Gene Kelly

Paul: Ruth seemed (imho) to run hot/cold on her pronouncements about Oswald. Ruth wrote that letter to her mother dated October 14, 1963, describing a weekend with Lee and mentioning what a good father he was, how he helped with repairs at her home and "generally provided a welcome masculine presence to the household". I would think that - if she deeply cared for Marina - she would do all in her power to support/help Lee as well (for Marina and the children's sake) ... regardless of her personal feelings about him. It also appears to me that she abandoned her Russian lessons and her "care" for Marina after 1963. I'm sure that Ruth's Redbook comments must have affected Marina in a negative manner, perhaps embarrassing if not wounding her. Not too Christian in my view. No contact after 1963 (save a letter or Christmas card) seems harsh for someone who professes charity and peace. After all, both individuals are still alive and accessible. Gene

In the summer of 1964, Ruth Paine told a Redbook journalist that she was glad Oswald was dead because it spared Marina the trauma of a trial (Jessamyn West, "Prelude to Tragedy: The woman who sheltered Lee Oswald's family tells her story."July 1964) ... just like Jack Ruby's reason for killing Oswald. Ruth did not attend Oswald's funeral, despite her dear friend Marina's loss. However, she donated the stipend from the Redbook article to the ACLU. Ruth was asked by Oswald (in jail for murder) to call a lawyer for him (John Abt of New York). Ruth Paine told the Warren Commission: "... he sounded to me almost as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened. I felt, but did not express, considerable irritation at his seeming to be so apart from the situation, so presuming of his innocence if you will. I was quite stunned that he called at all or that he thought he could ask anything of me, appalled, really." Ruth claimed she tried without success to call Abt, but followed through with Oswald that she couldn't reach him. This does not appear to be too sensitive to Oswald's civil liberties. Nor very 'charitable'.

Jim: To gain another perspective on the book, see the review "Who Needs Soviet Propaganda?" by David M. Barrett, a professor of political science at Villanova University in Washington Decoded. I don't necessarily agree with the critique but know of Dr. Barrett and respect his work and views. Gene

Richard: One the many aspects of JFK's (and his brother Bobby's) murder that always strikes me is how the police were co-opted into facilitating the operation. Controlling the crime scene, managing evidence, and limiting bystander action (even intimidating witnesses). One can imagine being at the scene, and encountering police (figures of authority and assurance) during the chaos of a murder; its therefore insidious, as innocent citizens are conditioned to trust law enforcement officials. It is also a masterstroke of operational strategy ... and one that cannot easily be set in place by just anyone. This is why I'm convinced of some form of intelligence orchestration. For example, the intrigue surrounding (and using) Tippit is one of the most poignant indicators for me of conspiracy. Killing a policeman sets into motion all sorts of dynamics that help to distract legitimate followup and mold public opinion. Another masterstroke of operational planning. Studying Tippit has also led me to Hill and Westbrook as persons of interest. I would think that Fritz and Decker -- central figures in the local crime scene and flow of evidence/witnesses -- either (a) knew something fishy was going on (they had considerable crime experience and instincts for criminal behavior); or ( were in some way complicit or compromised. Given their prominence and longstanding jurisdiction, If it were the latter, I'd expect it was subtle and not blatant. But they had to be considered and managed in some way for the plot to proceed. Gene

Richard: I don't put much stock in what Ruby says ... its all double-talk. The man is a bunko artist and criminal par excellence. And he is still perpetuating the myth or cover story (imho) when he invokes JBS and Walker. Pure BS. Since Decker is the centennial jailer in Dallas, he is of course present. Not sure the implications of his presence are much more than that. Gene

Bob: FWIW, I think William Shelley deserves attention. He is a person of interest in my book (not written yet). His movements before/after the event are important for many reasons. Not sure why so many push the idea of him moving towards the railroad yards. Gene

Back on track: Got the book for Christmas, and cannot put it down. Some highlights for me are the back channel machinations associated with the de Gaulle assassination attempts, the comments/observations (and suspicions) of CIA's Mark Wyatt about Bill Harvey, Dulles' relationship with Howard Hunt, his Q Street home which was "anti-Kennedy headquarters", and the political changing of the guard that was ongoing but not happy. Eight years of Eisenhower and Republican rule was not going away easily.

Larry: I am always struck by how Morales was cautious at the end of his career. As cited in Fonzi's work (albeit second-hand), we have him talking about security at his home in Arizona near the Mexican border, and being more concerned about "his own people" than external threats. Do you have a sense of what that statement meant? Morales was far from simply a ground-level player, as he rose to a Deputy Director position. He ran the South American operations (Condor) in the mid-70's. after his Vietnam tour (1967-72). It also seems odd and abrupt that he died around the time of the HSCA investigation (in May 1978) at the young age of 57 years, as did Harvey (June 1976). Both were alleged to have drank themselves to death. Rosselli went missing in 1976. Pawley committed suicide in 1977. Angleton lasted another ten years, and had regrets about serving those who seemingly abandoned them. Gene

Greg: You have no idea what I think or know, or my professional experience. I have been a physicist and engineer for over 40 years. I know a little bit about scientific method. You submit that I should know better, and that I don't seem to understand or find merit in method. You also seem to know all about those who challenged relativity, and how they expressed that challenge. Is this how you treat those who would disagree or challenge you? I recommend that you get off of your high horse, and practice respect for others' views. Gene

Greg: This seems more a matter of style versus substance. As you are no doubt aware, there are many folks (of varied backgrounds) who post, some of whom are serious writers and valid researchers, while others are more travelers and observers. Dr. Mantik has considerable credibility and his contributions are impressive. Speaking for myself, I'm interested in the facts of the case and thoughtful interaction. I find that I learn more by keeping an open mind to all inputs. A study of the history of physics will tell you that there is great scientific debate that occurs, much like the debate on these JFK threads. Some of it gets heated and personal. Even Einstein's relativity theory is still contested, 100 years after its conception. So is quantum mechanics, a difficult subject open to many interpretations. Some critics are eminent scholars with many publications and degrees from the best institutions, Nobel laureates and the like. Other contributors are less credentialed, but no less respected and heard. So, I'm not sure how to take it when you state that I should know better... but I'll let it go. Gene

Greg: I have a degree in Physics and a Masters in Engineering... and I teach physics. So I appreciate and respect the credentials of Dr. Mantik. But I also admire the thorough work of Pat Speer and have learned a lot from his posts and broader JFK writing. I would not dismiss his views, any more than I would dismiss yours. And I certainly wouldn't discount his contribution simply because of academic credentials. A wise person once told me (and I abide by this approach) that the solicitation of diverse views is the hallmark of intellectual honesty. Gene

Jim: I have been studying the Paines for several months now. They were always persons of interest to me, but not until recently had I gotten deeper into their backgrounds and associations. The fine work of CTKA and Carole Hewitt has helped tremendously, but there is also a mountain of information to be gleaned about them. I went to school and live near their roots in Paoli PA, and find them to be intriguing ... as one author stated, they coincidentally relocate to Irvine Texas the day that Oswald defects, and are magically there "waiting for him" when he returns in 1962. Their connections to Dulles are unmistakable and irrefutable. Dulles promoted, managed and protected them as Warren witnesses ... and not just any old witness, but the most oft-quoted witnesses. Dulles produced information to smear Michael Paine, and used the Quaker/Unitarian brand to cover these wolves in sheep's clothing. Gene

Bill Decker was 66 years old at the time of the assassination, and in his fifth term as Sherriff (since 1949). He had been reelected a number of times, and in his twenty-two years as sheriff he never faced another opponent in an election. He was chief deputy sheriff for Dallas County for 14 years, and chief deputy constable since 1924. He worked as a court clerk in his early days, and started as an elevator operator in the courthouse, literally at the bottom (as Leon Hubert described in his testimony given in April 1964) working his way up. He was a legend in Texas law enforcement pursuing Bonnie and Clyde, and he officiated at Audie Murphy’s wedding. He was involved (as alleged by Gary Wean, "There's a Fish in the Courthouse") in a December 1963 conversation between John Tower and Murphy in New Mexico regarding the assassination and Howard Hunt's involvement. Decker died in 1970.

Jim: Great review. Many wonderful details in this book. New revelations that help pull things together (i.e. connect the dots). The de Gaulle story clinches it for me, personally. OSS animosities, CIA support of the OAS ... any president would've been furious at such treachery and unsanctioned behavior. Allen Dulles must have viewed JFK as an inexperienced child; in comparison, he (Allen) had been in government service since 1919. Kennedy was up against quite a powerful bunch (Rockefeller, Prescott Bush, Averell Harriman, Wall Street). As Justice Arthur Goldberg stated, the Dulles brothers were traitors. David Talbot's book is a very important work. I am not at all surprised that WSJ or NYT media would maintain silence. Gene PS. Tracing William Harvey's travel to Dallas (it does not much matter to me when, or with whom) sometime/anytime in November -- a far cry from Italy -- certainly seems significant.

Kathleen/Jon: I agree that all who post add value. Getting to see/hear the views of experts like David Mantik and Pat Speer on the subject of the wounds is like receiving a post-doctoral course in the subject. I too believe that a fusillade hit the limousine (i.e. a "flurry of shells coming into the car" as described by Kellerman) and some were simultaneous, indicating multiple shooters. Pretty amazing that Jackie was spared, which attests to the skill and precision of the shooters. It does not appear that much was left to chance. John Connally was the only collateral damage, which did not appear to be part of the plan. Broad daylight, high-noon, sitting next to your wife ... not just a murder, but a statement. Gene

In May 1987, when James Angleton passed away, his NY Times obit stated the following: "Mr. Angleton handled one of the agency's most sensitive relationships with an allied intelligence service, its ties to the Israelis. Angleton handled ''the Israeli account'' as it was termed in C.I.A. argot, for more than a decade. Indeed, Colby, the agency director who forced his resignation, earlier insisted that Mr. Angleton relinquish his control over Israeli matters. Beginning in 1951, Angleton was responsible for liaison with Mossad and Shin Bet agencies, "the Israeli desk", crucial relationships that he managed for the remainder of his career. Angleton directed CIA assistance to the Israeli nuclear weapons program." Angleton was described as a "nut case who should not have been employed by any agency, let alone the CIA". Angleton graduated from Yale; he bred orchids, wore a black homburg, and drank heavily. Angleton propagated the theory that all Soviet defectors were double agents sent to uncover American secrets. His paranoid outlook and his tendency to label as spies those who disagreed with him so intimidated the agency that recruitment of CIA Soviet bloc assets stopped. Angleton was known for his bias and support of Israeli policy. One writer who attended a memorial service for Angleton in Israel, when he passed away, described two monuments dedicated, huge stones with engraved bronze plaques. One on a hillside, a few miles from Jerusalem and the scene of a major ballet in the early days; the other in a park near the Kind David Hotel in Jerusalem. The various ceremonies were attended by the surviving chiefs of Israeli intelligence, and various public figures. A future prime minister dedicated one of the monuments. It is believed that Angleton played a decisive role in the quick and overwhelming victory of Israel in its 1967 Six-Day war by providing Mossad chief Meir Amit with photos taken from satellites and spy planes, which enabled Israel to precisely locate the Egyptian armaments and destroy them within six days. Connect the dots with Rostow and Angleton, and a theme develops. Israel is part of a second-tier relationship known by another informal name, “Friends on Friends.” It comes from the phrase “Friends don’t spy on friends,” and the arrangement dates back decades. But Israel’s foreign intelligence service, the Mossad, and its FBI equivalent, the Shin Bet, both considered among the best in the world, have been suspected of recruiting U.S. officials and trying to steal American secret - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/cia-considers-israel-the-largest-counterintelligence-threat-in-the-middle-east#sthash.1ADNSCWk.dpuf Israel is part of a second-tier relationship known by another informal name, “Friends on Friends.” It comes from the phrase “Friends don’t spy on friends,” and the arrangement dates back decades. But Israel’s foreign intelligence service, the Mossad, and its FBI equivalent, the Shin Bet, both considered among the best in the world, have been suspected of recruiting U.S. officials and trying to steal American secret - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/cia-considers-israel-the-largest-counterintelligence-threat-in-the-middle-east#sthash.1ADNSCWk.dpuf Israel is part of a second-tier relationship known by another informal name, “Friends on Friends.” It comes from the phrase “Friends don’t spy on friends,” and the arrangement dates back decades. But Israel’s foreign intelligence service, the Mossad, and its FBI equivalent, the Shin Bet, both considered among the best in the world, have been suspected of recruiting U.S. officials and trying to steal American secret - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/cia-considers-israel-the-largest-counterintelligence-threat-in-the-middle-east#sthash.1ADNSCWk.dpuf

Jon: I think you are on to the root of the issue. What was Walter Rostow's reason for influencing world opinion... his stake in the outcome? I think it was the Middle East, JFK's policy towards aid to Israel (including nuclear weapons), and countering Soviet influence in the region at the time. Rostow argued that LBJ needed a commission because “world opinion and American opinion is just now so shaken by the behavior of the Dallas Police that they do not believe anything.” This was disingenuous, and not the real reason. if you examine later actions during LBJ's term, the Rostow brothers are front and center, steering foreign policy towards military and economic support for Israel and American oil interests in the Middle East. In June 1967, at the height of the Vietnam War, one of LBJ's closest advisers was Walter Rostow, a so-called "Zionist zealot"and his Special Assistant for National Security Affairs. Rostow has been described as a "sinister, Svengali-like figure" (see Peter Hounam, "Operation Cyanide"). This related to the June 1967 Liberty ship attack, which was believed to be a set up (e.g. Gulf of Tonkin incident) to blame the Egyptians and a pretext to bring the U.S. into the 1967 Six Day War on Israel's side. Rostow was instrumental in steering LBJ towards which way the U.S. might respond to hostilities in the Middle East. Rostow was known as a hawk who believed in the Vietnam War (see David Milne's "America's Rasputin: Walt Rostow and the Vietnam War"). These following are excerpts on Rostow from Wikipedia: In August 1954 Rostow and fellow CIA-connected MIT economics professor Max Millikan convinced Eisenhower to massively increase U.S. foreign aid for development as part of a policy of spreading American-style capitalist economic growth in Asia and elsewhere, backed by the military. While working as national security adviser, Rostow became involved in setting the United States' posture towards Israel. Although he supported military and economic assistance to Israel, Rostow believed that increased public alignment between the two states could run counter to United States’ diplomatic and oil interests in the region. The followup call to LBJ about setting up a blue ribbon panel by journalist Joseph Alsop is also interesting. During his conversation with LBJ, he name-drops Dean Acheson. Alsop is tied to the ‘Georgetown Set’ that included Acheson, Richard Bissell, Stewart Alsop (his brother), Tracy Barnes, Philip Graham, Clark Clifford, Walt Rostow, Eugene Rostow, Cord Meyer, James Angleton, Averill Harriman, John McCloy, John Sherman Cooper, and Allen W. Dulles. Quite a list of JFK plot suspects. Alsop had also collaborated in 1960 with Philip Graham to persuade Kennedy to make Lyndon Johnson, instead of Stuart Symington, his running-mate. It is among this group that you will find the dogs in the fight. Gene

"The proud and perfect Quaker... I keep saying she is a fraud and xxxx... she is evil, and selfish and the cause of it all. I would wipe up the floor with her." – Marguerite Oswald

DeGaulle and France are so analogous to Castro and Cuba. Fighting Communists under the rationale of national security. JFK was clearly in a foreign policy battle with his own government. As James Douglas put it, his administration was at war with the Pentagon and the "complex". Money, influence, natural resources (oil, gas, Middle Eastern real estate). More in the name of Harriman Brothers than the American public. The old guard didn't go easily or quickly. Take a picture of those who carried or mourned Dulles' at his funeral ... and you have a picture of the plotters. I researched his services briefly ... Nixon sent Spiro Agnew in his stead. No foreign dignitaries, like his brother Foster's services. Harvey, Angleton, Hunt, et al. only masters of intrigue and regime overthrow.

Brian; Thanks for posting these articles. The Talbot book is a key treatment of Dulles. I have always thought that the political events of the day (which surround Kennedy's presidency) provide important clues to his murder. Certainly Bay of Pigs is of interest and (imho) closely connected. I would now add the attempts on deGaulle's life and efforts to unseat him as another important "dot" to connect. Gene

“Ruth is a perfectly charming, charitable Quaker ... who helped the Oswalds out of pure humanitarian impulses ... she and her husband were simply admirable people.” – George de Mohrenschildt

Cliff; Connecting some dots, I have always thought that false memorandum (found in Howard Hunt's White House office safe) which incriminates JFK for the Diem murder -- to be suspicious. Gene

Cliff; I believe that Larry Hancock also has strong interest in and suspicion of Paul Helliwell. Many researchers have instincts that center upon the early OSS Far East crowd, of which people like Hunt, Helliwell et al were part of and cut their intelligence teeth with. Didn't Gary Underhill mention them before he met an untimely demise? Gene

Perhaps Buddy Walters was actually a devoted Quaker ... not a Protestant

Jim: You simply can't make this stuff up. The Paines are an example of the cliche that "truth can sometimes be stranger than fiction". They are beyond suspicious, and with far too many coincidences (an important standard used by intelligence analysts) surrounding their 1963 existence. Stepping back (and up), its as if they come out of nowhere, play a key role in the big "play" (or magic act) and then just as quickly fade from the scene the next year. As one poster recently stated, its instructive to assess who (in the long list of assassination characters and suspects) was not examined, investigated, or questioned by Warren, HSCA, AARB,et al. Who is conspicuously missing from the record (e.g. Paul Helliwell). The Paines are the most oft-quoted testimony in the entire Warren record, yet they are subsequently untouched in the next 20-30 years. it would also seem that Dulles managed and throttled their extensive warren testimony, as with no other witnesses. That too is mighty interesting. The Paines were divorced in 1971, and went their separate ways. I live in the Philadelphia suburbs and went to school and work near Swarthmore and Paoli PA where their wealthy families lived. I know individuals locally who are Quakers, and they are quite passionate about pacifism and peace. So the Paines' story has a local resonance for me. I believe (conjecture of course) that Michael may also have been engaged in the mysticism that his stepfather (Arthur Young) dabbled in. He served in Korea and seems to have quite the strange "affect"about his personality and manner. I wouldn't be surprised if Dulles' favored MKULTRA and Manchurian techniques weren't somehow applied to Michael ... a theme (or undercurrent if you will) that runs throughout the assassination anecdotes with certain characters. In any case, I appreciate reading your work and analysis, which stands out as uniquely on point on so many aspects of the JFK case. I always learn something insightful and thoughtful when I read your posts, which is why I remain active on this Forum. You've done work that rivals that of Larry Hancock and Garrison (imho) in shedding light upon the bizarre story of John Kennedy's murder. Gene