Gene Kelly

The fact that Khan and company (including Wayne/Wien) were hanging around (i.e. infiltrating) RFK's campaign headquarters (and purportedly stole an appointments book) speaks volumes to their stalking and multiple attack theory. Very creepy and the sign of an experienced operation. Given what happened to JFK, you'd think Bobby would've had tighter measures to surround and protect himself. He was after all a former Attorney General and influential person from a wealthy family. Its hard to imagine that he didn't have a comparable network of professionals to counter these goons. Its ironic that - after his murder - the protocol was changed to provide Secret Service protection for candidates ... not that that agency would've been any better as far as loyalty to a Kennedy. I don't think these people were simply part of a religious cult, as some have pointed out. They all vanished into the woodwork (like cockroaches) and never received any substantial attention. Infiltrating and using LAPD - plus controlling the evidence, witnesses, autopsy and trial - are also the marks of professionals, a game plan similar to Dealey Plaza. Khan and Wien were convenient cut-outs with no obvious ties to CIA, but have the fingerprints of Dulles and his gang. No mafia or Cubans this time around.

Larry/Ron: I agree that the individuals' collective behavior is realistic and logical. We tend to think of these events (JFK, RFK) as singular stories ... as though there was one and only location where the hit would take place. I've often thought of the many possibilities that existed where the murders would potentially occur, and how the planners and plotters had multiple chances both tried/failed. Both targets (JFK and RFK) were obviously being stalked. I sense that - like Dealey Plaza - there were several locations selected for Bobby, but for a variety of reasons were aborted or abandoned. I also don't think that John Fahey would've manufactured such a controversial story. Frankly, I'm surprised that his continued safety wasn't compromised. He had to know that such a story would bring undue attention (not the least of which from his wife and family) and I wonder out loud whatever happened to him. There is enough corroboration to say that his encounter happened, and that this particular girl (ethnicity, nose, shapely, odd affect) was seen by many witnesses. Frankly, it took courage for Fahey to come forward, and I'm sure he ultimately regretted going to the media, LAPD and FBI ... none of whom did him any justice. There are so many "loose ends" (coincidences, sinister affiliations, etc.) with RFK's death that one doesn't know where to start. I see the sane Game Plan' being used at the Ambassador Hotel that we saw in Dealey Plaza. I cannot help but think that the light being shined upon Nixon and company is illuminating the truth. As a child of the 60's and 70's, he was a villain then and has come to be more of a monster as history unveils all of his treason and duplicity. Gene

I am reminded of a post from a few years ago, and the "coincidences" associated with General Walker's story and circumstances. Walker's blatant right-wing connections appear too good to be true; I sense that he was being used as a distraction and was as much a patsy as Oswald was (imho) ... and he knew it, as evidenced by his theatric post-assassination behavior and statements. More to the point of this thread, Vince Palamara has previously posted that there was a place in Dallas called Hidell Hardware ... near General Walker's house. It was originally located on Travis Street, close to where Walker lived in 1963, just off the interstate. It is described as on a direct route to the Walker residence that Oswald would have used to take his infamous pot-shot at the general. The Hidell name is another one of those simply amazing coincidences ... and most who study this case are long-since wary of coincidence.

Harry Homes was also party to this interview. The mysterious postal inspector. The Hidell alias is also associated with the postal box taken out in Oswald's name. Somehow, Holmes is in the middle of this.

Thinking more broadly, there are many things that were "done" by agencies that - in retrospect - would reflect poorly on government today. This is one reason (imho) that official JFK stories have not changed, nor are any politicians interested in dredging-up the truth and laying it out in modern times. One knowledgeable person who had worked the HSCA once told me - when asked about why the truth wasn't revealed after so many years - "why do you think that (JFK's murder) was the worst thing they'd done?" While the perpetrators are clearer today (for me anyway), I'd venture that today's CIA and other intelligence agencies are vastly different than they were 50 years ago. Things are no doubt done which must remain dark, for ostensibly valid reasons, national security, the common good, etc. I also have no doubt there are many earnest (and honest) folks who devote their careers to those agencies; I worked in government for 17 years, and can attest to such. However, one thing that I vividly learned is that the very strongest instinct within an agency is its continuance ... and anything that threatens its existence (funding by Congress, public reputation as civil servants, mission etc.) is defended in strong terms. Federal agencies deeply believe in themselves, and their mission, and will fight to no ends to continue to exist. I find that telling friends, family, co-workers and others the true JFK "story" is met with mixed results. Some are fascinated, some are uninterested, and some cannot countenance this would happen. Its difficult to keep their focus and attention for too long. I too teach, and students have less patience today for books, research and deeper inquiry. They like their news in snippets and their stories in one simple summary paragraph. When you lay some enigmas and sub-plots out clearly (pictures help, like umbrella man or Tippit's murder scene) they are fascinated, but its like driving by an accident on the highway... a brief fascination and then quickly move on.

Jim: Great thread. Westbrook has always drawn my attention for many reasons. Sounds like his later (not too much later) 'escape' to Saigon was part of the beginnings of PHOENIX which others (like Morales) appeared to have been involved with. I found it notable that Armstrong states: "Capt Westbrook hired Roscoe White only two months before the assassination". More coincidence (right?) Gene

I was reading an old thread about "disinformation" from 2005, and a quote by the late Tim Carroll. He made a similar analogy (to the media angle) regarding the usefulness of analyzing this particular set of facts: Ironically, disinformation may be one of the last potentially fruitful areas of investigation. As with Watergate, it's the cover-up that provides evidence to perpetrators. The provision of false autopsy photos, if proven and traced, is an example of such deliberate misinformation.

I know that I'm repeating, but this unique (truthful) look at the media coverage is an independent way to examine the JFK case. It's an approach that exposes the "pinch points" and weak spots in the official story. The overt CBS efforts to counter these critical areas serve to highlight where the fundamental flaws - the ones most informed critics already know - truly are. Its like an independent validation of the things we have always doubted, but struggle to prove conclusively. Its also a once-in-a lifetime glimpse of the higher level sponsors and architects who pulled the strings. They concealed those connections more carefully with the ground-level dirty work and evidence in the crime... but not so well in the media manipulation. I hate to put it this way, as it represents a sad commentary, but its actually refreshing to know these facts (and names).

Jim: This news media thread has been excellent. I had never known the details of the coverage, and the story behind the stories (so to speak). While its no surprise to an experienced reader/researcher that certain reporters and news organizations were influenced (nice word) or controlled (darker view), it's still disheartening to peek behind the curtain. Every aspect of the "operation" was tightly managed, from shooters to logistics, police to witnesses, autopsy and news coverage... no wonder this is a hard nut to crack. The fine piece about CBS and the inside information of Roger Feinman allows the bigger picture to come into focus. For example, we now see more clearly McCloy's influence; he is no longer just a suspect in the plot... for me, it seals the deal. Time-Life and the Z Film ... in a word, unacceptable. I don't know how best to put this, but this news coverage angle of the JFK story is so illuminating; it provides a unique and valuable perspective on the higher level sponsors. One that is not possible by simply studying the evidence or crime details (which is what we typically focus upon) or sorting through eyewitness accounts and individual "confessions". You can now step back and clearly see where the point-counterpoints occur. Its akin to being able to follow the money trail. Lane's book, autopsy questions, Garrison's investigation, Church Committee, HSCA, Stone's JFK ... each and every time a serious challenge is mounted, CBS responds with a cooked "special". The trend and pattern is unmistakable. In today's world, libraries, newspapers and television - where our generation found its information - have become dinosaurs. In retrospect, its an outdated and imprecise way to learn the truth. The CBS story really opens up a fuller picture. Gene

Jim: Thank you for clarification. I'm interested in what you think of Steve Thomas' question. Was there something going on around April of 1963 in Walker's life ... something that may have been supported or enhanced by someone taking a potshot at him? This led me to look at the etymology of the word "potshot" (origin in 1836): "shot taken at animal simply to 'get it in the pot,' not for sport or marksmanship". The implication is one of the shot being very easy, with the game being near at hand or in an advantageous position for the hunter, so that the animal has no chance of escape or self-defense. On June 19, 1964, Time Magazine published an article entitled "Investigations: The Man Who Wanted to Kill Nixon". It led with the following: When the full report of the Warren Commission is published, perhaps by month's end, it may well reflect the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald had an obsessive yen to kill—not just John F. Kennedy, but any notable person. According to that theory, Kennedy was no more than a famous target to Oswald. The theory helps explain why Oswald apparently took a potshot at General Edwin Walker in Dallas in April 1963. Walker, a right-winger, espoused views that were frequently diametrically opposed to Kennedy's. So why, if political causation was the answer, should Oswald want to kill him? The Nixon threat story began when Robert Oswald, heard from James Martin that Lee had planned to shoot Nixon, and that to prevent the attack, Lee’s wife, Marina, “had locked Lee in the bathroom for the entire day”. At her first appearance before the Warren Commission, Marina Oswald had neglected to mention Lee’s threat to Nixon... she was more forthcoming on her second appearance. Nixon left Dallas early on the morning of November 22nd, and was in town on business, according to the Dallas Times Herald. Maurice Carlson’s FBI statement indicates that Nixon “arrived by private plane with the President of the Pepsi Cola Company”. Nixon was presumably performing legal work in conjunction with Pepsi’s forthcoming commercial links with the Great Southwest Corporation. James Martin - the earliest source for the story that Oswald had planned to shoot Richard Nixon - was the manager of the Inn of the Six Flags, which was owned by the Great Southwest Corporation. Shortly after Marina Oswald began her detention at the Inn of the Six Flags –in the weeks following the assassination - James Martin became her manager. At around the time Marina made her incriminating statements to the FBI, she also appointed William McKenzie to take charge of her legal affairs. McKenzie was a member of the law firm Wynne, Jaffe and Tinsley ... Bedford Wynne, a senior partner in that firm, was one of the owners of the Great Southwest Corporation. Morris Jaffe of the same law firm was the attorney for George de Mohrenschildt. Lots of coincidences here. Gene

Steve Thomas: I'm thinking that - at this stage in his life - Walker was making a bid to run for president, right? He had obvious (and very public) differences with the Kennedy's. Perhaps drawing attention to his cause? Per William Turner, the individuals allegedly behind this faux shooting (the Schmidt's) also had a hand in the "Wanted for Treason" posters that became prominent in Dallas later that Fall. Another head fake (overt) , designed to focus attention on radical militant groups, and away from the true sponsors. The Walker shooting therefore smacks of misdirection, orchestrated by people associated with Michael Paine and George de Mohrenschildt. Gene

Walker strikes me as a pathetic figure, and certainly not a plotter; but rather a marker that leads to the plot. What is principally interesting is the connectivity of Ruth and Michael Paine to Walker. The so called "Walker note" (found by Ruth a week after the assassination in a book), the surveillance photo of Walker's house, and the first person to name Oswald as taking part in the Walker shooting (Michael), all derive from Ruth and Michael Paine. As one researcher wrote: "the entire put upon Quaker charity, Good Samaritan act wears thin in the face of such coincidences". More coincidence: Volkmar Schmidt (who was linked to the Walker shooting by Dick Turner) shared his living space with three other men: Everett Glover, the owner of the house and a research chemist at Magnolia Research Laboratories, Geologist Richard Pierce, also at Magnolia and Michael Paine, who was separated from his wife. According to Schmidt (via one of Oswald's suspect biographers, Edward Epstein), Oswald violently attacked President Kennedy's foreign policy and was “completely alienated, self-destructive, and suicidal." This description dovetails what the Warren Commission would do with Oswald several months later: pin the shooting of Walker and murder of Kennedy on him, and paint him as a sociopath. According to John Armstrong, Epstein (an Angleton associate) "propagates and embellishes the legend of the Walker shooting" and the celebrated backyard photograph of Oswald ... the one with a date and handwriting (in Cyrillic) on the back. Following George's 'suicide', Epstein conveniently employed a handwriting expert who “immediately identified both the dating and the inscription as Oswald's writing concluded the Russian printing on reverse side was consistent with Marina's handwriting”. According to Jeff Carter, whoever was responsible for the backyard photos was "known to Oswald, was known to Ruth Paine, had something to do with the Walker 'assassination attempt', and had a hand in setting up Oswald as the patsy". In Jeff's keen analysis, all items within the photos were deliberately chosen by the forgers, including the odd inclusion on the Oswald figure of a pistol (invoking the Tippit slaying). Carter speculates that perhaps a shootout with the pistol-carrying assassin was the anticipated (planned) event. Then there's George and Jeanne ... on April 13, 1963, three days after Oswald's alleged attempt on the life of Walker (for which the police had no suspects), the de Mohrenschildt’s visited the Oswalds' apartment. Jeanne de Mohrenschildt allegedly saw a rifle which was to be later linked with another inscribed "hunter of fascists" photo. After the contrived Walker incident, de Mohrenschildt moved to Haiti where he remained in a lower profile for four years. Marina’s testimony has always been suspect. The HSCA refused to believe her recounting of the Walker shooting. Fourteen years after the assassination the HSCA interviewed Marina. Before she agreed to the interview Marina insisted on a grant of immunity. Committee members soon realized that Marina's testimony was full of lies and contradictory statements. The HSCA conducted a detailed study of Marina's testimony regarding the Walker shooting and wrote: "When combined with the other testimony linking Oswald to the shooting (whose testimony has all the weight of a handful of chicken feathers), we regretfully refuse to accept the judgment of the Commission in regard to the Walker shooting, hoping that its prides and preju­dices were a result of error and not expedience." Oswald’s 7-week residency at Neely St. became the "crucial phase in the history of his alleged penchant for political assassination". This is the time when, purportedly, he acquired a rifle and a pistol, posed with the weapons for the infamous backyard photos, attempted to kill homegrown fascist Walker, and thought of making an attempt on the life of Richard Nixon ... and then hastily moved to New Orleans to allegedly (according to Ruth Paine) avoid prosecution. Priscilla Macmillan - another of Oswald's 'biographers' wrote that "Lee had rented the Neely Street apartment for a purpose, and he did not think that he would be there long". Using the words of the late Vincent Salandria (when he described the Paines) Edwin Walker is a "clear beacon" to those responsible for JFK's murder.

John: The entire Walker thing comes across as phony. A stage act, designed to divert attention towards Oswald. It also put the radical right factions on their heels a bit, drawing them into the milieu of suspects. Not sure what it was all really about, but it doesn't add up. Anything that relies upon Ms. Paine and Mr. De Mohrenschildt for exculpatory evidence is highly suspect. There was some talk about Oswald saying that he would also shoot Nixon too. That strongly has parallels to the George Wallace/Arthur Bremer episode, surely the imprimatur and propaganda of E.H.Hunt and friends. Those who hold to this anecdote (i.e. fable) are also suspicious imho. The Walker 'assassination' attempt makes no logical sense, and appears highly theatrical. Gene

Jim: This all reminds me that, email, books, threads and reading is no substitute for face-to-face, as far as real communication is concerned. What we miss is facial expression, tone, body language, etc. This is where the real "message" is relayed. Tanenbaum actually sat and talked with Chris Dodd. Tanenbaum was an experienced homicide investigator, and no doubt an excellent reader of people and of deception. The fact that Dodd is "tainted" (and I'm certain his father was involved and complicit) speaks volumes about him selecting Blakey for the HSCA. The tactic (of censorship and cover-up) that comes to mind is "using official channels to give an appearance of justice". Something tells me that Corruption of blood is by no means fiction. I found this in a Rolling Stone article: “Because facts are routinely distorted through one prism by sources with agendas to serve, connecting inferred dots in a fictional narrative can be a stronger vehicle than conventional journalism for getting to the truth of a situation." Gene Gene

Folks: I've read an interesting article about communications and tactics used in censorship and cover-up. Its entitled “The Streisand Effect and Censorship Backfire” by Sue Jansen and Brian Martin, International Journal of Communication 2015 . I recommend this for anyone who wants to understand how powerful institutions. When governments commit atrocities, the perpetrators and their allies commonly take steps to reduce public outrage by using one or more of five tactics: Hiding the existence of censorship (cover-up); Devaluing targets of censorship; Reinterpreting actions by lying, minimizing consequences, blaming others, and using benign (favorable) framing; Using official channels to give an appearance of justice; and Intimidating opponents or rewarding those involved Sounds familiar, right? In most cases, only powerful perpetrators have the resources and authority to use all five methods. An institution, like a church containing/protecting child molesters, can more readily use official channels, intimidation, and rewards to reduce outrage... in other words, all five methods. For example, the Nazis used all five methods in their so-called euthanasia program to kill people with disabilities. Although it occurred a century ago, the Turkish government continues to devalue anyone who seeks to raise awareness of the 1915 Armenian genocide. This also appears to be what happened during the HSCA, and all throughout the Oliver Stone movie. Gene

Jim: Perhaps Tanenbaum was attempting to induce public attention to Dodd and the plotters. The use of Roman à clef can also invoke what's called the "Streisand Effect": If it becomes known that someone of power, fame, or influence is using strong measures to attempt to suppress a piece of information or a work, then many people will want to know what it is even if they never cared before. This phrase was coined when Barbara Streisand - trying to suppress a photograph taken of her house - attempted to sue a photographer and force him to take the image off of his website. Predictably, this backfired: the Internet imp of the perverse was roused and now everyone wanted to see the photo that Streisand didn't want them to see. News of the photo's existence spread far and wide, with others quickly mirroring it on multiple websites as a rejoinder to Streisand. The image in question was not a paparazzo taking pictures of her house; rather, it was part of the California Coastal Records Project, a government-commissioned photographic study of the California coast. In the interpretative struggles over the photo, an important argument in the photographer’s defense was that he had not singled out Streisand; his photographs were part of a public service documenting coastal erosion. These facts also served to validate the photo by showing it belonged in a category different from paparazzi. Instead of successfully removing the information from the public, it becomes even more widely available than before as a backlash against the censorship attempt. Psychologists have found that the subjects' desire for any kind of potentially censor-able material increases (i.e. forbidden fruit principle) when the subjects were told that it was censored. So, the only way to really keep something hidden is to have nobody look for it in the first place. How is that done? In the course of understanding the dynamics of the Streisand effect, there emerge certain tactics used by censors to reduce outrage from their actions (“The Streisand Effect and Censorship Backfire” by Sue Jansen and Brian Martin, International Journal of Communication 2015). Although overwhelming force may be on their side, perpetrators and their allies still commonly take steps to reduce public outrage by using one or more of these five tactics. In most cases, only powerful perpetrators have the resources and authority to use all five methods. An institution, like a church containing child molesters, can more readily use official channels, intimidation, and rewards to reduce outrage... all five methods. This appears to be what happened during the HSCA: Hiding the existence of censorship (cover-up); Devaluing targets of censorship; Reinterpreting actions by lying, minimizing consequences, blaming others, and using benign (favorable) framing; Using official channels to give an appearance of justice; and Intimidating opponents or rewarding those involved Covering up the action is itself a form of censorship ... censorship of censorship. Even the most ruthless and powerful groups use these methods to justify their atrocities. For example, the Nazis used all five methods in their so-called euthanasia program to kill people with disabilities: The program was assiduously hidden from the general public; people with disabilities were stigmatized as a societal burden; those who had suspicions about what was happening, such as parents of victims, were met with lies about the cause of deaths; formal complaint procedures led nowhere; and protesting parents were threatened with losing their other children or worse. These methods do not necessarily operate in any predictable sequence, and can occur before or after an action. For example, although it occurred a century ago, the Turkish government continues to devalue anyone who seeks to raise awareness of the 1915 Armenian genocide. In the same vein, 50 years after JFK’s murder, the government appears to be censoring and devaluing critics (e.g. Oliver Stone). Jansen and Martin talk about the “information onion” analogy. Censorship does not have to be absolute, but is effective enough to limit awareness and understanding of the issue, reducing the potential for popular concern. Many examples involve layered censorship. If the censorship were completely effective, it could remain undetected. Sometimes, however, with the passage of time, information that was once highly sensitive loses its volatility and becomes public: Those currently in power may release it or records may be deposited in archives and later discovered or reinterpreted by historians. As an example, for many years, authorities denied rumors about the existence of Operations Northwoods and Mongoose. Since a large number of people were involved in various actions associated with these intrigues, there were rumors, but the rumors and investigative reporters who pursued them were devalued and dismissed as part of the radical lunatic fringe. It was implied that no sensible person would believe that their government could be involved in such bizarre activities. The 1975 Senate investigation headed by Senator Frank Church confirmed the existence of the mafia-related plots. In this case, all five methods were successfully invoked and succeeded for 15 years in keeping the operation secret or at least, in the language of the time, “plausibly deniable.” By the time these activities were publicly disclosed in the immediate wake of the Watergate affair, the public had already had its fill of outrage and was ready for reform and reconciliation. The Jansen/Martin analysis of outrage management highlights the fact that censorship is a process rather than a singular action or an outcome. In many cases, something is hidden, at least to certain audiences, but remains potentially vulnerable to wider exposure, indicating that deliberate processes are involved in maintaining secrecy or limiting visibility. In other words, censorship seldom can be achieved with finality, but instead commonly requires active maintenance, using the methods for inhibiting outrage. Where this is all headed - as far as the future is concerned - is unclear. As lawyers, crisis management advisers, and brand managers advise their clients of the hazards of Streisand-effect backfires, the powerful may exercise more restraint in selecting their targets, avoiding those that are likely to trigger media attention and public sympathy. If history is any guide, however, when the powerful and their advisers do act to suppress information, they will try to develop more effective ways of concealing and maintaining their censorship's. Gene PS. All of this is extracted from “The Streisand Effect and Censorship Backfire” by Sue Jansen and Brian Martin, International Journal of Communication 2015. I found it an instructive analogy for what has happened with media and information flow in the 50 years following JFK's murder.

Roman à clef: Created by Madeleine de Scudery in the 17th century to provide a forum for thinly veiled fiction featuring political and public figures. The reasons for using this format include writing about controversial topics or reporting inside information on scandals without giving rise to charges of libel. The fictitious names in the novel represent real people, and the "key" is the relationship between the nonfiction and fiction. This "key" may be produced separately or implied through the use of epigraphs or literary techniques.The key may be provided by a variety of different techniques and may be revealed only in partial form, or revealed in different degree to different elements of the readership. Jim: What do you think the "key" is that Tanenbaum used? Or is it self-revealing? Gene

Jim: I did not read "corruption of Blood". But from your 1998 Probe piece entitled "The Sins of Robert Blakey". it seems that Tanenbaum’s expresses suspicions about "Henry Dobbs, Democrat of Connecticut" ... clearly Chris Dodd, son of Thomas. Hence the inference would be that - had Thomas been convicted of treason (and subject to the old English consequence of attainder) - then any family property would have been forfeited and would not have been passed onto his son Chris Dodd. So, Chris Dodd was "tainted" with his Father's corruption of blood. Gene

Jim: Quite interesting... the metaphorical "stain" or corruption of blood which arose from being condemned for a serious capital crime, like treason or murder. While unconstitutional, it seems this is the charge that Tanenbaum feels the plotters should have been subject to... without the need for a trial. Bill Kelly's May 2013 summary stated that it comes from the United States Constitution (Article 3, Section 3) which reads: “The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.” According to legal dictionaries, in old English criminal law, attainder was the metaphorical "stain" or "corruption of blood" which arose from being condemned for a serious capital crime (e.g. treason), without judicial trial. It entailed losing not only one's life, property and hereditary titles, but typically also the right to pass them on to one's heirs. Medieval and Renaissance English kings and queens typically used attainders against political enemies and those who posed potential threats to the king's position and security... and reversed their attainders in return for promises of loyalty. Often, nobles would refer to the act of being attainted (and then executed) as the person's "destruction." Under common law, punishment for treason generally included drawing, hanging, beheading, and quartering. As with other crimes carrying sentence of death, those adjudged guilty of treason and finally sentenced were considered attaint, or stained, meaning dead in the eyes of the law ... even before execution. Once attainder was established, the attainted forfeited his real estate to the Crown - a requirement symbolizing lack of entitlement to the benefits of society. Attainder also worked corruption of blood. Forfeitures and corruption of blood worked hardship on dependents and relatives in order to provide maximum deterrence. Eventually, Parliament modified the laws of forfeiture and corruption of blood to protect the innocent. Corruption of blood was one of the consequences of attainder. The descendants of an attainted person could not inherit either from the attainted criminal (whose property had been forfeited on conviction) or from their other relatives through the criminal. For example, if a person is executed for a crime leaving innocent children, the property of the criminal is forfeited to the crown and will not pass to the children. If the criminal's innocent father subsequently dies, his property cannot be inherited by the criminal's children either: it will be distributed among other family members. The US Constitution prohibits corruption of blood as a punishment for treason, and attainder has been abolished in England. Legislation has occasionally been proposed in this regard, but is rejected because of due process and Fifth Amendment considerations. Other countries (e.g. North Korea, Iran) practice forms of this punishment. There would otherwise be no investigation ... plus everyone within the accused's family would be subject to the sanctions. In Tanenbaum's book, he has a passage that states: "Assassinating the president is not treason… even a coup is not treason. Treason shall consist in levying war against the United States and giving aid and comfort to its enemies. It’s in the Constitution, the only crime defined in the Constitution... so forget treason. Conspiracy to commit murder, interfering with an investigation, tampering with and withholding evidence - that’s different, and we may have found evidence of all of that. It’s enough.’” Gene

It seems they wanted to put Ralph Yarborough in the limousine, but instead John Connally rode with JFK. I sometimes wonder if they were trying to kill two birds with one stone. I simply cannot get over the presence of Pena in both plots... what a horrific insight. Dodd and Luce (with the phony Oltmans) ... William Pawley a few degrees of freedom away. ASC. Yikes.

Yikes! The plot thickens ... Dodd had a most interesting set of witnesses appear before his committees, including Manny Pena, Richard Gibson, and the man who would later tell the HSCA where to find Oswald’s associate George DeMohrenschildt; Dutch journalist Willem Oltmans. Some of Dodd's witnesses turned out to be CIA assets. Dodd introduced into the Senate the Ardsley-on-Hudson conference report, sponsored by Freedom Horse and the Citizens Committee for a Free Cuba, a group which included such CIA backers as Clare Booth Luce and Admiral Arleigh Burke.

Michael: I think you'll find (if you look hard enough) that all of these investigations were infiltrated and undermined by intelligence "stories". In each case - Warren, Garrison, HSCA (not sure about AARB) - persons were actively inserted to direct the flow of good information away from the public, and intentionally complicated with "bad" or bogus information. Reputations were smeared and ad hominem attacks utilized. It comes across as almost a war against the truth (imho). There are terms commonly used to describe these tactics (e.g. disinformation, limited hangouts, false flag operations, cognitive dissonance, rabbit holes, etc.) but the patterns are quite clear. For me, the presence of these patterns is one of the over-arching clues that intelligence agencies had a role in the murder of JFK. Gene

Folks: I too read the King book (got it for XMAS from my kids) and it was a bit long but an interesting premise. I agree that it fuels the imagination some, but I don't think he undertook it to find out the "truth" but rather to imagine an alternate outcome. If you think about it, the Oswald story and JFK murder really is a horror story ... which is right up King's alley. To expect any journalist or media celebrity to venture into the vortex of the JFK story and unravel the truth from the mountain of expert disinformation is asking quite a lot. Some of the more wise researchers (e.g. Joseph McBride) have recommended taking a small part of the story, digging into it, and dissecting the facts to take what I'd call small bites of the elephant. Here is what David Talbot writes: For over 20 years I have studied the assassination and have come to believe that the American electorate's persistent majority belief in a conspiracy is rooted as much in a gnawing sense that the President of the United States is not the supreme authority in the land (no matter how many insist on calling POTUS ‘the must powerful man in the world,’) as anything else. It is this sense that unseen persons and powers operate above and outside of elected authority which undergirds the passionate insistence that more than one shooter is responsible for what happened on November 22, 1963. That such ‘outlaw’ elite authorities are apolitical and never abusive of their unbridled power is nonsense, the electorate is sure. This particular discussion thread is interesting to me ... it asks why writers like King and news media in general are unable to get to the deeper truths in this JFK story that seem so obvious to us. One reason that I've found - the resistance or even ridicule that a JFK conspiracy buff experiences - is the inability of some to acknowledge that your own government would be capable of such sinister behavior. As a scientist and engineer, I can attest that doing one's "homework" and research is hard work. I'd submit that many do not have the patience or wherewithal to stay with a difficult subject, particularly this one, where so many intentional obfuscations exist. In fact, many suspect an active and current opposition to learning the truth. The next generation wants Twitter and tweets - sound bites on the evening news - and does not read books anymore. A paragraph on Facebook is more than enough. A text as opposed to a phone call. Who has the time or patience to read a book? Or worse, do original research? Gene

Jim: The extracts below probably belong in the Paine threads, but consider the following regarding the Russian language "hobby" that Ruth allegedly had (found mostly in "Harvey and Lee" by Armstrong): Ruth was introduced to Marina Oswald because geologist Everett Glover thought that she was studying Russian with the hopes of becoming a teacher. Ruth went so far as to tutor one young student in Russian during 1963 at St. Mark's School in Dallas. Ruth Paine's stated reason for becoming so involved with the Oswalds was to submerse herself in the learning of the Russian language in order to use the language both in her Quaker-sourced Soviet/USA pen-pal exchanges as well as to teach Russian (albeit to one or two students). There is no evidence that she continued her study of Russian after Oswald's death. Despite Ruth's years of Russian study, and her claim that she had Marina to move in so that she could improve her skills; she was forced to admit that "my actual skill didn't progress fast enough to be of any real use." Her Middlebury roommate Helen Mamikonian described Ruth's Russian as "very poor". Ruth undertook two trips to/from Dallas/New Orleans on behalf of the Oswalds, provided Lee with driving lessons and car-use, acted as unpaid job-placement headhunter, took in the family as borders, and provided a free soft shoulder for Marina to unload her marital problems ... all in order to learn Russian? Her "help" provided to Harvey and Marina was quite a heavy payment for language school and linguistic/inter-cultural interests. it is unclear what language-learning resources Ruth must have used after Marina moved out, and whether or not Ruth continued teaching Russian (Martin Hay 2007). In the early days after the assassination, Ruth Paine pitched in and helped law enforcement officers with translation until one Ilya Mamantov came on the scene. Mamantov was a Dallas White Russian and his mother-in-law was Dorothy Gravitis who had given Ruth Paine private Russian lessons. Gravitis heard Ruth Paine speak Russian and was frank in assessing her command of the language as "very poor", even for an American. Wittingly or unwittingly, Ruth knew enough Russian to provide protective cover for Marina, who needed to hide her knowledge of English. Robert Webster told writer Dick Russell that Marina only spoke English to him when he was in the USSR (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee). Lee knew that Marina owed Soviet intelligence some favors; otherwise, she probably would not have been allowed to leave, and would not have hid her knowledge of English to the public. So Ruth's interest in Russian is suspect (a convenient excuse to take in the Oswalds), her command of the language passable but poor (she could have written the phony Walker letter stashed in the helpful books), and she appeared to lose interest in learning much Russian (or Marina for that matter) after the assassination. Her erstwhile teaching/tutoring career quickly faded after 1963. I've always wondered if Marina was a KGB "honey trap" who was doubled on her return to the USA, and then controlled or baby-sat by Ms. Paine. Gene

The note was the first public evidence to link Oswald to the attempt on Walker. When confronted, Marina acknowledged putting the note in the book herself, and Paine was free of any suspicion. Paine would later assert that Oswald had gone to his hometown of New Orleans at Marina's urging to avoid detection for the shooting. Paine claimed that she gave a great deal of thought to Oswald's plot to kill Walker, how he had cased and photographed Walker's house while planning the murder. To her, it was proof that Oswald acted alone; he had shown he had the means and the desire to kill a public figure. (“Ricochet in Dallas” by D. Scheiber, November 1999,St. Petersburg Times) Ruth claimed Marina had to have two books with her; one was entitled Our Child and the other was Book of Helpful Instructions. The FBI took seven latent fingerprints off the note; none of them matched Lee or Marina. Wesley Liebeler later asked an obvious question: Why would Oswald keep the incriminating notes and photos around for well over seven months? One of the so-called surveillance photos of the Walker residence was identified as having been taken with the same Imperial Reflex camera responsible for the backyard photos. The Walker surveillance photos would be discovered among Oswald’s possessions at Ruth Paine’s home. The contrived "Walker note", the photo of Walker's house, and the first person to name Oswald as taking part in the Walker shooting (Michael), all derive from Ruth and Michael Paine. Coincidence?