Michael Hogan

Hello Mr. McKnight, Congratulations for writing and publishing Breach of Trust. Much respect to you for your approach to documentation; you have a right to be proud of that. In my opinion, your efforts have culminated in a significant contribution to understanding the historical failings of the Warren Commission. The way I see it, you have carried on in the tradition of Harold Weisberg..... he was a true patriot, a warrior for the truth, a genuine American hero, and a good and brave man. You took a subject that unfortunately was largely moribund and given it life, regardless of how well the book sells or the amount of national attention it receives. I wish Mr. Weisberg was still alive to read Breach of Trust. I'm sure he would admire what you have accomplished. Breach of Trust is a compelling read, made all the more so by your excellent writing. I can't say it was an enjoyable read, I was haunted by the same strong feelings of anger and futility that I felt forty years ago when I read Whitewash and Accessories After the Fact. As I write this, I'm disgusted that Arlen Specter could become a Senator, Gerald Ford a President, and John McCloy continued to enjoy his servants and fine steaks. The concluding sentence of your book reads: "The government did not want to delve into the heart of darkness of the Kennedy assassination because it feared what it would uncover: (emphasis mine) the brutal truth that Kennedy was a victim of deep divisions and visceral distrust over how to solve the "Castro problem," and that his assassination was carried out by powerful and irrational forces within his own government." So it was fear that caused so many to go to such extraordinary means to cover up a crime of which they were not even guilty. I am reminded of your account of Darrell Tomlinson, "deeply agitated and probably more than a little scared," as you put it, under intense pressure from Arlen Specter and telling Specter, "I am not going to tell you something I can't lay down and sleep with either." Tomlinson overcame his fears. How did all these other bastards sleep at night? How did so many of them maintain such a fraudulent pose for all of their lives? Whatever sinister and powerful forces you referred to certainly intimidated Robert Kennedy, David Powers, and Kenny O'Donnell, and countless nameless, honest people within the ONI, CIA, FBI and the nation's Capital. that knew or suspected the truth. I agree with you that absent a smoking gun, and the failure to uncover answers 40 years ago means that no seamless explanation as to the "who" and "why" of Dallas is possible. Although I have felt that way for what seems like a lifetime, the feeling of despair from not really knowing what happened has lingered like a bad taste in the mouth. Your book awoke feelings long suppressed, and made that awful taste as bitter as ever. Please tell me this if you know, Mr. McKnight. So many people at so many levels were so instrumental in obsfucating the truth during this fraudulent investigation that you so aptly termed "little more than an improvised exercise in public relations." So precious few of them expressed their knowledge of a conspiracy privately, and virtually none publicly. As the years passed, and principal players continued to die, why didn't more of them come forward? Larry Hancock has indicated how some of the conspirators involved in President Kennedy's murder talked. I've always found it odd that almost to a man, the ones that apparently had first hand knowledge of the mechanics of the coverup remained silent. Thanks for a truly great book. Are you at liberty to give us an indication as to what the manuscript you are working on will be about? Mike Hogan

Here's one more for the pile. Apologies if it already appears on someone's list. http://www.afrocubaweb.com/jfk.htm

In some ways Hopsicker reminds me of a modern day Penn Jones or Mark Lane. He calls Venice, Florida, home of Huffman Aviation, the crime scene that "was not destroyed." He got to witnesses and interviewed them while some of them were still talking. The fascinating video of Atta's girlfriend where she describes how Atta and his friends would do massive amounts of cocaine that they obtained at Huffman Aviation rings true. (See link below - Video #1) Hopsicker goes on to write: The almost-complete post-9/11 embargo on sensitive information illustrates the lengths authorities have gone to suppress, sanitize, and remove from the historical record crucial evidence about what really happened inimical to the 'official story.' They especially don't want nosy reporters uncovering and reporting on this amazing fact: During the same month that Atta and his bodyguard Marwan Al-Shehhi began flying lessons at Huffman Aviation, (July, 2000) flight school owner Wally Hilliard's Lear jet was seized on the runway of Orlando Executive Airport by DEA agents who found 43-pounds of heroin onboard. This is not "conspiracy theory." This is conspiracy fact. A story in the August 2, 2000 Orlando Sentinel, for example, labeled the bust "the biggest drug seizure in central Florida history." 43 pounds of heroin is known in the drug trade as "heavy weight." http://www.madcowprod.com/02212006.html As an aside, there is an interesting article written by John Hooper for the Observer less than two weeks after 9/11. Hooper writes in part: In many respects, though, he (Atta) led not one life, but two. He repeatedly switched names, nationalities and personalities. If in Egypt, and later in the US, he was Mohamed Atta, then at the Technical University of Harburg, he was Mohamed el-Amir. For the university authorities, he was an Egyptian, yet for his landlord, as for the US authorities, he was from the United Arab Emirates. And while it is not hard to see Atta, whose face gazes out from the passport photograph released by the FBI, as that of the mass murderer of Manhattan, el-Amir was a shy, considerate man who endeared himself to Western acquaintances. Such indeed was the gulf between the two that some people, notably his father, insisted last week that Mohamed Atta's identity must have been stolen by the hijackers' leader. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterror...,556630,00.html Reading the 9/11 Commission Report about Atta and the disquieting resemblances to the inadequacies of the Warren Report is like "deja vu all over again." The Report has no qualms in identifying Atta as the "tactical leader of the 9/11 plot" yet the Report acknowledges that "the speed with which Atta (and others) became "core members of the 9/11 plot--with Atta designated as its operational leader--is remarkable." The Report goes on to state: "Bin Laden and Atef plainly judged that Atta was best suited to be the tactical commander of the operation. Such a quick and critical judgment invites speculation about whether they had already taken Atta's measure at some earlier meeting." Yeah, right. The whole account of Atta's recruitment takes scarcely a page and is documented by uncorroborated hearsay. Just as the members of the President's Commission had trouble ascribing a motive to Lee Oswald, the 9/11 Commission was unable to assign a motive to Atta, other than an account of his background and increasingly fanatical beliefs that took up all of one page. The report stated: "In his interactions with other students, Atta voiced virulently anti-Semitic and anti-American opinions, ranging from condemnations of what he described as a global Jewish movement centered in New York City that supposedly controlled the financial world and the media, to polemics against governments of the Arab world." So what? I've read similar views on this forum. The Report goes on to state that to Atta, "Saddam Hussein was an American stooge set up to give Washington an excuse to intervene in the middle east." I wonder where Atta got that crazy idea. Unlike the Warren Report that dwelled incessantly on Lee Oswald's childhood and background, The 9/11 Commission was incredibly succinct in their examination of Atta. Just going to the index, and reading every single word they write about the man they call the tactical leader of the plot takes no more than twenty or thirty minutes at the most. Their basis for most information comes from "friends" or "acquaintances" of Atta's It's really a damn shame what a shoddy job they did. History will not judge 9/11 Commission kindly, just as it has not the Warren Report.

In his 1996 civil suit against the City of Los Angeles, Scott Enyart testified that he had taken three rolls of film that were taken for use as possible evidence. In that 1968 police transcript that John Hunt provided, nowhere did Enyart refer to rolls of film in the plural. For example: Q) You were just taking pictures of everything and everybody? A) Yeah. And I took a picture of a boy come running back. His face was bleeding rather bad, and he came running back. I got a picture of that. There are miscellaneous pictures on the roll (emphasis mine) And later: Q) I think you've already given the film to-- A) One of your officers has taken it (emphasis mine) I'm not saying I disbelieve Scott Enyart. I listened to parts two and three of his interview on Black Op Radio. Like others, I could not download part one. In that interview, Scott Enyart seems quite credible. However, there is nothing in this 1968 transcript that indicates to me that he used more than one roll of film. There is precious little on the internet about the Scott Enyart vs City of Los Angeles trial. I found one good article by Dave Manning (Part 1) written for Probe Magazine. (See excerpt below) I searched for the promised Part 2 to no avail. Elsewhere, I learned that the high powered attorney (He has been involved in many high profile cases) for the City of Los Angeles, Skip Miller was later tried and censured by the California Bar Association for improper conduct with a dismissed juror during the trial. Of course, Mel Ayton never mentioned this. Mr. Ayton attempted to discredit Scott Enyart and bolster Ayton's claim that Enyart was not in the pantry at the time of shooting by writing: Furthermore, said Miller, Bill Eppridge (sic), a LIFE photographer said Enyart’s claim that he was the person in his photographs was untrue and that the person standing on the steam table was instead Harry Benson. In fact Enyart does not appear in any of Eppridge's(sic) photos which are published in his book 'Robert Kennedy - The Last Campaign'. Here in what Dave Manning said in his Probe article: Enyart replied, “What I described seeing [on direct testimony] is what I have vivid memories about seeing in the pantry that night.” Miller (Attorney for the City of Los Angeles) responded by shouting, “Isn’t it true Mr. Enyart, that you didn’t actually see what happened [at the moment of the shooting] but just read about it?” It was clear that Miller believed this approach would break down Enyart’s story and convince the jury that Enyart was really a fraud. But Enyart’s testimony under cross-examination convinced the jury that he was genuine. The one trial exhibit that Miller entered into evidence during his cross examination served to corroborate Enyart’s claim that he was the lone photographer in the pantry. And further, that he was behind RFK and atop a steam table at the time of the shooting before being shoved off. This photo was taken from in front of RFK by a young, amateur photographer named Richard E. Harrison. In the foreground of the photo, the struggle with Sirhan ensues. In the background, alone atop a steam table, taking pictures, is 15-year old Scott Enyart, just as he has described himself. The Harrison photo is taken from Sirhan’s perspective right after the shots have been fired. A seeming contradiction in Enyart’s testimony arose when, during direct examination, he identified himself as the person on a steam table taking pictures in a photograph taken by Time-Life photographer, Bill Epperidge. Enyart stated he first made the identification when he saw the picture in a book Epperidge had published in 1988. The exhibit used during this trial was a two foot square blow-up of the same Epperidge photo. Enyart had never seen this picture blown up before he saw it in court. The person in the picture looked similar, but it was clear that it was not 15-year old Scott Enyart. He had felt for a number of years, that the Epperidge picture helped to corroborate his story. Yet, bravely, he recanted his earlier assertion that he felt it was him in the picture. In trying to make hay from the inconsistency of Enyart’s testimony and prove that Enyart was never in the pantry, Miller put photographer Epperidge on the stand, as well as another person in the photograph, photographer Harry Benson. But the testimony of both Epperidge and Benson proved negligible and later backfired. For on the issue of whether they remembered seeing a 15-year old boy in the pantry, up on a steam table taking pictures, both admitted to: (1) Not coming into the pantry until well after the shooting and (2) Once inside, focusing all their attention on the area where Robert Kennedy lay mortally wounded and taking picture after picture. Both also stated that their only other concern was positioning themselves to get good shots and this was accomplished by elbowing and shoving their way into position. This rang true because Enyart recalled being shoved off the table by a number of photographers who, after rushing into the pantry, jumped up onto the table to get better shots. Enyart was actually out of the pantry completely when Epperidge took the picture which showed Benson in the background. What this exchange proved was that it was Enyart in the Richard Harrison photo taken right after the shots rang out and it was someone else in the Epperidge blow-up. Enyart had always insisted that he was shoved off the steam table right after the shooting by other photographers. The two photographs seemed to illustrate his point quite vividly. In Part 2, Dave Manning details the last two weeks of testimony, including the three witnesses who had the most profound impact on the jurors: the plaintiff’s witnesses who virtually won the case for Scott Enyart—Ted Charach and Rose Lynn Magdan—and the behind-the-scenes story of how they almost did not testify. And the defense’s star witness—Enyart “friend” Brent Gold, who accompanied Enyart to the Ambassador Hotel that night. Also, more insight into the jury deliberations and the possible effect of jury foreman Robert Pinger. I've got nothing against Mel Ayton per se, but his research always seems superficial, incomplete, and one sided to me. And coupled with his obvious bias against anything conspiratorially oriented such as Black Op Radio (Daft, as John Simkin so eloquently put it) renders many of his arguments quite weak when exposed to opposing points of view by informed individuals. Even if one acknowledges that most guests on Black Op are making cases for conspiracy, it seems that any thinking person would concede that there is a wealth of information to be found there. One just has to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Mike Hogan

"Look out kid...They keep it all hid...." This, of course, is pretty common knowledge by now, but Daniel Hopsicker gives his take on Porter Goss in an article dated May 6, 2006. http://www.madcowprod.com/

Excellent posts, John and Nathaniel..... In 1970, Jim Garrison wrote: The consequence of the development of the ultimate weapon (atomic bomb, MH) would be the militarization of America. By the time President Kennedy took his oath of office, sufficient change had taken place to make unacceptable for long any serious attempt to enforce genuine civilian control over the military. Conflicts between the Pentagon and the White House with regard to fundamental military strategy--and even with regard to foreign policy--no longer could be resolved by a unilateral decision at the White House. This is not to say that the military would allow the fact of the change to become apparent. The protocols, like the uniforms, would remain the same. Garrison goes on to quote Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (A Thousand Days): ...When McNamara called [at the Pentagon] for the basic defense plans, he found that they still rested on the assumption of total nuclear war..."The Pentagon is full of papers talking about the presence of a viable society after nuclear conflict," he once said. "That viable society phrase drives me mad. I keep trying to comb it out, but it keeps coming back." Kennedy now charged McNamara with the problem of devising strategies to deal with a world in which total nuclear war was no longer conceivable. This called from a shift of massive retaliation to a capability for controlled and flexible response, graduated to meet a variety of forms and levels of aggression. I have always felt that President Kennedy's clear record of aversion to the use of nuclear force formed an unbridgeable chasm between the White House and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that believed nuclear options were preferable to land wars. Many of them felt that way ever since the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima "saved countless American lives." I grew up in an era of bomb shelters and missile gaps and the constant drumbeat that nuclear war was a real possibility. American citizens that opposed nuclear proliferation seemed always to represent the left wing of political ideology, and that political segment was "soft on Communism." The possible role of the Central Intelligence Agency in the murder of President Kennedy has been explored by many. By and large, the Defense Intelligence Agency has remained in the background, relatively speaking. I have often wondered if elements within the DIA either framed or blackmailed the anti-Castro elements within the CIA that they considered expendable. Mike Hogan

In my opinion, Gaeton Fonzi's The Last Investigation remains the definitive account of the failings of the HSCA. In the introduction, Fonzi writes: I spent three years working for the Government as an investigator of the Kennedy assassination, and many more before that as a member of the community of private researchers following the case. I have seen it from the inside and from the outside and I am deeply concerned. I know how your Government failed in its investigations, what your Government didn't tell you and why, and what your Government was really doing when it told you it was investigating the assassination. I've seen how history has been shaped for you without your knowing it. I believe, also, that unless we do something about it, history will continue to be shaped by powers responsive only to the priorities of maintaining power. And that is relevant to the way we live, both today and tomorrow. In my opinion, although written five years later, Cornwell's book lacks the intellectual integrity and moral outrage found in Fonzi's writings. Cornwell was one of Blakey's appointees, coming on board after the coup on Sprague. Fonzi relates that Cornwell instructed him to "cease and desist" with any analysis of his research: "I want your reports to be strictly factual, "he said. "Just give us the information. I don't want any of your analysis going into the record." Then, a few pages later Fonzi writes: In Miami, working pretty much on our own, Al Gonzales and I were making progress in what we considered potentially the hottest area, the association of anti-Castro activists with intelligence operatives. Then suddenly from Washington came the word that we were about to be rocked by a new strategy directive from Blakey. The warning came from Edward Lopez....Lopez was calling to tell me that Team Three had a major meeting with Deputy Chief Cornwell that morning. "I think we may have some problems," Lopez said. "In our discussion with him, Gary (Cornwell) carefully manipulated the conversation around to Miami. Then he asked, 'What the hell are those guys doing down there? Someone call Fonzi and ask him to answer the question in twenty words or less.' So I raised my hand and said that I could answer the question in five words: 'Trying to solve the case.' Then he (Cornwell) said, 'Well, those guys are running around down there and they're never going to come up with anything we can resolve in time. I've got to bring them into our framework.' " Just read pages 222-223 of Fonzi's book to see how Cornwell was instrumental in deflecting the HSCA investigation away from Miami and New Orleans and the intelligence community. Or read in Cornwell's book his brief treatment of the "Umbrella Man" and his blithe acceptance of Witt's testimony. He does not even mention Witt by name. Perhaps as much as anything else, this to me typifies the shortcomings with Cornwell's reasonings in many aspects of the Kennedy assassination. Near the end of The Last Investigation, Fonzi concludes: This was the last investigation and it did not do the job the American people asked it to do. I never took a poll of all the Committee's staff members but I know this: There is not one investigator --not one-- who served on the Kennedy task force of the Assassinations Committee who honestly feels he took part in an adequate effort, let alone the "full and complete" investigation mandated by Congress. In fact, most of the investigators have bitter memories of the limitation and direction imposed on them. Fonzi adds: Despite the disclaimers and all the rhetorical posturing, Kennedy's murder wasn't the real issue at all. In retrospect, perhaps it never was. It's quite obvious that it takes more of a leap of the imagination to accept the hypothesis of Arlen Specter's single-bullet theory and the "evidence" on which it's built--computer-composed charts of bullet trajectories and reams of neutron-activation analyses not withstanding--than it does to simply look at the hardest facts, such as the bullet holes in the back of Kennedy's jacket and shirt. Fonzi concludes: The Committee was simply afraid. Such a confrontation would be too large, too elemental, too risky to all the institutions of government that form the power structure of the Washington establishment. And much too politically risky. So in the end, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, like the Warren Commission before it, produced a report that looked comprehensive and complete, but which failed the American people. Fonzi documents his conclusions with accounts of how Sylvia Odio and Antonio Veciana bravely agreed to come to Washington to testify about what they knew. At the eleventh hour, they were informed their testimony would not be necessary. Cornwell devotes two brief pages to the Odio incident, and although he acknowledges the Committee "believed Mrs. Odio's story," his superficial treatment of what Sylvia Meagher some twenty years earlier called the "proof of the plot" indicates that Cornwell's book is NOT the "true story." Fonzi's book comes much closer in my opinion. I'll close my post by quoting Fonzi one last time: After the disdainful treatment she received at the hands of the Assassination Committee, Sylvia Odio, whose testimony stands as the strongest witness to a conspiracy, permitted author Anthony Summers, then working on the BBC documentary about the Kennedy assassination, to film an interview in silhouette. As he relates in Conspiracy, Summers asked her why she was now prepared to talk, after refusing for so long. Odio was silent for a long moment. Then she said: "I guess it is a feeling of frustration after so many years. I feel outraged that we have not discovered the truth for history's sake, for all of us. I think it is because I'm very angry about it all--the forces I cannot understand and the fact that there is nothing I can do against them. That is why I am here." Bob Blakey and the members of the Assassinations Committee (read Cornwell, MH) never felt what Sylvia Odio feels. They never felt the frustration and anger that lives within her, the outrage that our Government still has not told the truth after so many years. I will always remember what she said to me when I told her the Committee had changed its mind about permitting her to tell her story publicly, to the American people. Her words echo in my mind, a soft shroud covering the years of my investigative sojourn through the labyrinth of the Kennedy assassination: "We lost," she said. "We all lost."

"I didn't shoot anyone...." Lee Oswald In my opinion there are many reasons to believe Oswald was used in a conspiracy. For forty years I have wondered, that if he were a/the shooter, why on earth would he purchase a substandard weapon that could be traced to him, then leave it in the depository? Everything about his life indicated he was smarter than that. In my mind, any scenario that posits Oswald as a shooter needs to address that issue, among others. Mike Hogan

In that very interesting interview (The interviewer Dominick A. Miserandino asked great questions) Gary Cornwall confirmed that he is astute, informed, reasoned and articulate. I found myself agreeing with most everything he said. But near the end of the interview Mr Cornwall allowed: ".....we will in all probability never know the scope of the conspiracy, and the shocking reason is that our government secretly decided not to discover the scope of the conspiracy when it had a chance to do so..... .....Those who for their own independent reasons want to believe that our government is composed of criminals readily accept Oliver Stone's irresponsible suggestion that the government conspired to kill our President, and really couldn't care less that there has never been any evidence to support that conclusion." Two things occur to me. It was criminal that elements within our government did what Mr. Cornwall said they did. Therefore, by definition, elements of our government were "composed of criminals." I only thought that Oliver Stone suggested that elements within our government conspired to kill President Kennedy. And I believe that there is evidence that supports that conclusion. If the HSCA did not solve the riddle of President Kennedy's murder in 1978, Stone could hardly be expected to do so 14 years later. Stone often said in so many words that his work was fiction, a confluence of many divergent theories. Cornwell also said that "JFK was pure Hollywood imaginings devoid of any evidentiary support." Even if one concedes the above to Mr. Cornwell, Stone's artistic vision of President Kennedy's murder was, in my opinion, a major positive event in the search for answers in this case. The ensuing publicity, both pro and con, made it financially viable for books to be published and re-released and politically viable for records hidden by our government to be released. In addition, Stone's movie helped inspire a new generation of researchers. Stone could never have satisfied everyone's versions of the truth, and he was smart enough not to try. In his excellent book Real Answers, Gary Cornwell says: "In short, the Kennedy case is perhaps the greatest murder mysteries(sic?) of all time because of the extraordinary magnitude of evidence and plausible possible solutions ---"a solution for everyone"---and the inability to narrow the possible theories down to probabilities upon a basis of motive, means, and opportunity and means analysis. In fact the principal result of continued investigation and the search for better and more definitive evidence has been the expansion of possible solutions, not the elimination of them. This may be the final irony of the Kennedy case, the explantion for its continued life, and the reason that interest in it will never die. In most murder cases, more evidence is a help in solving the case, since it tends to eliminate possible suspects, and produce probable answers about the identity of the true perpetrator. In the Kennedy case, as more evidence is gathered, more theories will always be forthcoming, because the number of suspects that had the motive, the opportunity, and the means to kill the president---even if not actually infinite---is certainly interminable."

From the liner notes of Can't Keep From Crying (Testament Records 1964): "This wholly unusual blues recording presents eleven topical songs on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy written and performed by ten Negro singers and instrumentalists, some of them like Big Joe Williams and Otis Spann, well known and respected as fine, expresive bluesmen; others, like Avery Brady and John Lee Granderson, known only to a small circle of friends and acquaintances. All of the performances save one were recorded in Chicago in the weeks following the November 22, 1963 assassination of the President." Various Artists Can't Keep From Crying: Topical Blues On The Death Of John F. Kennedy [TCD5007] This remarkable and moving album presents 13 topical songs on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They were recorded in the weeks immediately following his death on November 22, 1963. The performances range from the bizarre vocals and jagged violin of Jimmy Brown to the blues-band sound of Johnny Young (with Otis Spann and Slim Willis). Features two previously unissued tracks; HighTone Testament series. Tracks: Big Joe Williams: A Man Amongst Men James and Fannie Brewer: I Want to Know Why John Lee Granderson: A Man for the Nation Otis Spann: Sad Day in Texas Mary Ross: President Kennedy Gave His Life Bill Jackson: The 22nd Day of November James Brewer: Why Did He Have to Go? Johnny Young: I Tried Not to Cry Avery Brady: Poor Kennedy Fannie Brewer: When We Got the Message Jimmy Brown: He Was Loved By All the People Johnny Young: Tribute to J.F.K. Avery Brady: Poor Kennedy #2 The record was originally released in 1964 as a vinyl record. It was re-released in 1994 on compact disc. One can listen to excerpts at the Amazon website: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000003OQ...v=glance&n=5174

Some interesting items currently for sale on eBay (Current bids or prices in parentheses) GPO Edition of The President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy($10) http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-1964-JFK-John-Ken...1QQcmdZViewItem Carousel Club Card ($800) http://cgi.ebay.com/KENNEDY-ASSASSINATION-...1QQcmdZViewItem Signed "Bobby" ($448) http://cgi.ebay.com/RFK-SENT-JFK-ASSASSINA...1QQcmdZViewItem Rush to Judgment signed by Mark Lane ($40) http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-JFK-Assassination...1QQcmdZViewItem Bell & Howell Model 414 PD Zoomatic Director Series movie camera "identical to Zapruder's ($80) http://cgi.ebay.com/Zapruder-Bell-Howell-m...1QQcmdZViewItem Oswald "I'm just a patsy" coffee mug http://cgi.ebay.com/JFK-ASSASSINATION-SOUV...1QQcmdZViewItem Fencepost from the Grassy Knoll ($5135) http://cgi.ebay.com/HSCA-Post-from-Grassy-...1QQcmdZViewItem

In 2004 Mark Sobel produced a film entitled The Commission, which was slated to appear at art film theatres in various locations. To the best of my knowledge, it is not available on DVD. The film was shot entirely in black and white and features many well known actors. A viewing the clips available at the link posted below (highly recommended) indicates to me the film appears to be powerful and accurate in its depiction of problems that faced the Warren Commission. If anyone has seen this, I would be interested in their impressions. The following is an excerpt from the film's website: "I wanted the audience to feel as though I'd edited together previously unseen newsreel film shot in 1964 that I'd discovered collecting dust in a top secret vault." --- the filmmaker THE COMMISSION In the aftermath of the brutal assassination of US President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, 7 Americans of "unimpeachable" integrity were selected by US President Lyndon B. Johnson to report to the American public on all of the facts regarding the assassination, "as far as they can be known". At the end of the term of "The President's Commission," (known unofficially as "The Warren Commission"), all transcripts of the secret meetings of the 7 Commissioners were originally classified as TOP SECRET for 75 years, to have remained sealed from the public until the year 2039! Through the legal challenges of private citizens over a period of years, these transcripts were gradually declassified without publicity or fanfare. Never published for the public at large, the many hundreds of pages of verbatim discussion have languished within the US National Archives for 40 years --- largely forgotten by history, awaiting a reader. "THE COMMISSION" takes the audience behind those closed doors to discover why US National Security demanded that the matter remain Top Secret for 75 years. What unfolds will doubtless shock many. Some may become angered. Some will cry. And afterwards, our view of the integrity of "the greatest murder investigation in the history of the world" will never again be the same. With a distinguished cast lead by Academy Award winner Martin Landau, Academy Award Nominee Sam Waterston, and Golden Globe Winner Martin Sheen. Also starring 7-time Emmy Winner Ed Asner, Joe Don Baker, Corbin Bernsen, Lloyd Bochner, Stephen Collins, Henry Gibson and Alex McArthur, "THE COMMISSION" depicts a complex character study of 7 men of great political power and influence. More than history, "THE COMMISSION" is a powerful commentary on the integrity of the Political and Justice System both today, and well into the foreseeable future. Every American, regardless of age, should see this film --- "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Although Arthur Miller's play "THE CRUCIBLE" was, on the surface, about an injustice in the distant past, the play was actually a commentary on political injustice at the time of its writing. Similarly, with more Commissions going on in Washington today than at any time in recent memory, "THE COMMISSION" tells a story that is more relevant today than ever. Permission is granted to quote from all or part of the synopsis in articles and reviews. http://www.thecommissiononline.com/menu.htm

Jim, You can find a copy here for a mere buck or two plus shipping. http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/Search...=nightmare&x=41 J. Anthony Lukas was a brilliant writer who hung himself in his New York apartment in 1997. His mother had committed suicide years earlier. Lukas had been diagnosed with depression. Mike Hogan

From John Armstrong's book Harvey and Lee On October 10, 1963 "Reverend" Albert Alexander Osborne (aka John Howard Bowen) appeared at the office of the Canadian Consul in New Orleans. Osborne told cleark Percy Whatmough that he just arrived in New Orleans from his residence in Montreal and that he was on his way to Mexico City as part of his vacation (he just arrived in the US from Mexico a week earlier). He gave his address as 1441 Drummond Street, Montreal, and said that this had been his permanent address since 1917. Osborne's passport application contained a recent photograph and listed his birth as November 12, 1988 at Linco, England. He claimed to be a naturalized Canadian citizen because of his services in the Canadian Armed Forces. Osborne presented passport #4-347367, issued on June 1, 1963, to Mr. Whatmough. After cancelling this valid passport, Whatmough issued Canadian passport #5-605377 to Osborne. There is no explanation as to why Osborne exchanged a 4-month-old passport for a new one, unless he was worried that immigration stamps from foreign countries would allow authorities to track his whereabouts. (Author's emphases) Armstrong cites an FBI cablegram from Director to LEGAT, Ottawa 2/6/64 for the above. As an aside, I am interested in impressions from forum members regarding John Armstrong's book. Mike Hogan

Witt mentioned twice the screeching of tires: "At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes...." ".....there was this screeching of tires, this sort of thing." Were there other witnesses in Dealey Plaza that mentioned the screeching of tires?

Thank you Sid, During those times (1964) I had access to alternative publications like Ramparts and The Minority of One. I remember being interested because they seemed to be the only ones questioning the official version. I would say I had hope that someone or something would break the case. With the publication of Whitewash, Inquest, and Rush to Judgement, I was convinced that for some reason, the truth was being kept from us. Shortly thereafter, books followed by Sylvia Meagher and Josiah Thompson. It was revealed that a district attorney in New Orleans was conducting his own investigation. To me, and many other Americans, the offical version was crumbling. When CBS announced they were doing an extensive investigation into JFK's murder, I had hope that finally someone in the media was going to hold our government accountable for the incredibly inept (or dishonest) investigation they conducted. After Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather debunked any possibilty of conspiracy, I knew then that the major media could never be counted on to expose the truth, whatever the truth was. Mark Lane's follow up book, Citizen's Dissent cemented the issue for me. His account of the functions of the media as it pertained to him convinced me that citizens could no longer trust what they read in the newspapers or watched on television. And of course by that time, Vietnam had become the major issue with young people on campus. The US Government had lost much credibility, as evidenced by the mounting protests. When Jim Garrison published A Heritage of Stone in 1970, I became resigned to the fact that we would probably never know the truth. Whether or not one feels Garrison's investigation was flawed or not, his observations on the military industrial complex were forceful and brave. To me, his eloquent and passionate writing has stood the test of time, and the things that he wrote about warfare are applicable today. Sid, I got to rambling here. A much longer reply than I had originally intended. The short answer to your question could have been I felt the goverment deceived us early on. The failure of the media to hold them accountable was unforgivable, and still is. Any coverup would never have succeeded without a complicit and accommodating media. American citizens deserve a portion of the blame for allowing these things to have happened. I think most, if not all of my family and friends came to feel much the same way. Mike Hogan

Hi Scott, I enjoyed your recollections. I was a couple of years older than you when President Kennedy was murdered. My initial impressions, formed by the logic of a 14 year old mind, have remained with me to this day. I was in last period history class when another teacher came in unannounced and whispered something in our history teacher's ear. I saw a look on her face that I will never forget. I have come to realize that it was one of shock and horror. She immediately suspended her lesson, and instructed us to begin reading a chapter in our book. About ten minutes later, the principal came on the intercom and made a very brief announcement that President Kennedy was dead and there would be no more school for that day. There was mass shock and confusion in the school halls. No one knew what happened. I think people were too shocked and numb to cry. By the time I made it to the school bus, early reports were coming in. We waited on the bus for a very long time. A couple of students had transistor radios. The only thing I knew then was President Kennedy was dead, having been shot from a tall building in downtown Dallas, and that no suspect was in custody. I vividly remember wondering immediately who could have done this, and how could they have possibly avoided capture? It just seemed impossible to shoot the President of the United States in a downtown area and get away unseen. I couldn't wait to get home and be with my mother. She liked John Kennedy very much. I had seen him in person in 1960, when he came to the Claypool Hotel in Indianapolis on a campaign stop. I had begged my father to take me, so I could get Stan Musial's autograph, but that's another story. When I finally got home, my mother was in front of the television set, distraught and disbelieving. As the early accounts of Oswald's capture and arrest started coming in I could not imagine how someone could make a clean getaway, then shoot a policeman, make another clean getaway, and then get captured while in a movie theatre. It just didn't add up. I wanted to hear what the suspect had to say. The newsmen were saying he was denying everything. I spent the rest of the day and night and all day Saturday gazing intently at the television. My sadness was unlike anything I had ever experienced, yet I hung on every word coming out of Dallas and Washington. Reports had Oswald still denying any guilt in either murder. I thought if he had really shot the President, he would have had to know he could never make it out of the Book Depository. He would have had to be prepared to be caught or killed, with the rifle still in the building. And with all the "evidence" pouring in, how could he continue to maintain his innocence? I wanted to see this Oswald. The only answer is that he must be insane. Watching events unfold live at the Dallas Police Station was mesmerizing. Never before in my life had I watched news happen live. I kept wondering that, even if Oswald was up there shooting how could the police be so sure that he had no help. To me that would be something impossible to know so quickly after his capture, especially given his denials. Finally, Oswald was brought before the news cameras. In addition, they were playing videotape of him being led, handcuffed in the halls. What I saw in my own mind has remained with me for almost 43 years. Replays have only reinforced my impressions of when I saw him for the first time. To me, Oswald did not look like a man that had done what they were claiming. It was obvious in his countenance and demeanor and tone of voice. Intially he seemed angry that he was being held. He was asking for a lawyer. To me, he had the reactions of an innocent man. I could see it in his eyes. I trusted my all too young instincts and intuitions. I just didn't believe he did it. Everything was too pat. Too many things didn't seem to add up. News reports were saying that Oswald was being questioned at great length. I couldn't wait to hear what they were asking and what he was saying. I wondered if he would somehow break, and admit what he did, and prove me wrong. I was watching the next morning when Oswald was silenced forever. I remember thinking: now we will never know what he might have said. We only know what he said while being interrogated in custody. I immediately looked forward to the transcript of the tape recordings to know more about this mysterious alleged killer that had only been in front of the news cameras for a few cryptic moments. It only took a day to learn that no recordings were ever made. I remember that almost intolerable feeling of disbelief when I learned no recordings of Oswald in custody were made. I didn't understand how that could ever happen in America. I also remember being ridiculed and even vilified in school the next week for even suggesting that I thought Oswald might be innocent. That ridicule made me stubborn to admit I might be wrong. Somehow they had gotten the wrong man. By that time, thanks to Merriam-Webster, I knew what the word "patsy" meant. I wondered how Oswald knew that word. Then Johnson announced the formation of the Warren Commission. My mother admired Justice Warren. I harbored hope that they would discover the truth. I wanted to have the last laugh on people that were so adamant about Oswald's guilt. As the months went by, it seemed each almost daily there was a new revelation about the assassination. There were reports of people seeing Oswald and Ruby together and an infinite number of unanswered questions. I actually expected the Warren Commission to come out with a blockbuster announcement of some sort, that's how convinced I was that Oswald was innocent. And the only thing I had, in light of all the "evidence" against him, was this gut feeling that he was telling the truth in front of the cameras. I wondered why others couldn't see what I saw. I remember a feeling of disappointment and resignation when it was leaked that the Warren Commission was going to find that Oswald acted alone so soon after they convened. It was as if all the interest and spark of a genuine investigation was gone. I went back to the things that normally captured the interest of teenagers in those days. I began thinking of cars, girls, and college. When Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment was published, it was an epiphany of sorts for me. He raised important questions, and I delighted in querying my college acquaintances how they could believe the Warren Commission. None of us had read the 26 Volumes, just the Report. Now Lane was bringing out so many things that were in those 26 Volumes that was exculpatory of Oswald, or at least cast doubt on the official version. Ever since then, I have read everything I could get my hands on and spent untold hours talking about and wondering what really happened that day in Dallas. I wish I knew. Mike Hogan

I hope your not trying to say that since the WTC failures were not "routine" that a laypersons opinion of what caused the collapse are just as valid as a trained Professional Engineer. First of all, I was not trying to "say" anything. I was quoting what the NIST said. And for you to hope against something so patently absurd indicates to me you have a vivid imagination when it comes to what others are thinking. Incidentally, I don't think I have ever run across an untrained "Professional Engineer."

If that was in fact Oswald watching the motorcade and subsequent murder on Elm Street, it is curious that he never offered that as an alibi. Surely that would have been his best chance for exoneration, to have had someone come forward that saw him standing there. Mike Hogan

In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated a formal federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster on August 21, 2002. From finding 3.36: There are only a few academic degree programs or continuing education programs that qualify engineers (or architects) to evaluate the fire performance of structures. The current state-of-practice is not sufficiently advanced for engineers to routinely analyze the performance of a whole structural system under a prescribed design-basis fire scenario. (Emphasis added)

Terry, Your post motivated me to read Robert Oswald's testimony and I agree 100% with your observations. Oswald testified at great length, and there is a wealth of fascinating accounts in his testimony. Of note was his observation of how his brother's hair was full and curly before defecting to Russia and that it was thinning and kinky upon his return to the States. The change was so dramatic, that Robert Oswald thought his brother might have been subjected to shock treatment by the Soviets. He further remarked that more than once, the last conversation he had with his brother (more than a year before November 22nd) that "This was not the Lee Oswald I knew." No wonder John Armstrong found his testimony so germane in some respects. One episode of questioning is revealing: Page 314 Representative Boggs: Have you in your own mind reached any conclusions as to whether or not your brother killed President Kennedy? Robert Oswald: Based on the circumstantial evidence that has been reported in the newpapers and over the radio and television, I would have to say that it appears that he did kill President Kennedy. Boggs: .....would you give us any reason for why he may have done this? Mr. Oswald: No sir; I could not. Boggs: It came as, I would think, as a great shock to you? Mr. Oswald: Yes sir; it certainly did, and I might add that the Lee Harvey Oswald I knew would not have killed anybody. Page 315 Boggs: Your mother in her testimony before the Commission, gave the impression and later in press stories that she thought that maybe your brother was an agent of the CIA. Did you ever have any reaason to think that? Mr. Oswald: No sir; and the only time the thought ever entered my mind as to him being an agent of the CIA or any other U.S. Government bureau was upon his return from Russia while residing at my residence in Fort Worth, the FBI had called and requested that he come down for an interview there in Fort Worth. On the completion of his interview when I came home from work that night, he discussed it briefly and I asked him how did they treat him, and so forth. He said just fine, and he says, "They asked me if I was a secret agent," or some type of agent for the U.S. Government and he laughed and he said. "Well, don't you know?" I remember that. It was just crossed out of my mind. Every time Robert Oswald stated that he believed his brother shot President Kennedy, he was careful to qualify his belief, basing it on the circumstantial evidence that he saw in the media. As you noted, he believed the Paines were somehow involved. He wrote that in his diary. He stated that he based that opinion on newspaper accounts of a man that fit Michael Paine's description handing his brother a rifle at the range and on a gut feel when he encountered the Paines at the county jail. There are many other fascinating accounts including the distrust between the Secret Service and the FBI as evidenced to him at the Six Flags Inn (Where Marina was being sequestered). Thanks for your post, giving me impetus to reread Robert Oswald's testimony. Sometimes, the early stuff is the best. Regards, Mike Hogan

Len, I originally wrote: "And although much of his research is not flattering to certain Israeli interests, I do not find him anti-Semitic......" My statement would have been more accurate had I said, "I do not find his research and writing (As appearing in Final Judgement and The High Priests of War) to be anti-Semitic....." I know little of Mr. Piper's affiliations, or other writings. Nor did I refer to them in my post. My comments were based upon a reading of the two aforementioned books and intended to reflect my interpretation of the merits of documentation and research in same books. I also wrote: "I observed the intense passions and controversies sparked during Mr. Piper's brief participation on this forum. I have no desire to be a part of that." I still don't. Perhaps you know much more about Piper than I do, but your quickness to label me as anti-Semitic speaks volumes about you. Mike Hogan

Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, writes a monthly column for the Washington Post. In today's edition, he writes: "The calls by a growing number of recently retired senior generals for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951..... First, it is clear that the retired generals -- six so far, with more sure to come -- are speaking for their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue. Recent retirees stay in close touch with old friends, who were often their subordinates; they help each other, they know what is going on and a conventional wisdom is formed. Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, who was director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the planning period for the war in Iraq, made this clear in an extraordinary article in Time magazine this past week when he said he was writing "with the encouragement of some still in positions of military leadership." Although better known for his book Final Judgement, which makes a controversial, but persuasive case for Mossad involvement in the murder of John Kennedy, Michael Collins Piper has authored several provocative books. One is entitled The High Priests of War. (Subtitle: The Secret History of How Americas's "Neo-Conservative" Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire.) Piper writes: However, the American military leadership did not agree with the neo-conservatives that an invasion of Iraq would either result in a mass uprising by the Iraqi people (in alliance with U.S. forces) or that the rest of the Arab world would sit back with satisfaction. Nor did the American military even want to fight the war in the first place. The military leaders saw no need for the United States to enter into conflict with Iraq, viewing such a war as contrary to American national interests. The idea that the American military leadership somehow favored the war with Iraq was a myth that was widely being propagated by the neo-conservative pro-Israel propaganda network in official Washington with the active support of the pro-Israel elements in the American media..... Piper also writes: Although many grassroots Americans believed that the Bush administration and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were strongly supported by America's military leadership, the truth was quite the opposite. While Bush came into office with quite enthusiastic support from American military families, the truth is that the active duty military leaders in the Pentagon were very much dissatisfied with Rumsfeld and his neo-conservative associates such as Wolfowitz...... In the end, as we now know, the "neo-conservatives" prevailed and the military's warnings were shut out and sidelined, much to the military's disgust. Events in Iraq have since confirmed the military's fears. (Author's emphasis) Perhaps it is not quite fair to selectively quote just a portion of Michael Piper's writings, but I think his points are well taken in the context of the accounts of six retired Generals that have dominated the news recently. I observed the intense passions and controversies sparked during Mr. Piper's brief participation on this forum. I have no desire to be a part of that. However, certainly Michael Collins Piper is a very good writer that meticulously researches and documents his work. In my opinion, he generally makes reasoned conclusions, even if some of those conclusions are speculative. I read the second edition of Final Judgment years ago. Mr. Piper generously sent me the updated sixth edition, which I am looking forward to reading. I believe Mr. Piper to be a good man, not because he sent me a free book, but because I feel that he has made valuable contributions to understanding some of the countless mysteries surrounding President Kennedy's murder, and he never fails to give credit to other researchers for their findings. And although much of his research is not flattering to certain Israeli interests, I do not find him anti-Semitic, any more than someone that criticizes factions within our government to be anti-American. Mike Hogan

The following is excerpted from an interview with Alan Dershowitz that can be found on PBS's Frontline website: What was the prosecution's theory? The prosecution's theory was very simple: mountain of evidence. How can you explain the blood on the glove, the blood on the socks, the blood on the floor, the blood on the gate? It was a circumstantial case with overwhelming evidence, and a case that the prosecution easily could have won if they hadn't made so many mistakes. Number one, they relied on lies. They overstated their case. They planted evidence. They didn't have to, but they did. They put on a policeman who was a Nazi lover and a perjurer and an evidence planter. That made our day, as the defense. And the defense decided to do something very simple: put on only truthful expert witnesses; put on no one who was in any way really controversial. So the defense presented a credible case, [and we were] able to show that the prosecution's case was full of lies. That doesn't mean that ultimate truth was on one side or the other, but the defense got the jury to focus on the lies of the prosecution rather than on the innocence or guilt of the defendant. What was the defense's theory? The theory of the defense was when you find a certain amount of lying and evidence planting on the other side, you can't trust any of the evidence, so the mountain wasn't enough to convict if a few of the hills and valleys were corrupted. And it was summarized by our expert witness [Dr. Henry Lee], who said, "If you find a cockroach in a bowl of spaghetti, you don't look for another cockroach before you throw out the whole bowl of spaghetti." And the argument was, you couldn't trust anything these policemen said or did because we proved that they lied about certain things and planted at least some evidence. Which evidence do you think was planted? There is absolutely no doubt that the sock that was soaked in blood was planted. Why? First of all, the blood had EDTA on it, a chemical that's an anticoagulant that is not found in the human body; it's only found in tubes. So we were able to prove that the police had poured blood from the test tubes onto the sock. Moreover, the splatter pattern on the sock was such that it was consistent only with blood having been poured on the sock, and not with blood having hit one side of the sock and then soaked through the leg in the middle and then hit the other side of the sock. Third, there was a videotape of the house on the morning of the search which showed that the black socks were not on the white rug in the place where the police claimed they found them. So I think all the jurors concluded that the sock was planted. And once you conclude that the blood on the sock was planted, you begin to have doubts about all the rest of the evidence.

Thanks Larry, I'm chagrined that I incorrectly referred to Someone Would Have Talked as Somebody Would Have Talked. I am excited to hear that there is a tentative release date in June, and glad that you decided to include the latest information. I already look forward to the discussions that will be generated among members of this forum, and hopefully in the media. Maybe we'll get to see you on CNN, MSNBC, CSpan, etc. Larry, in my opinion you are the contemporary embodiment of the great early researchers that asked important questions and tried to find answers for one of the great tragedies and mysteries of our time. Mike Hogan