William O'Neil
-
Posts
419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by William O'Neil
-
-
Greg
Just some thoughts:
"That's one of the flaws, as I see it: Oswald did not let everyone know who he wanted. The only thing he said publicly was "I am waiting for someone to come forward to give me legal assistance."
Oswald was waiting for someone....Abt. This is consistant with what he said to the Dallas attorney that visited him.
"If he in fact did know, I would surmise it was through Ruth Paine, since Abt's wife was (or had been) on the AFSC board. Recall that Oswald allegedly rang Ruth for help in getting Abt - and that an internal Dallas ACLU investigation had concluded Oswald had attended that one meeting with Ruth - not Michael."
I believe that there is enough consistant evidence to show that Oswald repeatedly spoke of the Smith Act in conjunction with his desire to have Abt represent him. The ACLU was secondary to the Smith Act in Oswalds desire to have Abt. It is this apparent knowledge of the Smith Act by Oswald that I find so intriguing. If looked at together with the backyard photos (taken prior to the Walker assassination attempt) we find Oswald holding two different magazines from two organizations that did not agree with each other yet both had, at different times been targeted by the Smith Act.
In consideration of this particular information it is my belief that Oswald was building his defense and his desire to have Abt act as his attorney was based upon his knowledge of these two different organizations and how the government had played 1st one then the other against themselves (perhaps just as the government had played him).
""Yet that very night, Henry Wade, who presumably had been briefed for the interview, was asked by the press if Oswald had yet engaged a lawyer, to which Wade replied, "His people have been here, but we don't know of any particular individual."
[What
This is consistant with the testimony. Oswald had not "engaged a lawyer." he was holding out for Abt, the Smith Act Attorney.
"Later that day, Curry faced the media. At one point, he was told by an unknown reporter from NBC that Oswald had been yelling and complaining about no attorney, before being asked if he had one yet. Curry's curt reply: "Not that I know of." Meanwhile Bob Clark of WFAA was claiming to Curry that Oswald had told him that he wanted Abt. Clark then asked Curry if he knew who Oswald had been referring to. Curry replied, "No, I don't" despite having been present during Oswald's appearance before David Johnson in which again, Oswald had allegedly asked for Abt."
It seems that by the time of the Clark question even the press was aware of who Oswald wanted as his attorney making Currys reply at that time rather unifomed if not moot.
"Does it really make any sense that Oswald would be keen as mustard to tell every official he could that he wanted Abt, whisper to a reporter that he wanted Abt… but specifically refrain from saying so with the worlds microphones pointed at him?"
There are many things about the assassination of JFK that do not make much sense, which if we could understand them all would make this case much simpler. I still believe that there is enough in the record to show that Oswald wanted Abt, that Oswald never got a hold of Abt, that Oswald was aware of Abt's involvment in the Smith Act cases and that Oswald had a knowledge of the Smith Act.
Have you ever read NSC-68?
Interesting document for my research.
Jim Root
Jim and Greg,
What amazes me about Wade, is how absolutely stupid and uninformed this guy seems about events happening around him , and of which, he SHOULD be informed
. It makes me wonder if this was by design. (?) -
Greg
I wrote this piece several years ago. Perhaps it will help in this thread. Needless to say I am intrigued by Oswald's isnsistance on having Abt act as his attorney.
ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENSE, JONATHAN ABT
Can anything be logical about the actions of the man who was charged with shooting the President of the United States? The Warren Commission suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was a “lone nut” assassin, not a rational person. If Oswald had a motive its content was lost to history at the exact moment that Jack Ruby recklessly ended Oswald’s life on the morning of November 25th 1963. But like so many anomalies in this case, Oswald, the irrational nut, knew whom he wanted as his attorney, Jonathan Abt. And, while Lee Harvey Oswald let everyone know why he wanted Jonathan Abt, the Warren Commission was hesitant to share that information in their conclusion!
The name John Abt was mentioned repeatedly by Oswald while he was in the custody of the Dallas Police. There exists about forty pages of written documentation, filed by the men who interrogated Oswald, that appear in Appendix XI of the Warren Report that attests to this interesting, yet under investigated, subplot within the assassination drama.
Each person present tells a similar story.
Captain Will Fritz:
“Oswald asked if he was allowed an attorney and I told him he could have any attorney he liked, and that the telephone would be available to him up in the jail and he could call anyone he wished. I believe it was during this interview that he first expressed a desire to talk to Mr. Abt, an attorney in New York.”
Lee Harvey Oswald turned 24 years old in October of 1963, just a month before the assassination of John F. Kennedy. For myself I found it surprising to see that Oswald knew the name of the attorney that he wanted to represent him in the earliest of interviews with detectives. He also knew where attorney Jonathan Abt lived. My mind began to contemplate, “How many 24 year olds, living in Texas, would know the name of an attorney in New York?” It is true that Oswald had lived in New York at one time but how did he know about this particular attorney, Jonathan Abt?
During a subsequent interrogation, Captain Will Fritz would reveal that Oswald knew even more about Jonathan Abt than just his name:
“He (Oswald) reminded me that he did not have to answer any questions at all until he talked to his attorney, and I told him again that he could have an attorney any time he wished. He said he didn’t have money to pay for a phone call to Mr. Abt. I told him to call ‘collect.’ If he liked, to use the jail phone or that he could have another attorney if he wished. He said he didn’t want another attorney; he wanted to talk to this attorney first. I believe he made this call later as he thanked me later during one of our interviews for allowing him the use of the telephone. I explained to him that all prisoners were allowed to use the telephone. I asked him why he wanted Mr. Abt, instead of some available attorney. He told me he didn’t know Mr. Abt personally but that he was familiar with a case where Mr. Abt defended some people for a violation of the Smith Act….”
The Smith Act, actually the Alien Registration Act, was adopted by congress at 54 Statutes at Large 670-671 (1940) on June 29, 1940. Authored by Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, it was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt. Smith, a fifth term congressman at the time, would continue to serve in congress untill1967.
The intent of the Alien Registration Act was to make it illegal for any person to advocate, abet, or teach the desirability of overthrowing the government of the United States. The law also required all foreign residents of the United States that were over the age of 14 to register as aliens.
Within five months of passage (November of 1940) over 4,741,971 persons had complied with the obligations of the Act. Each registered alien was required to make a statement that included their occupational status and information about their political beliefs. It was the first statute since the Alien and Sedition act of 1798 to make the mere advocacy of ideas a federal crime. (Michael Steven Smith, About the Smith Act Trials) The government’s ability to register and process so many individuals in such a short span of time was a reflection of the crisis that was, at that time, destroying the world order. John J. McCloy, the newly appointed Assistant Secretary of War at this time, advocated the collection of information on potential saboteurs within the United States. The Smith Act provided the vehicle to accomplish his goal.
John J. McCloy had made his reputation as the attorney that broke the Black Tom case (dealing with German sabotage during World War I at the Black Tom pier in New York). His decades spent unraveling the covert operations of German espionage during World War I made him an ideal candidate to help Secretary of War Stimson upgrade the military intelligence apparatus.
In 1941 the Smith Act was used to prosecute leaders of the Socialist Workers Party. At the time the United States was being driven toward an alliance with the Soviet Union against Germany which had invaded Russia. The Communist Party in America fully supported its use by the government of the United States against their “Trotskyist” political opponents. The later use of the Smith Act would involve Jonathan Abt.
Historians who disagree with the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report have criticized the officers that questioned Oswald. An argument is made that since the various Dallas Police detectives and the FBI and Secrete Service agents present did not tape record or keep their detailed notes of all the Oswald interrogations, the written reports must be incomplete. The truth is that at the time of Oswald’s arrest, the Dallas Police Department did not own a tape recorder. For better or worse the majority of information that survives, survives within the numerous volumes of the Warren Commission Report. It is these written reports, made by the people who witnessed the interrogations and heard the words of Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in custody, that I find so interesting. Rather than speculating on what might have been lost, I am intrigued by what is contained in the supporting records of the Warren Commission that were not included in the final summary report.
The accumulated reports were transcribed from notes kept by the interrogators as well as their own personal recollections, all within hours of the interviews with Oswald. I have chosen to look more closely at what is in the written reports and interviews but did not survive into the final draft of the Warren Commission Report than to speculate on what might or might not be missing. Their statements demonstrate that Lee Harvey Oswald repeatedly referred to Abt as a Smith Act Attorney and that his desire to have Abt for this reason was made abundantly clear to all present. What reasons can be ascribed to this coincidence?
The record shows that between 4:45 and 6:30 P.M. on the day of the assassination, Captain Will Fritz of the Dallas Police conducted his second interview with Lee Oswald. The interview took place in Captain Fritz’s office:
Oswald.
“…I want that attorney in New York, Mr. Abt. I don’t know him personally but I know about a case that he handled some years ago, where he represented the people who had violated the Smith Act…I don’t know him personally, but that is the attorney I want….If I can’t get him, then I may get the American Civil Liberties Union to send me an attorney.”
During the same interview Oswald repeated his request with these words:
“…I want to talk with Mr. Abt, a New York attorney…”
During the 1948 presidential election race, Harry Truman’s Republican rivals were accusing the Democrats of being “soft” on Communism. (Michael Steven Smith, About the Smith Act Trials) At the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the delegates added a plank to their platform that stated;
“We pledge a vigorous enforcement of existing laws against Communists and enactment of such new legislation as may be necessary to expose the treasonable activities of Communists and defeat their objective of establishing here a godless dictatorship controlled from abroad.“
To counter this threat Truman turned to J. Edgar Hoover and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
J. Edgar Hoover had first developed his reputation as a tough investigator and prosecutor by deporting radicals and immigrants during the 1919 Palmer Raids. For Hoover the harassment of the radical fringe would become a professional trait. It was J. Edgar Hoover that suggested to Truman that the Smith Act could be used against members of the Communist Party. On July 20th, 1948 eleven members of the American Communist party were arrested and charged under the Alien Registration Act.
The Smith Act defendants were not charged with the actual commission of a crime. As strange as it may seem today the charges were designed to prove that “they conspired to organize as the Communist Party and willfully to advocate and teach principles of Marxism-Leninism.” It was then construed to show that by the mere fact that they had organized as a Communist Party that they therefore advocated, “overthrowing and destroying the government of the United States by force and violence” sometime in the future.
For Truman, behind in the polls, the Presidency itself was at stake. Truman needed these prosecutions to deflect the criticism of his Republican rivals. The federal government successfully prosecuted the defendants and Harry Truman defeated his challenger Thomas Dewey and his running mate, Vice Presidential candidate Earl Warren (later chairman of the Warren Commission) in one of the closest elections in United States History.
Chief Justice Earl Warren would later overturn these same Smith Act convictions.
Between 10:30 A.M. and 1:10 P.M. on November 23rd Oswald was again interrogated in Captain Fritz’s office when he stated:
“I said I wanted to contact Attorney Abt, New York. He defended the Smith Act cases in 1949, 1950, but I don’t know his address, except that it is in New York….”
On Saturday afternoon, November 23, 1963, around 3:30 PM Oswald made a telephone call to Ruth Paine
Ruth Paine:
I said, “Well, hi.” And he said he wanted to ask me to call Mr. John Abt in New York for him after 6:00 PM. He gave me a telephone number of an office in New York and a residence in New York…He said he was an (the) attorney he wanted to have…
Oswald’s mother confirmed Ruth Paine’s story when the Warren Commission questioned her. Marguerite Oswald recalled the call she received from Ruth Paine.
Marguerite Oswald:
…the telephone rang, and it was Mrs. Paine. She said, “Mrs Oswald, Lee called and he was very upset because Marina was not with me, and he asked me to get a lawyer for him, a Mr. Abt.”
At 6:30 P.M. on November 22nd Oswald was a part of a police lineup for three witnesses to the Jefferson Davis Tippit murder. The three witnesses were Cecil J. McWatters, Sam Guiyard, and Ted Callaway. Once again Oswald is quoted as saying:
“I want to get in touch with a lawyer, Mr. Abt, in New York City…”
Early the next morning, at 1:35 A.M., November 24, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was arraigned for the Murder with Malice of John F. Kennedy when he said:
“Well, sir, I guess this is the trial…I want to contact my lawyer, Mr. Abt, in New York City. I would like to have this gentleman. He is with the American Civil Liberties Union.”
Mr. Abt was never a member of the American Civil Liberties Union. He was general counsel for the Senate Sub-Committee on Civil Liberties from 1935-1937, and was later a legal advisor for the Progressive Party from 1948-1951. He worked with and knew Alger Hiss and has been, many times, labeled as a communist.
But Lee Harvey Oswald was absolutely correct on his other statement; a study of John Abt’s biography demonstrates that he had indeed represented people accused of violating the Smith Act. Oswald, it seems, was familiar enough with the Smith Act cases that had begun fifteen years earlier, when Oswald was eight years old. He had knowledge of Mr. Abt that he knew where Jonathon Abt could be located (New York). Oswald knew that these particular cases had actually occurred more than a decade earlier.
On November 23, 1963, H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association, contacted Oswald for a brief discussion at 5:30 P.M.:
Oswald
“….Do you know a lawyer in New York named John Abt? I believe in New York City. I would like to have him represent me. That is the man I would like.”
Assistant counsel for the President’s Commission, Mr. Samuel A. Stern, interviewed James W. Bookhout on April 8, 1964. Bookhout was a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation stationed in Dallas at the time of the assassination. He was present at several of the interrogations of Oswald at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz. On the morning of November 24, 1963, James Bookhout participated in an interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald conducted by Captain Fritz and was later questioned about his knowledge of this event. Also present at the Oswald interrogation were T.J Kelly and David B. Grant, of the U.S. Secret Service, Robert I. Nash, a U.S. Marshall and Detectives Billy L. Senkel and Fay M. Turner of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau of the Dallas Police Department.
Mr. Bookhout:
Yes. It was in this interview that he (Oswald) mentioned he wanted to contact Attorney Abt (spelling) A-b-t, New York City. I recall Captain Fritz asked him if he knew Abt personally and he said he did not, but he explained that he knew that Abt had defended the Smith Act cases in 1949, or 1950, and Captain Fritz asked him if he knew how to get ahold of Mr. Abt, and he stated that he did not know what his address was, but he was in New York.
On April 17, 1964, just nine days after James Bookhout was interviewed by Warren Commission attorneys, J. Lee Rankin, general counsel for the Warren Commission, and Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the Presidents’ Commission interviewed John Abt. (Warren Commision Report) Wesley J. Liebeler was also the Warren Commission Attorney that interviewed General Walker.
Unfortunately for history, the interview was amazingly short. J. Lee Rankin neglected to probe into Abt’s involvement in the Smith Act cases, even when the opportunity afforded itself. The total transcript of Jonathan Abt’s interview contains less than two pages of questions and responses. The longest statement made by Abt dwelt with how, because he and his wife were at their mountain retreat, he had missed the calls that Lee Harvey Oswald had made to him from the Dallas Police Department jail. Were the Warren Commissioners and the American public denied an opportunity to understand that a possible Oswald defense was to center around Jonathan Abt’s knowledge of the Smith Act?
Reading the transcript of Abt’s testimony, I was surprised, not by what was there but once again, by what was missing. Lee Harvey Oswald repeatedly stated that he desired Jonathan Abt as his attorney because Abt had represented clients in Smith Act cases. But the questioning by the General Council for the Warren Commission went in a different direction:
Mr. Rankin.
“Mr. Abt, did you learn that Lee Harvey Oswald was interested in having you represent him apparently because of some prior connection of yours with the American Civil Liberties Union?”
Mr. Abt.
“No. My assumption was, and it is pure assumption, that he read about some of my representation in the press, and, therefore, it occurred to him that I might be a god man to represent him, but that is pure assumption on my part. I have no direct knowledge of the whole matter.”
(Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. X, p. 116)
Mr. Rankin then asked:
“You have told us all that you know about it?
Mr. Abt.
“Yes. I may say that I had no prior contact with Oswald, knew nothing about him, did not know the name, and this request came as something entirely new and surprising to me when it came.”
Mr. Rankin.
“None of your clients had ever communicated to you about him prior to that time you heard about it over the radio?”
Mr. Abt.
“No; I had no recollection of even having heard the name, his name, before that time.”
Mr. Rankin.
“Thank you.”
At this point the interview was ended. The Warren Commission gathered no further information about Johathan Abt nor was there any speculation about why Lee Harvey Oswald would be so insistent upon having an attorney that was familiar with the Smith Act. An act designed to prosecute for advocating the over-through of the Government of the United States.
What can we speculate about any possible Oswald defense?
The mother of Lee Harvey Oswald Marguerite Oswald, and his wife, Marina Oswald visited Lee at 1:10 P.M. November 24, 1963 for about 20 minutes. At this meeting Oswald again reiterated his desire to have Abt as his attorney.
“Everything is fine. I know my rights, and I will have an attorney. I already requested to get in touch with Attorney Abt,…”
In 1993 we learned more about the thoughts of Marina Oswald when her friend and biographer, Priscilla McMillan appeared on the television show Frontline.
Historian Priscilla Johnson McMillan was a reporter in Moscow in the 1950’s and interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald shortly after his defection to the Soviet Union. Later, after the Kennedy assassination, McMillan befriended Oswald’s widow, Marina, and the two spent considerable time together. In 1977, McMillan wrote “Marina and Lee,” an intimate portrait of the Oswalds’ life together. In an interview conducted in conjunction with the first broadcast of Frontline’s “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?” in 1993, Priscilla Johnson McMillan made this statement:
“Lee, in jail, told Marina that she had friends, that they would help her. He told her that there was someone in New York who would help him. He was counting on John Abt, lawyer for the American Communist party, to be his lawyer. He telephoned Ruth Paine and asked her to call Abt. Marina thought, when she saw Lee in jail, she could see that he was frightened. But then she thought that he would use the trial to proclaim his ideas, and to say that what he had done was justified by History.”
Frontline also interviewed Robert Oswald, Lee’s older brother, about Abt:
“I asked him about this lawyer in New York…and I told him I would get him one down here, meaning in Texas. He said no, he wanted that one up there. I didn’t press it any further. He was seeming to be pretty adamant about it. …”
Was the assassination of John F. Kennedy an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States? If so, it failed. It did succeed in showing the world that our Constitutional government was not only resilient but that it could, again, survive another cataclysmic event just as it had done numerous times before.
I believe Lee Harvey Oswald knew his history well enough to know that a single event would not change our government. But we can question why Oswald would be so intent on having Abt act as his attorney. Since the record shows that he repeatedly stated the reason he wanted Abt was his connection to the Smith Act Trials, I began to wonder, was Oswald going to use his trial to accuse someone, or group, of violating the Smith Act? I remembered that Oswald had left information behind that would have been found if he had been apprehended for assassinating Edwin Walker. Did he have a motive? Did he believe he need a trial?
Did Oswald have a reason to believe that someone or some group was attempting to over-through the government?
Remember:
“She (Marina) testified that Oswald said that General Walker ‘was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that might be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives.”
If a trial had taken place would anybody believe that Kennedy had violated the Smith Act in some way that could justify taking the life of the President?
The strange thing is, Major General Edwin Anderson Walker would seem to be the more obvious choice if Oswald’s intent was going to be to accuse someone of attempting to overthrow the government. But it would also seem to be irrational to believe that Oswald would be siding with Walker and his “right wing” accusations that were being leveled against the Kennedy Administration. Is there any connection? The question began to haunt me.
In 1951 twenty-three Communists were indicted using the Smith Act. By 1957 the number had grown to over 140. It would take a number of Supreme Court decisions in 1957 to finally halt the parade of prosecutions. The two most important were Yates v. United States and Watkins v. United States. In Watkins the Court ruled that a defendant who had opted not to use the Fifth Amendment could still use the First Amendment against “abuses of the legislative process.” The vote was six to one, with Chief Justice Earl Warren writing the majority opinion.
Is it a coincidence that Earl Warren was associated with the use of the Smith Act to prosecute communists, first as a candidate for the vice-presidency in 1948 and then as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1957? In 1963 many conservatives in the United States considered Warren, the former Republican Governor of California for eight years, a left wing radical. Did Justice Earl Warren influence the commission to eliminate any mention of the Smith Act cases from the final report of his commission?
When Jack Ruby fired his fatal shots the American public lost the opportunity to witness the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. The jury of public opinion lost our opportunity to hear more about the possible defense strategy that would be used to defend Lee Harvey Oswald when the telephone calls to Jonathan Abt went unanswered.
On Sunday morning November 25th 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was himself assassinated while being transferred to a more permanent jail site to await prosecution. At the time of his death, Lee Harvey Oswald had very few items in his possession. One item of significance was a sheet of paper with two phone numbers written on it. Those phone numbers were the telephone numbers for Jonathan Abt.
Jim Root
[/quo
Very nice Jim! Let us not forget that Adele Edison said that Rivera told her that Oswald would, " Ask for a lawyer named Abt"!
This was told to her by Rivera, weeks befored the assassination. I interviewed Ms. Edison on this point years ago. Sometimes she fails to emphasise this point in her story , which I think is paramount to conspiracy, If you believe her.....which I do, this is another point of evidence, of a pre- planned intent to frame the communists via Oswald.
Hey, Bill Kelly, I'm sure you can verify this point.
-Bill
-
Challenging Universally Accepted Truths
Did Oswald Ask for the ACLU After His Arrest?
Fritz claimed he did. However, when he had the opportunity to request help in public, he asked for John Abt (to reporters 6:30pm 22nov63) and later asked for "someboby to come forward" (late night press conference, 22nov63).
Oswald is also alleged to have asked for Abt during his early morning arraignment of 23nov63, adding that Abt was an ACLU lawyer, and that he himself was a member of that org. His next alleged mention of the ACLU was to H Lewis Nichols of the Dallas Bar Assoc. And again he is alleged to have stated he was an ACLU member.
Oswald told his family he wanted Abt, and made no mention to them of the ACLU. Oswald phoned Ruth Paine and asked her for assistance in getting Abt. Again, no mention of the ACLU here.
Nichols visit is a interesting. He was a WWII vet, and still in the Army Reserves at the time of the assassination. He previously worked as a City Attorney, and like Ruby was extremely familar with both the building, and its occupants. The Army Reserves were a recruiting ground for Army Intel. Nichols had no problem seeing Oswald, immediately afterwards giving an "impromptu" press conference, confirming that Oswald's legal rights were being after, and that Oswald had declined his assistance, wanting either Abt or someone from the ACLU. In 1969, Nichols wrote a piece for Reader's Digest in which he stated that after Nixon's nomination, he was summoned to a strategy meeting at the Mayflower Hotel. Nixon had a "special assignment" for him. It was to head up Operation Integrity which involved heading up a volunteer army of 100,000 to ensure a fair count in the election. It seems Nichols and Nixon went waaaay back...
The Dallas Bar Association also harbored the legal eagles for every Right Wing millionaire in Dallas... including those who paid for the Black Border Ad.
The Dallas ACLU did try ad visit Oswald, but accepted assurances he was being treated fairly, and rights were being maintained. The real reason they were fobbed off however, may have been to prevent them finding out Oswald was being used to smear them.
In summary, if we are to believe Oswald was seeking help from the ACLU, we have to (1) take the word of Fitz and Nichols and: (2) disregard the fact that Oswald never mentioned this to his relatives, Ruth Paine or the press.
We further have to assume Oswald, so well read, wrongly thought that Abt was a ACLU lawyer. Such a mistake however, is not hard to imagine being made by those orchestrating all this; detecting such nuances in the Left was beyond them.
"In 1969, Nichols wrote a piece for Reader's Digest in which he stated that after Nixon's nomination, he was summoned to a strategy meeting at the Mayflower Hotel. Nixon had a "special assignment" for him. It was to head up Operation Integrity which involved heading up a volunteer army of 100,000 to ensure a fair count in the election. It seems Nichols and Nixon went waaaay back..."
This part of post I now know is incorrect, and highlights the dangers of relying on a single uncited article (Occupied America)
The person in question was actually Louis B Nichols who had been a top FBI agent.
The other reason for bringing this thread back was that I found a Third Decade article which puts forward a convincing argument that Oswald never asked for Abt John J Abt: Did Oswald Ask for Him?
There is also a related thread here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3502
Greg, How timely. This is an area I'm woking on presently. I think the reason Os did not mention the ACLU to Paine , was that his primary goal was to contact Abt, somehow, someway! He probably felt that getting an ACLU attny was not something he needed outside help doing. As you say, we don't have much except the word of Fritz and Nichols on the ACLU thing, but it is consistant with his previous political aim (If you know what I mean). At some point someone decided to invove the ACLU in all of this, it's just a matter of when. Was it Os, at the time of the PO box opening, or someone later taking advantage of that fact?
In all likelyhood, probably both.-Bill
-
FYI, Dan Campbell, who [along with brother Alan] worked with Guy Banister in the earl 60's, passed away yesterday. He had kidney failure due to cancer.
Dan had many interesting things to say about Oswald and Banister in 63', some of which came out in the Garrison probe and the HSCA.
-Bill
-
Greg and Bill,
Thank you for your responses. My father was a WW II veteran, and died at 51 years of age. His service, in the army, was in the Rhineland as well as France, having received three purple hearts for gunshot wounds. He was given both the Bronze and Silver stars for valor and bravery. So, my feelings for the Red, White, and Blue began with him. He and I (12 years old at the time) sat glued to the television following the days of the assassination, even to and including seeing Oswald shot and killed before a (live) shocked nation. He told me then that President Kennedy's death was the result of a conspiracy. I too, am a very patriotic American. I love this country, and will stand in it's defense with my life. I want nothing more than to see the perpetrators of this crime brought to justice, albeit posthumously. Tosh, I really appreciate you taking the time to respond, and I wish to take this time to say that it is people like you that keep people like me involved and holding out hope for the truth concerning 11-22-1963
Terry
Terry , In my heart of hearts I know we may lose the battle of history, but my anger has not waned,. I suppose that's what still drives me, I WILL go down fighting........!
-
Will anything change about what is written down as the official version of what happened on that fateful day? As each day/year passes, it becomes less likely. I am of the opinion that history will record that a nut who supported Castro shot the president, or even that Castro had it done.
"If so, take heart that you've been part of enabling that falsehood by yielding it to future historians."
Greg,
Are you saying that I have posted something damaging to the effort to find the truth about JFK's murder,? Or, are you saying that I am part of the cover-up. Your words don't make any sense to me, as I was only stating my feelings out loud, with, I might add, received the response that I had hoped for, except for you. Tosh and Harry seemed to have similar feelings. I am very surprised, though, that more members of the forum have not responded. None the less, all that I was attempting to say in the sentence above is that the " official" govt. closure to the case will come after Castro's death by blaming him or if admitting conspiracy on any level by stating that people loyal to him were responsible. I do not believe this for a minute. The High Noon ambush in Dallas Texas was propagated or instigated by people inside the government of the United States.
Terry
Terry, I don't speak for Greg , but I don't think that's what he meant . I too, think that pessimism will only discourage production in this case. I think that's the sentiment Greg was aiming for.
-Bill
-
HBO a link to this forum -- Hanks told Bugliosi recently the Reclaiming History project won't hit production till 2010... Plenty of time for Hanks and the producing unit to hear the OTHER side of the story...
John Simkin?
Hopefully the writer's strike will still be going on then.....
-
What's with PBS once again joining the ranks of LN's? Who in that outfit is pushing that kind of programing
, and why? I know the management has changed over the years, but I'm not familiar with it's present lineup. Anybody?-Bill
When I confronted Stone after the screening last summer, he insisted that the direction of the film was entirely his own, and that it wasn't tailored to fit anyone's agenda. He claimed he'd made the film and screened it as an independent, and that PBS didn't get involved until after it had been screened. I'm somewhat skeptical, but suspect he was telling the truth.
This, of course, does not get PBS off the hook. Would it invest in a film that presented the evidence for a conspiracy? I think not.
I wasn't impressed with Stone's film at all. It could have been done a decade ago. And the message wasn't clear - the assassination has had an incredible impact on our politics, history and society, and one of the reasons it still is affecting us is its unresolved nature. And that won't end until it is resolved to a legal and moral certainty.
If an independent film maker makes a good film about the assassination and explains the conspiracies, the crimes, and how they were committed, I'm quite confident that such a film will find an outlet.
The PBS is after all the Public Broadcasting Network, financed in part by the government and millionaire philantropists, many of who also shill for the CIA, so what do you expect?
BK
***************************************************************
Does anybody know who this guy is? I found this in my e-mail this morning.
Why couldn't he just post this on the forum to begin with, seeing as it's appropriate to the discussion.
No hard feelings, of course. I could care less what he thinks of my opinion.
See below:
From: "Paul May" < > Add to Address BookAdd to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: tmauro@pacbell.net
Subject: Oswalds Ghost
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:20:36 -0800
Ms. Mauro:
Although I infrequently visit the JFK site on the Education Forum, I
had the opportunity to read your critique on the film "Oswalds Ghost".
For myself personally, it was an extremely balanced story. Much time
was given to conspiracy theorists ranging from Jim Garrison to Mark
Lane.
I believe yourself and Mr. DiEugenio missed the point entirely.
The purpose of the film was not to spark debate over the events of
November 22nd, but how those events of that day infected or affected
the population and interests of the United States.
Mr. Stone is no doubt an "Oswald did it guy" but the balanced nature of the story
precludes those "of your ilk" [My emphasis. TM] from screaming "disinformation"
and then blaming PBS for airing the story.
Quite frankly Ms. Mauro, your comments on the Education Forum were
tantamount to a child throwing a tantrum over what snack he was given
after school. You then take the position if PBS does not show what you
believe they SHOULD show, you withdraw your support. How bizarre.
Did you by chance take this same position with the motion picture studio
that produced Oliver Stone's JFK? Oliver Stone essentially got three
things right in that film: The victim, the date and the location. If you are
indeed a seeker of the truth, you already know this.
You cannot have it both ways Ms. Mauro. The truth does not require
anybodys belief. PBS is surely under no obligation to broadcast
opposing points of view. DiEugenio stated "so clearly, with this
talking head line-up, Stone basically announces that he has no interest
in divulging any new information or exloring any outstanding mysteries
of this case". Absolutely true. His sole purpose was the impact of
the events; not one more investigation of the events.
Why is this so difficult for conspiracy theorists to grasp? Whether one
chooses to believe in Oswalds guilt or in a conspiracy, when one throws their
objectivity into the garbage, they throw away opportunities for growth.
For you Ms. Mauro as a representative of the conspiracy side to actually
say...."I hereby withdraw all future support of your station into
perpetuity, unless some steps are taken by your company to present a
more balanced view on the subject" is both immature and foolish.
It is however what I've come to expect from the conspiracy community when
faced with dwindling numbers of public support (according to a Scipps-Howard poll,
summer of 2007) that now 40% of the public believes in U. S. Government involvement
in the assassination itself. I suspect if the Tom Hanks production of Mr. Bugliosi's
"Reclaiming History" is actually made into a miniseries on HBO, that number will shrink
even further.
Paul L. May
Funny how he states, "The truth does not require anybody's belief ", and then two paragraphs later, sites an opinion poll about such beliefs ....
-
What's with PBS once again joining the ranks of LN's? Who in that outfit is pushing that kind of programing , and why? I know the management has changed over the years, but I'm not familiar with it's present lineup. Anybody?
-Bill
When I confronted Stone after the screening last summer, he insisted that the direction of the film was entirely his own, and that it wasn't tailored to fit anyone's agenda. He claimed he'd made the film and screened it as an independent, and that PBS didn't get involved until after it had been screened. I'm somewhat skeptical, but suspect he was telling the truth.
This, of course, does not get PBS off the hook. Would it invest in a film that presented the evidence for a conspiracy? I think not.
I wasn't impressed with Stone's film at all. It could have been done a decade ago. And the message wasn't clear - the assassination has had an incredible impact on our politics, history and society, and one of the reasons it still is affecting us is its unresolved nature. And that won't end until it is resolved to a legal and moral certainty.
If an independent film maker makes a good film about the assassination and explains the conspiracies, the crimes, and how they were committed, I'm quite confident that such a film will find an outlet.
The PBS is after all the Public Broadcasting Network, financed in part by the government and millionaire philantropists, many of who also shill for the CIA, so what do you expect?
BK
"But it's run by listener supoprted funding, they woudn't engage in disinformation and propaganda for the Corperations "
This was the response I got from a woman who was a long supporter of public broadcast networks, when I told her the show was just the recycled LN garbage that the corperate media has engaged in, for years.
This is why it's even more insidious, because people like this think they can trust things like PBS, that somehow it's different from the networks...the beat goes on.
-
What's with PBS once again joining the ranks of LN's? Who in that outfit is pushing that kind of programing
, and why? I know the management has changed over the years, but I'm not familiar with it's present lineup. Anybody?-Bill
-
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
"A League of Their Own:
A Look Inside the Christian Defense League
By D. Boylan
The United States during the 1950s experienced an unparalleled growth of extremist organizations from the John Birch Society on the right to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee on the left. The heating up of the Cold War, the Supreme Court's decision to end segregation in 1954, and the establishment of a Communist Cuba in 1959 spurred this growth. One of the lesser known but more influential right wing fringe organizations that were formed during this period was the Christian Defense League (CDL). The CDL managed to meld anti-communism, anti-Semitism, anti-Castro activities, and a hatred of the "liberal" policies of the Kennedy Administration into a cohesive whole. It is in this context that the CDL will be examined.
The driving forces behind the rise of the CDL were Reverend Wesley A. Swift and Colonel William Potter Gale. It seemed inevitable that they would gravitate toward each other. Their religious beliefs were similar: both were adherents of what is now called Christian Identity, an updated version of the earlier British Israelite Movement that originated in the late nineteenth century. Christian Identity adherents believe that those of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Nordic, or Aryan origin were the true Israelites, "the sons of Adam", and that those of Jewish origin were "the sons of Satan."
The origin of the Christian Defense League is clouded. Some accounts credit its founding to the Reverend Swift, while Colonel Gale gives credit to Reverend San Jacinto Capt. Capt, a Baptist minister, was one of the early pioneers in the Identity Movement. Gale says "the idea of the Christian Defense League was entirely that of Reverend San Jacinto Capt. He proposed it to me [Col. Gale] who prepared the initial material in the form of a letter entitled, "The NAACP represents the negro; the ADL represents the Jews; who represents YOU — the white Christian?" "
--------------------
"The first indication that the Swift/Gale complex was interested in more than preaching religion came from George Harding in April 1963 when he informed the FBI that he was being recruited to become part of an eight man team to assassinate three hundred public officials in high positions of government. According to WCD 39 and WCD 1107 "Harding claimed that the leaders in the group were Dr. Wesley Swift, James Shoup and others.... The second in command was a Colonel William Gale...who was supposed to have been the youngest intelligence officer under MCARTHUR (sic)."
A related incident also occurred that April. Los Angeles physician Dr. Stanley Drennan approached Captain Robert K. Brown, who was also involved in anti-Castro activities during this period, stated that "while at Drennan's home, Drennan stated in general conversation that he could not do it, but what the organization needed was a group of young men to get rid of Kennedy and the Cabinet…Brown stated that he considered the remark crackpot; however …he gained the impression that Drennan had been propositioning him on this matter. Drennan, a member of the National States Rights Party and associate of William Gale." Drennan complained in a letter to Dean Clarence Manion, a prominent member of the John Birch Society, that on June 10, 1963 two Secret Service agents visited two of his friends at 7:30 am to inquire about his "patriotism, integrity, dependability, and emotional and mental stability. These people were twenty miles East of my dwelling while I was only two miles from where the President was riding in an open convertible sitting high on the back of the seat."
The Secret Service and FBI generated another report in August 1963 by the arrest of Gale's associate George King, Jr. King was overheard discussing the possibility of assassinating the president and was later arrested that month for the sale of illegal firearms. A later FBI field report, CO2-26104 #6419, stated "King is extreme right wing, hates Jews, was arrested by ATF O'Neil for illegal possession of firearms. Emotionally unstable. Arrested 2-29-68 again. This time for CCU, John Bircher, Christian Def. League (sic), Am Nazi Party, Christian Defense League."
There was yet another pre-assassination report (November 15, 1963) of a plot to assassinate "the President and other high-level officials" by a "militant group of the National States Rights Party." The FBI dismissed the report because they felt the subject was trying to make a deal because of pending criminal charges. This was not the well-documented November 9, 1963 report of Joseph A. Milteer's accurate prediction that Kennedy would be shot "from an office building with a high powered rifle." Milteer was also a member of the NSRP and ran for governor of Georgia on the Constitution Party ticket the same year that William Gale switched from the Constitution Party to the Republican Party to run for governor of California.
Evidence suggests that Gale and Milteer were acquainted. Both attended the gathering of the Constitution Party in Indianapolis, Indiana during October 18-20, 1963. Also in attendance were notable right wing extremists General Pedro Del Valle, Curtis Dall of the Liberty Lobby, Colonel Arch Roberts who was the architect of General Edwin Walker's "Pro Blue" program in the military, Richard Cotten, editor of The Conservative Viewpoint, Jack Brown, Klan leader James Venable[28], and Kenneth Goff, Constitution Party Committee member and leader of the paramilitary group Soldiers of the Cross, a Minutemen affiliate. Goff wrote an article for The White Sentinel, that Oswald "called me, before a meeting in a Dallas hotel about a year ago (December 1962) he poured out his pro-Communist venom….His Red record was no secret to those fighting Communism in the Texas area.""
John, Do you remember where you got that qoute source from Goff, re Oswald calling him? That is very interesting to me. Did you actually find the issue of the White Sentinal?
Thanks
-
At the risk of offending my friend Bill Kelly the recent CIA news raises this question in my mind: if the CIA could not keep its destruction of waterboarding tapes secret for more than--what, two or three years--how could it keep its institutional involvement in the Kennedy assassination a secret for forty-four years?
I am not conflicted, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. I am convinced the CIA is hiding SOMETHING about Joannides and/or the DRE and/or LHO, and that someone no doubt destroyed those monthly reports, but I am convinced that what is being concealed is not the CIA's institutional role in the assassination since in my opinion it had none.
I think they chose to leak this , as pay back to Bush... for throwing them under the bus, for 911 etc.
I think they destroyed the tapes by instruction from someone in the administration. 
-
To William:
http://www.odessa.edu/dept/govt/dille/bria...306C/UNIT6A.doc
Until the 1970s the gubernatorial term was only two years so there was a gubernatorial election in 1964 as well as 1962.
Professor McKnight clearly states (on page 51) that Walker was a candidate in the 1964 election. His book seems so carefully researched that I suspect he is correct. So Walker could have run both in 1962 and again in 1964.
If he did run, I can't find any trace of it. In all my files and in several bio's on Walker, there is no mention of a 64' campaign.
-
To Raymond re your Post #19.
Obviously I do not agree with the Bug but he does make an interesting argument in his book that LHO may have wanted to kill JFK because he was representative of a system that he hated. American capitalism (apparently many members of this Forum have that hatred). Assuming the politics of LHO were as they APPEARED to be, then he could have decided to shoot JFK as the representative of American capitalism.
It is definitely admissibkle evidence to show that the pattern of a crime in dispute matched the pattern of a crime previously committed by the defendant. You know that.
If someone has tried to kill a politician (I understand WAlker was then running or was going to run for governor of Texas) by using a rifle with a scope and shooting from afar, and then a politician is in fact killed by a scoped rifle, that is certainly a consistent pattern.
And if I was convinced that it was LHO that tried to kill Walker, then I would be a lot more inclined to believe he shot JFK, Apparently every member of the WC, some of whom were of course lawyers, felt the same way.
Now Bugliosi argues in his book that LHO was a bad guy and beat his wife. I would agree with your point that an attempt in court to show that LHO had a violent disposition and beat his wife, evidence of a bad character no doubt, would be inadmissible.
But the Walker shooting is far different and IMO it clearly would be admissible had LHO lived to be tried for the assassination of JFK. But if the Bug was the prosecutor and tried to introduce evidence that LHO was a bad character, the Bug would lose on that point.
Tim, Walker was not running for office in 63'. He ran an unsuccessful campaign for Gov. in 62'
-
"...most damning evidence against Oswald?
His handwritten draft of the book or pamphlet that he intended to sell and distribute and his making himself and his thoughts available tp a group of connected New Orleans allumni who set in motion a process whereby he was chewed up and spat out in order for that group to acvhieve its 100+ years committment to becoming a great Empire ruled by them according to their morals and ethics. His ancesrty. His demonstrable tableu like comprehension of communism.
Indeed, John. Lee's most damning act , was helping to facilitate the agenda of the conspirators, right up till the very end.....
-Bill
-
Reread this thread. You will see that Miller has diverted this thread.
I believe that the Bowers information was revisited initially in Post #30, the reason given as an example of "irrational exuberance".
Kathy, Miles isn't going to want you exposing his childish xxxxx game playing. I guess its about time to post more on how a xxxxx operates. They set up little divergences and then come back to complain about the thread getting off-track.
Oh by the way, Kathy. You were in Dallas this year. I wanted to ask you .... did you by chance get to the knoll and check the view of the tower from where the men on the steps were positioned and if so ... was the Bowers window visible from there or was Groden and Mack correct that Lee Bowers could not have seen anyone standing on the steps whether it be when the caravan entered the plaza or during the shooting???
Bill
Hello Bill!!!
Why, YES, I was in Dallas, attending a conference. And yes, I went to the knoll.
Immediately, we had a vendor step to where we were, and began to give us his take of the events on 11/22/63 (where shooters were, etc). I was very curious about the information that I had read on the Bowers thread. He had a tabloid loaded with pictures, and realizing I was near the steps, I asked him if the tabloid contained Moorman 5, and it did. I was allowed to look at it (for $10.
), and positioned myself, facing the tower, in all 3 of the men's positions on the steps. I was not able to see it(the window).Moving to the left of the stairs gave me a good view of the tower, although it was probably a foot over, at least.
I hope that answers your question.
BTW, we were also able to meet Ed Hoffman, and I wanted you to know that he is feeling much better.
Sincerely,
Kathy Beckett
I was also there at the same time Kathy was (Hey Kathy!), and will confirm that there is no line of sight from Hudson's posistion to the tower, or visa versa. I also asked Jerry Dealey about this, he said that he'd been up in that tower and you cannot see that far down on the steps, the end of the pergola is in the way. Larry Hancock also confirmed this , and the fact that Bowers would not have consisdered men on those steps suspicious in the first place, as he knew there was a parade coming by. It's a bogus issue ! I took photo's but do not know how to post them.
-Bill O
-
Dear Members,
Dear Friends,
I agree to 100%, Frank is wrong! I have invited Frank to read your comments on this Forum.
Which lesson this article teaches us?
This article may seems plausible for the common people, but... It is the perfect example of what can mislead people who doesn’t have a perfect knowledge of the entirety of the JFK assassination photos.
I think Frank Caramelli is an honest man who believes firmly in its findings. Also, I think he’s a wise guy, therefore I have the hope that he shall acknowledge its mistake.
Jack White has sent me a closeup of the paper in the grass from the Bothun photo (hereunder.)
Jack wrote: "It appears to be the right size and shape to be the Polaroid backing for the Moorman photo of the cop(*) on the motorcycle, and about the right location."
(*) Moorman Polaroid #3 or #4
Frank Caramelli’s article will be removed from my Homepage, it will remain available a few months on the server (but hidden from the visitors.)
Thank you very much for your comments.
Best regards,...
Marcel
Also, the white object's posistion, in relation to the dark spot ( depression) on the grass (to the left), never changes. Distortion from panning movement, may explain the changing shape of the white object.
-Bill
-
Peter, I realize there are sharks in the water, but if you allow them to distract you, you'll never get to shore.
-
(Sigh) As I prepare to leave for Dallas on another research journey, I am saddened to see yet another Forum decend into sophomoric bickering.
I am left with one suggestion,
Focus, people !....Focus.
-
JFK met secretly with George Adamski? I would certainly think, or hope, that JFK had better things to do. (Like meeting secretly with Marilyn Monroe.)
I remember reading Adamski's book in the early '50s (Flying Saucers Have Landed). The main thing I remember about it was the drawing of the beautiful Venusian woman whom Adamski met in the Southwest desert. A child could see that this was a hoax, which is just what I did (I was about 10 at the time).
The main thing I remember about Crisman in the Maury Island book is his claim that he once fought with laser-wielding underground beings called deros. (Brought back more memories from the early '50s, specifically of a sci-fi flick called The Mole Men.)
Like Adamski, Crisman reeked with credibility.
I knew a man ( whom I trusted) in the 1970's who was well versed in so called "Fortean" research, and Adamski. He said Adamski was a "charlatan of the highest order". Hell, One look at his UFO pic's would tell you that!
-
I remember him and his energetic talks , especially the one about the Postal Inspectors Office and it's activities regarding Oswald. I have a copy of it from Lancer, it's a subject that has not gotten enough attention. It seems that was George's research style , to examine those issues that others neglected or ignored.
George and his style will be missed!
-Bill
-
Duh, I certainly should have caught that - although for some strange reason I keep mentally switching
Mann and Scott...always have.
Now the question for me would be, is this communication so early that they think they are going
to be able to cover up the fact that Oswald was in MC....which would be pretty silly given all the
interagency memos from a month or so earlier.
Which brings me back to two options:
1. The photos being sent up are not of Oswald but of somebody else known to both parties....raising
the question of what that would be a priority at this point in time and implying two separate sets of
photos were going north that evening, Oswald and this guy.
2. He thinks the photos are of Oswald and is going on record that Oswald was well known to both
of them...which very well could be true given all the earlier flap about Oswald in MC and his
Kositikov contact...and once again showing Phillips was a xxxx about Oswald not even being
on their radar screen.
...but then the photos are not of Oswald....or does this mean that real Oswald photos did go up
and later the mystery man was substituted for some reason because their was something about
the Oswald photos that had to be covered up?
Or are there even more options? Larry
Larry , I agree... Is this guy important to these people for unrelated reasons, or because he has mistakenly been labled as 'Oswald' ? Do Scott and King even know what LHO really looks like at this stage?
-
Edward Scannell Butler was born in New Orleans in 1934. He went into the Army Management School from 1957-59 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. After completing the course he was employed as an account executive with Brown, Friedman and Company, an advertising firm.
Butler became friendly with Clay Shaw and Lloyd Cobb of the International Trade Mart and persuaded these men to help fund his anti-communist campaigns. This included the establishment of two organizations: Free Voice of Latin America (FVLA) and the American Institute for Freedom Project (AIFP). Butler employed former FBI agent Guy Banister to work for the AIFP.
In 1961 Alton Ochsner, with the financial help of Clint Murchison, established the Information Council of the Americas (INCA). Ed Butler was appointed as Executive Director of INCA. The main objective of the organization was to prevent communist revolutions in Latin America. Ochsner told the New Orleans States Item: "We must spread the warning of the creeping sickness of communism faster to Latin Americas, and to our own people, or Central and South America will be exposed to the same sickness as Cuba." (16th April, 1963)
Edgar and Edith Stern, owners of WDSU radio and television, were members of INCA. Eustis Reily of the Reily Coffee Company personally donated thousands of dollars to INCA. However, it was Patrick J. Frawley, a Californian industrialist and close friend of Richard Nixon, who was INCA's largest financial contributor. The organization used some of this money to make a film about Fidel Castro entitled, Hitler in Havana. The New York Times reviewed the film calling it a "tasteless affront to minimum journalistic standards."
According to James DiEugenio (Ed Butler: Expert in Propaganda and Psychological Warfare) Butler was also in close contact with Charles Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA, and Edward Lansdale.
In April, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald moved to New Orleans. On 26th May, 1963, Oswald wrote to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and proposed "renting a small office at my own expense for the purpose of forming a FPCC branch here in New Orleans". Three days later, without waiting for a reply, Oswald ordered 1,000 copies of a handbill from a local printers. It read: "Hands Off Cuba! Join the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, New Orleans Charter Member Branch, Free Literature, Lectures, Everyone Welcome!"
Oswald also rented an office for the FPCC at 544 Camp Street. No one joined the FPCC in New Orleans but Oswald did send out two honourary membership cards to Gus Hall and Benjamin Davis, two senior members of the American Communist Party.
On 9th August, 1963, he was giving out his Fair Play for Cuba Committee leaflets when he became involved in a fight with Carlos Bringuier. Oswald was arrested and on 12th August, he was found guilty and fined $10. While in prison he was visited by FBI agent, John L. Quigley. Five days later Oswald debated the issue of Fidel Castro and Cuba with Bringuier and Ed Butler on the Bill Stuckey Radio Show. Later that month Oswald was seen in the company of David Ferrie and Clay Shaw.
John M. Newman (Oswald and the CIA) discovered that in 1963 the CIA had an anti-Fair Play for Cuba Committee in operation. It was being run by David Atlee Phillips and James W. McCord. As James DiEugenio has pointed out a CIA document describes Ed Butler as "a very cooperative contact and has always welcomed an opportunity to assist the CIA."
In 1967 Jim Garrison began investigating the activities of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans. Alton Ochsner told a friend that he feared Garrison would order his arrest and the seizure of INCA's corporate records. Ed Butler took these records to California where Patrick J. Frawley arranged for them to be hidden. Ronald Reagan, the governor of California refused all of Garrison's extradition requests. Frawley had previously helped fund Reagan's political campaigns in California.
Alton Ochsner attacked the Garrison investigation as being unpatriotic because it eroded public confidence and threatened the stability of the American government. In his article, Social Origins of Anticommunism: The Information Council of the Americas (Louisiana History, Spring 1989) Arthur Carpenter claimed that Ochsner launched a propaganda campaign against Garrison. This included sending information to a friend who was the publisher of the Nashville Banner.
According to Carpenter, Butler and Ochsner also attempted to discredit Mark Lane, who was assisting the Garrison investigation. Ochsner told Felix Edward Hebert that Lane was "a professional propagandist of the lunatic left". Ochsner also instructed Herbert to tell Edwin E. Willis (Chairman of the House Committee) to dig up "whatever information you can" on Lane.
Felix Edward Hebert later sent Alton Ochsner a report on Mark Lane extracted from confidential government files. This included "the files of the New York City Police, the FBI, and other security agencies." These files claimed that Lane was "a sadist and masochist, charged on numerous occasions with sodomy". Hebert also supplied Ochsner with a photograph that was supposed to be Lane engaged in a sadomasochistic act with a prostitute.
Butler wrote a book in 1968 entitled Revolution is My Profession in which he attacked as communist infiltrators those whose tactics have "been to try to link the CIA with all sorts of crime, especially President Kennedy's assassination."
Butler continued to work with Patrick J. Frawley. Together they put out a magazine called The Westwood Village Square which tried to blame the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King on the communists.
Here is a transcript of the Lee Harvey Oswald, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler debate on Bill Slatter's radio show Conversation Carte Blanche in 1963.
Lee Harvey Oswald: The principals of thought of the Fair Play for Cuba consist of restoration of diplomatic trade and tourist relations with Cuba. That is one of our main points. We are for that. I disagree that this situation regarding American-Cuban relations is very unpopular. We are in the minority surely. We are not particularly interested in what Cuban exiles or rightists members of rightist organizations have to say. We are primarily interested in the attitude of the US government toward Cuba. And in that way we are striving to get the United States to adopt measures which would be more friendly toward the Cuban people and the new Cuban regime in that country. We are not all communist controlled regardless of the fact that I have the experience of living in Russia, regardless of the fact that we have been investigated, regardless of those facts, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee is an independent organization not affiliated with any other organization. Our aims and our ideals are very clear and in the best keeping with American traditions of democracy.
Carlos Bringuier: Do you agree with Fidel Castro when in his last speech of July 26th of this year he qualified President John F. Kennedy of the United States as a ruffian and a thief? Do you agree with Mr. Castro?
Lee Harvey Oswald: I would not agree with that particular wording. However, I and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee do think that the United States Government through certain agencies, mainly the State Department and the C.I.A., has made monumental mistakes in its relations with Cuba. Mistakes which are pushing Cuba into the sphere of activity of let's say a very dogmatic communist country such as China.
Bill Slatter: Mr. Oswald would you agree that when Castro first took power - would you agree that the United States was very friendly with Castro, that the people of this country had nothing but admiration for him, that they were very glad to see Batista thrown out?
Lee Harvey Oswald: I would say that the activities of the United States government in regards to Batista were a manifestation of not so much support for Fidel Castro but rather a withdrawal of support from Batista. In other words we stopped armaments to Batista. What we should have been done was to take those armaments and drop them into the Sierra Maestra where Fidel Castro could have used them. As for public sentiment at that time, I think even before the revolution, there were rumblings of official comment and so forth from government officials er, against Fidel Castro.
Ed Butler: You've never been to Cuba, of course, but why are the people of Cuba starving today?
Lee Harvey Oswald: Well any country emerging from a semi-colonial state and embarking upon reforms which require a diversification of agriculture you are going to have shortages. After all 80% of imports into the United States from Cuba were two products, tobacco and sugar. Nowadays, while Cuba is reducing its production as far as sugar cane goes it is striving to grow unlimited, and unheard of for Cuba, quantities of certain vegetables such as sweet potatoes, lima beans, cotton, and so forth, so that they can become agriculturally independent ...
Ed Butler: Gentlemen I'm going to have to interrupt you. Our time is almost up. We've had three guests tonight on Conversation Carte Blanche, Bill Stuckey and I have been talking to Lee Harvey Oswald, Secretary of the New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, Ed Butler, Executive Vice-president of the Information Council of the Americas (INCA) and Carlos Bringuier, Cuban refugee. Thank you very much.
John , Could you give me a source for your 2nd paragraph, regarding Butler employing Guy Banister in AFIP?
Thanks, -Bill
-
Sometimes it is difficult to conceive of an event as simply a coincidence. It is easy in the JFK case to view events as part of or proof of a conspiracy when they might be only coincidences.
As proof that strange coincidences do happen, last night I switched from news coverage of the tragic bridge accident in Minneapolis to watch "CSI Miami". In the opening minutes, a large yacht crashed into a bridge in Miami, collapsing the bridge and sending cars crashing in to the water. The scenes looked just like the actual news scenes from Minneapolis. It was eerie.
So this just proves that odd coincidences can indeed occur.
The case for conspiracies
As JFK proves, the theories are usually much more interesting than the truth.
By Meghan Daum
Los Angeles Times
August 4, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
Since the May release of his 1,612-page book, "Reclaiming History," criminal prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has been appearing on everything from C-Span to "The Colbert Report" telling the world that JFK's death had nothing to do with a government conspiracy. By most accounts, he's made a pretty airtight case.
Bugliosi, famous for prosecuting Charles Manson and for coauthoring the book about the case, "Helter Skelter," has spent 20 years examining just about every theory ever put forth about the assassination. "It's my view that it's impossible for any reasonable, rational person to read this book without being satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone," Bugliosi told the New York Times in May. Since then, overwhelmingly favorable reviews have suggested that the days of the grassy knoll-Mafia-missing bullets conspiracy theories might at last be over.
Despite the sense that Bugliosi's is the final word, for some people the simple explanation remains less compelling than the labyrinthine alternatives. It was notable that Tuesday, the print edition of the New York Times published a two-page ad, an "open letter" from one Paul Kuntzler, declaring that "President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was murdered by vice president London [sic] Baines Johnson in a widespread, incredibly complex and brilliantly planned conspiracy. . . ." The letter went on to implicate Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Arlen Specter, the United States military, the Ford Motor Co., Life magazine and something Kuntzler called "big Oil of Midland, Texas," among many others.
Who is Kuntzler? Since he included his telephone number at the bottom of his letter, I called him to find out. As you might imagine, I learned more than can possibly fit in this space, but the basics are these: He's 65, a former exhibits and sales director of the National Science Teachers Assn. and once a prominent D.C.-based gay activist. He first became interested in the JFK assassination in 1991 after reading Jim Marrs' book, "Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy" (this was also, incidentally, the year of Oliver Stone's film "JFK," which Kuntzler calls "98% accurate").
In 2004, Kuntzler's longtime partner, Stephen Miller, died of complications from AIDS and left him Miller Reporting Co., which had transcribed documents that Kuntzler believes are relevant to the assassination. Following the company's demise (Kuntzler referred to "millions in estate taxes"), he sold the building that housed it, using the money to pay off his credit card debts (including $25,000 he spent organizing an assassination panel discussion last year) and spent $186,000 on the New York Times ad. Altogether, Kuntzler estimates he's spent a quarter of a million dollars on what he calls "the last opportunity for the American public to have confirmation on what happened on Nov. 22, 1963."
"I don't have much money left," he added. "I expect that once the truth comes out, I'll go on a speaking tour. If not, I'll have to take out another mortgage on my house."
After I talked to Kuntzler, I called Bugliosi, who listed for me many of the same points he made on C-SPAN and "The Colbert Report," including his belief that the Stone film is "one continuous lie, [other than] he did have the correct date and the correct victim."
"I didn't read [Kuntzler's letter] carefully," Bugliosi told me. "But I went through it enough to see that he was regurgitating all the old hoary theories that even those in the mainstream community have rejected. He's not even reading mainstream conspiracy dogma."
We then spent some time talking about why, despite the conventional wisdom that the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation, the human mind seems so naturally drawn to the complexities and innuendoes of conspiracy theories. Bugliosi admitted that they are usually more interesting than the truth. In the case of President Kennedy, he said, they point to a kind of collective inability to accept that such a monumental, historical event could be caused by a single, ordinary person.
"It gives more meaning to his life and death," Bugliosi said, "to believe dark forces are responsible for his death. Jackie herself said we don't even have the satisfaction of him being killed for a cause."
That makes sense. But speaking of simple explanations, what about the fact that every once in a while a conspiracy theory comes along that has some truth to it? Take, for example, this particular moment in this particular nation. You don't have to believe in fake moon landings or even stolen elections to sense that we're experiencing one of the most secretive periods in recent political history. When it comes to the current state of things, smelling a rat isn't necessarily contingent on living in your mother's basement and wearing T-shirts that say things like "Inside Job!" It's simply a matter of paying attention.
Then again, there's such a thing as paying too much attention. "If you're a parent and your child gets interested in the JFK case, it's toxic," Bugliosi told me. "It's caused divorces, bankruptcies and suicides."
"My mother and my sisters received copies of the ad via FedEx," Kuntzler told me. "They knew how much I was spending. Well, actually, I haven't told my mother yet."
mdaum@latimescolumnists.com
Once again, people like Kuntzler who run around half-cocked, do more harm than good. The "government" would be proud.
Fools and their money......
. It makes me wonder if this was by design. (?)
In all likelyhood, probably both.
, and why? I know the management has changed over the years, but I'm not familiar with it's present lineup. Anybody?
, and why? I know the management has changed over the years, but I'm not familiar with it's present lineup. Anybody?
Challenging Universally Accepted Truths
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Greg, I take it then you don't believe Osawald opened the P.O. Box 2915 either? If he did, then it appears to me that the ACLU is in 'play', and subsequent actions by Lee are expected.
There are indeed surface oddities that make the record confusing, as to what gambit /charade is being conducted in Dallas (post arrest), and by whom. However , I do see Oswald as an instructed, if not willing, participant in it, at least up to that point.
You may well be correct, that others beside Oswald are laying on additional evidence without his knowledge. I'm just not convinced that Oswald did not ask for Abt.
-Bill