruth and Michael stepped-in as his "benefactors" ... in essence a hand-off to the Paines
4. Lee and Marina meet the Paines at the Glover party, and move in with them for nothing more than Russian language tutoring
5. Michael and Ruth conveniently separate (ostensibly for harsh/cruel treatment) but remain amicable ... Michael watching over Lee while Ruth watches over Marina 
6. Ruth appears on the scene to whisk Marina away whenever Oswald has somewhere important to go (new Orleans, Mexico City)
7. Ruth's visits to the Neely Street apartment coincide with the same days the rifle/revolver are ordered and then shipped
8. Both the Paines and the Oswalds maintain separate residences  from their respective spouses ... this serves to confuse/divert examination of relationships or links
9. The lack of knowledge of a rifle (early on) followed by storage/discovery in the garage
10. Obtaining a critical and timely job for Oswald at the TSBD via a random conversation with a neighbor
11. A virtuous Quaker -Unitarian couple who belonged to the ACLU (ideologically liberal) but did nothing to help Oswald with legal assistance
12. Damming evidence against Oswald that flowed exclusively from the Paine garage (e.g. backyard photographs, Kleins order , radical magazines, Mexican bus ticket, etc.)  
13. They Paines are the most quoted testimony in the Warren Commission record (over 6,000 questions) ... no one is even a close second
14. Characterized as just an average middle-class religious couple who just happened to associate with a Marxist assassin and his Russian wife
15. For the following 30-50 years, they are untouched (e.g. HSCA), untainted (albeit with income tax returns classified) and under-investigated

In my view, Ruth and Michael share far too many coincidences to be dismissed as innocent bystanders.

Gene Kelly

Paul:

Thanks for pointing out the multiple calls.  I was not so much "conflating" (good word, kudos to Michael C. for using it previously) as pointing out that Ruth said nothing about the alleged later call (around 1pm, no transcript).   The first call was brought up several times in Michael's WC testimony:

 "I called Ruth immediately after getting back just to see that she would turn on the radio and be clued in with the news, but this was before the TSBD was mentioned." (Vol II, p. 424)

 "I called her immediately getting back to the lab, so she would be watching and listening and getting clued in to the news, start watching the news." (Vol IX, p. 449)

It’s interesting that his  colleague Ray Krystinik disagreed with Michael about where they were and what they discussed when first informed of the news.  Of course, there is no mention of the "waitress" that Ruth attributes as breaking the news.  Michael testified to being with a co-op named Dave, talking about "assassins" no less:

Mr. Paine. I was having, at the time of the assassination I was at work, of course, but at the time of the assassination I was in the cafeteria associated with the bowling alley having lunch.  

Mr. Liebeler. Who was with you? Mr. Paine. A student, a co-op student called Dave Noel happened to be with me. We happened to be talking about the character of assassins at the lunchtime, of all things.

Mr. Liebeler. Prior to the time you heard of the assassination? Mr. Paine. That is right.

Mr. Liebeler. ...let me ask you this, who was with you at the first time you heard the assassination? Mr. Paine. Dave Noel.

Mr. Liebeler. Was Mr. Krystinik with you? Mr. Paine. No.

 Frank Krystinik appeared to have recalled it differently. 

Mr. Liebeler. Was Michael with you when you first heard of the fact that the President had been fired at?  Mr. Krystinik. Yes.

Mr. Krystinik. And it wasn't but just a little while later that we heard that Officer Tippit had been shot, and it wasn't very long after that that it came through that the Oswald fellow had been captured, had had a pistol with him, and Michael used some expression, I have forgotten exactly what the expression was, and then he said, "The stupid," something, I have forgotten. It wasn't a complimentary thing. He said, "He is not even supposed to have a gun." And that I can quote, "He is not even supposed to have a gun." Or, "Not even supposed to own a gun," I have forgotten.

I'm curious, given your closeness to Ruth and recent contacts.  Have you ever reached out to Michael or spoken with him?

Thanks,

Gene

Ron (and others):

If you put stock in the Peter Dale Scott thesis of Phase 1 (Castro/Communist plot) and Phase 2 (LN) allegories, that might explain why Wesley Liebeler buried this phone call by referring to the wrong date, during his March 1964 WC interview of Michael Paine.  The idea of pinning the assassination on Castro or Communists had been abandoned by then, so this phone call is no longer needed.  Michael dismissed it in his testimony as "some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don’t know where it was... I thought it was some other part of the country".  He then deflects to another call from the police station to Ruth.  Ruth Paine testified to the WC:

"He (Michael) called. He knew about the assassination. He had been told by a waitress at lunchtime. I don't know whether he knew any further details, whether he knew from whence the shots had been fired, but he knew immediately that I would want to know, and called simply to find out if I knew, and of course I did, and we didn't converse about it, but I felt the difference between him and my immediate neighbor to whom I have already referred, Michael was as struck and grieved as I was, and we shared this over the telephone." (Vol III, P. 110)

So, Ruth and Michael Paine  tell conflicting stories about the phone call under oath in Warren Commission testimony. They weren't pressed on it and Liebeler deliberately made the call appear to be a rumor, and so it disappeared from the record until the mid-70s when Bernard Fensterwald came across the declassified Gemberling FBI report ( which had been withheld from the Warren Commission) and exposed it as a wire tap operation.  Fensterwald’s allegations were articulated by Congressmen Thomas Downing and Henry Gonzalez, on the House floor, as the HSCA was getting started.  Then we see the spin doctors utilize Hugh Aynesworth in a 1976 Dallas Times Herald article to refute the story of a wiretap on the Paine’s residential line.  

There's obviously something wrong and very fishy going on.  As a minimum, the Paines are being used; it wouldn't be the first time Allen Dulles used religious groups and individuals, such as Noel Field (see Talbot's "Devil's Chessboard") in his plotting and scheming.   However, I tend to see the Paines as much more than innocent dupes being manipulated.    

Gene  

Its interesting (but not surprising) that the Barger/FBI "report" is simply a second-hand summary ... no names, no precise time, unclear from where the call originated (i.e. did Mike call Ruth or vice versa).  But the male caller was "sure that LHO had killed the President".  Its more like hearsay or an allegation, as opposed to factual. 

Later reports changed the date, and added that it was a collect call from Ruth (long distance) to the Bell workplace.  The Confidential Informant twist is added to  make it legally untouchable.  Then, in 1976, Barger changes his story (with the help of Hugh Aynesworth) to a telephone repairman encountering "chance" mechanical difficulties and inadvertent discovery, thereby blocking the HSCA from finding more.  Its amazing how much coincidence and 'chance' surrounds the Paines, straining credibility, especially in a high profile intrigue such as JFK's murder.  You would think that the murder of a President would over-ride concerns for a "confidential informant".  I can also attest (as a former federal employee) that when confidentiality is offered, it is always with the caveat that it may be revoked for larger concerns. One is counselled that there is no such thing as strict confidentiality.  

When the phone call is viewed in the context of the Russian book with the incriminating note within,  the strategy becomes clearer. The Paines are obviously being used as a cooperative conduit for incriminating information on LHO.  Its notable that Barger was the "intermediary" with Ruth in passing along such incriminating information.  This nebulous phone call (that the WC didn't want to touch) seems aimed at Castro (or Communists), representative of the PDS Phase 1 allegories.  Perhaps Castro was the intended focus of "who was responsible".  This record of a call thus becomes another piece of planted evidence (embassy letter, backyard photos) originating from the ever-accommodating Paines.

Paul:

Putting JFK and the plotters aside for a moment, MC was quite a place of international intrigue in 1963.  if you're a spy, it seems like the new Berlin or the more exotic European cities where espionage was hot.  It seem that everyone was bugging or surveilling each other.  Lots of Cuban, Soviet and American spy games afoot. Communists competing for a foothold in central America.  In the midst of all that, we introduce Oswald(s) (or their impersonators) and sheep-dip a sensitive operation to remove the American president.  Mix in the Mexican DFS, Nicaraguan criminals and intelligence, American ex-patriates (and mercenaries), Cuban nationals, ex-Nazis ... what a milieu.  It would make for a good Agatha Christie movie.

Gene

The idea being re-seeded by certain authors of Castro sponsoring or supporting the assassination is absurd.  No leader of a small country like Cuba would be in their right mind to allow themselves to be connected to such a provocation.  As others have written, the psychological war aspect of the Mexico City charade proves that the murder was not planned by Oswald, LBJ, the mafia or other entities … it limits the real suspects to those who were specifically trained in psychological operations that can be traced back to their source. HSCA investigator Daniel Hardaway compiled a list of over two dozen examples of those case studies of individuals who attempt to blame what happened at Dealey Plaza on Cuban Castro Communists, each one traced back to usually someone close to David Atlee Phillips. Peter Dale Scot, John Newman and others have summarized the psychological war aspect of the assassination as representing "a complex but understandable part of the plan that gives us a crack in the door of the covert operation that was designed to protect its actual sponsors". 

Thank you Paul.  I remain a student of the JFK murder, as its such a fascinating read with so many twists and turns.  I am an engineer and scientist by training and trade, but this subject has allowed me to dig deep into the back-stories behind our modern American history.  I have complied "papers" ... compilations of books, articles, threads on this Forum and other sources. These are not original, but they allow me to frame the facts and make some sense of it all.  The most recent was the Mexico City charade, and its an eye-opener (for me).  I recently did one on Clare Boothe Luce and William Pawley (both of whom deserve more scrutiny) as driving forces behind JFK's death. 

I have always found it difficult to explain to friends and family what really went down, and the truth behind the assassination (although I don't claim to know that in any certainty).  The people who killed JFK knew what they were doing, and how to cover their tracks and keep the larger (more legitimate) government at bay.  Those experts in disinformation (who continue today) are likely protecting their beloved Agencies continuance and reputation... how else does one explain the modern pattern of obfuscation? If I were a psychologist, I'd put a study together in why this story is so difficult to "sell" to most of the public, who have not done the due diligence required to unravel the stories.  I see the following barriers to "converting" or convincing the general public, celebrities, politicians or mainstream media who might otherwise take on the cause:

• it takes patience and hard work to read/digest the enormous volume of work
• many ask "if I could read just one book, what would it be?" That's a hard one, as no one author nails it definitively, although some like Hancock/Douglas get close
• most don't want to think of their government as corrupt or other than "good guys in white hats"
• the forces at play and the plotters were/are very skilled at discrediting legitimate research/researchers on the "trail of the assassins" (e.g. Garrison, et al)
• its not popular to be railing at the "establishment" (now or then) and there's really nothing in it (i.e. embracing/sponsoring) for politicians today  
• those who believe that there's simply more to the story tend to be punitively labeled and characterized as "CT'ers" (or worse) ... ridiculed or even reviled
• with the passage of time, the trail gets cold and people lose interest; we now live in a 20-second sound bite society with no patience for digging below the surface

The more one reads, the less one admires any past Presidents or Statesman.  A reading of Talbot's "Devil's Chessboard" makes me feel that everything I ever read in history books is spun and varnished.  All these "leaders" seem corrupt or flawed in some aspect (with the exception of Jimmy Carter).  I find that since JFK, there are no more "heroes" to look up to.

The Baer documentary was a continuance of the elaborate disinformation campaign centered about Mexico City to suggest that the assassination may have been the work of Castro and Cuban communists.  The series made for a dramatic introduction of information already well known to serious students of the crime, but appears brand new and startling ("recently declassified") as though a revelation out of the AARB.  Performed by a knowledgeable ex-CIA agent and an experienced investigator, one can see how less well-informed watchers would be swayed by the James Bond devices and tradecraft from an expert.  Some friends less familiar with the morass of confusion and fact surrounding JFK’s death who watched later expressed to me their conviction in what was presented; they found it all interesting and credible.  But they are being tantalized, seduced and swayed towards the original (1963) story line, the one PD Scott calls a Phase 1 story, the illusory Oswald-Soviet conspiracy. Scott wrote:

Privileged authors (e.g. Russo and Posner) continue to dominate the media with their dance between “Phase-One” and “Phase-Two” accounts of Oswald. With both books receiving positive reviews, it is hard for the American public to look behind this ballet of bestsellers, and discern the actual dynamics of case management. In succeeding years, the discredited “Phase-One” stories have been revived to manipulate public opinion (e.g. Phillip Shenon and the twist party).

Oswald in Mexico City is a topic hard enough to figure out ... spend a month reading Newman, Armstrong, Simpich, David Josephs.  It takes some serious concentration and patience in sorting through these managed stories, to see the obvious disinformation patterns.  PD Scott writes that these managed stories: "... fleeting and insubstantial though they are, were of central importance in determining the outcome of the assassination investigation".  In prescient fashion, he then describes the essence of this documentary, writing: "In succeeding years, the discredited 'Phase-One' (Cuban/Soviet conspiracy) stories have been revived to manipulate public opinion, even after the CIA and FBI had agreed on a 'Phase-Two' interpretation."  In the prophetic words of Vincent Salandria:

We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence.  That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long, and I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

The documentary was quite a creative mix of fact and fiction, reminding me of Churchill’s quote that “truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies”.  What this reaffirms for me is that the Mexico City charade is indeed very close to the heart of the matter... the illusive truth.  

Larry;

Thanks ... makes sense

A blog (on Rense.com) by a friend of a friend - third hand - who said "he didn't like him" (because of so-called wild sex parties in the WH) smacks of character assassination of the Kennedy's.  Then, a sophomoric conclusion that - in all assassinations - its the bodyguards who betray the leader.   Kind of reminds one of Allen Dulles bringing a book in the early days to the Warren Commission, and proclaiming that its always a lone nut.  Same MO.

That said, I'd love to hear Bull Barry's considered (and expert) opinion on what went down at the Ambassador Hotel.  He probably knows the unvarnished truth.

Steve:

I get it ... careless was perhaps a poor choice of words.  What I meant was that the name is so phony, so contrived, that its beyond believable (in retrospect, knowing all that we now know).    In other words, its an obvious setup.

Gene

PS. Your comments about the other things done resonates with me.  A few years back, when I confronted a knowledgeable person (one in the know, an individual involved with HSCA) and asked him the classic questions of who did it, why, and how come its not revealed today, his answer was : "what makes you think that was the worst thing they ever did?"  

Jim:

CTKA is the best, and I echo Vince's comments.   It provides the very best perspective on all things JFK.  Lisa Pearse in particular is very good.

Gene 

Makes sense Steve.

Since Hidell was an alias, what do you think is the genesis of such a name?   Some believe that these aliases are a play on words, or hidden messages.  In this case, the name is connected to explosive evidence (rifle, mail order, postal box, draft card, etc.) pointing towards Oswald.    In retrospect, no one would be that careless in leaving a trail, in such a serious crime.   It comes across as way too contrived.