Cliff Varnell

I agree with Ashton Gray's assessment that "Cuba" was not the motive behind the assassination of JFK. For all intents and purposes, Cuba died as an American political issue along with JFK.

Correct. What you and Ashton Gray don't get is that the Kennedy assassination was

a failure. The express purpose of the assassination was to pin the crime on Castro

and establish a pre-text for an invasion of Cuba.

Oswald's capture deprived the plotters of the "irrevocable evidence" required to

justify the invasion to the world.

Not only was there no invasion of Cuba afterwards, the "hard-liners" who supposedly were so offended by our Cuban policy that they conspired to murder a sitting U.S. president, virtually vanished into the dark corners of our society, never to be heard from again.

Tell that to the tens of thousands of Vietnamese slaughtered in Operation Phoenix.

Tell that to Bobby Kennedy. Tell that to Salvador Allende.

Tell it to all those heroin junkies and crack heads hooked on the product those

"hard liners" helped import all those years.

If Kennedy infuriated them, why weren't they incensed at Johnson, who did absolutely nothing to overthrow Castro?

The plotters blew it -- Johnson didn't. They couldn't hold LBJ responsible for the

failure to kill Oswald 11/22/63, could they?

Killing JFK was a winner-take-all proposition, the success of which depended on

Oswald's quick demise. They failed. And thus their dreams of invading Cuba

died Friday afternoon when Oswald was captured.

If the sole intent was to merely end JFK's life, there were many ways to do it quietly.

The manner of JFK's execution speaks to its purpose.

How about Nixon, who would have really been in their camp in regards to toppling the Castro regime?

He did nothing as well.

It wasn't a "rogue operation" -- you didn't get that idea from me.

He did nothing as well. Those "rogue" elements stayed around for quite some time in the CIA;

did they somehow lose their power after murdering JFK?

Sigh.

I never said anything about "rogue elements."

I'll argue that the origin of the plot was "rogue" in the sense that the operatives

came up with the idea, which was then pitched to their betters, instead of the other

way around.

While being powerless to actually overthrow Castro, after killing JFK, they somehow managed to orchestrate a coverup that has been so effective it is still in effect over 40 years later.

The plot was designed to look like a conspiracy. Oswald-as-lone-nut was

a contingency plan.

Johnson and Hoover had foreknowledge of the assassination -- they signed

off on it.

But they weren't the driving force behind the assassination -- they were the

driving force behind the cover-up.

Not the same operation.

A coverup so effective that Peter Jennings-certainly no friend of anti-Castro forces-was compelled to lie his sorry butt off on a ridiculous, anti-conspiracy ABC 40th anniversary special. But then again, there are others who claim that JFK had agreed to an overthrow attempt of Castro on December 1, 1963, but was assassinated anyway by the same "rogue"

Stop. I have made it abundantly clear in my prior posts that I do not

use the word "rogue" in the manner you ascribe to me.

Tell you what, Don, read Larry Hancock's SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED,

and then we can have a polite discussion.

Otherwise, this is a waste of my time.

cleaning up the duplicate post...

Mark, I just noticed your post (slow boy that I am)...

Gary,

Thank you very much for your collegial response.

I prefer collegial discussions, much more productive, etc.

Hi Cliff,

Don't think this argumentative, but I don't prescribe to the CIA as a monolithic org. I do feel it has been controlled and headed by generally the same folk since it's inception. But like any large - and in portions of the CIA deliberately unweildy - organisation there will be factions, even in a goup of 4 friends there may be. This does not preclude the same goals being shared.

I'm unsure of what the Angleton piece was meant to illustrate

Angleton was the key member within Kennedy's Catholic constituency

in CIA -- they shared social circles. Losing Angleton sealed his fate, I'd

speculate. After all, who would have been Oswald's ultimate boss at CIA

if not Angleton at counter-intel?

Also, we associate Angleton with an interesting word Ashton cited: mad.

The manner in which Kennedy was killed indeed reflected something unhinged.

I'll argue that the "unhinged" elements in the American ruling class in 1963

operated within the National Security state and not among the bean counters

at the Fed.

I also want to point out the sectarian fault lines within the CIA as it relates to

the Y/C dichotomy. Robert Maheu's "Mormon mafia" CIA faction controlled the

Hughes empire, and those dudes were Cowboys.

Here's a passage from the memoirs of CIA case officer Joesph B Smith,

PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR (pg 13), explaining why he quit in 1973 after

23 years with the CIA.

...[A]lthough I had gone to Harvard, it would have been better if I had gone to

Princeton and been a member of the OSS. I was not a Catholic, nor an Eastern

European ethnic. I just did not fit into the ruling cliques in the Clandestine Services.

Furthermore, I had always been in the minority of officers who sought to enlist

the efforts of the non-communist left. Perhaps my greatest shortcoming, I guessed,

was that I could not treat people as unimportant spare parts to be used up and thrown

away as administrators like Ted Shackley could. I asked for early retirement, and I

decided to stay in Mexico.

Usually when you see a phrase like "CIA memoir" ya need yer back-up bullxxxx

detector to be in as good a shape as yer main rig.

But PORTRAIT OF A COLD WARRIOR managed to get published without being

vetted by CIA -- something to do with Smith living in Mexico, if I recall correctly.

That crack about Princeton was a direct slap at WASP blue-blood Richard Helms,

key figure in CIA's covert action programs. Most CIA blue bloods went to Yale

(like Bush) but Dickie Helms was the Princeton man.

As Smith indicates, however, Clandestine Services was dominated by Catholics.

Cliff,

I don't want to get enmeshed in the ongoing battle here, but I have to state that, in my opinion, Angleton was not really part of JFK's catholic constituency.

He was a friend of Israel--that was where his loyalties lay.

He covered for Israel in the important early years of their nuclear programme. 'Official' US intelligence was always kept a few years behind the curve, courtesy of JJA's Israel desk.

He blamed everything on a communist plot. Again this suited Israel. The communist bloc supported Egypt and Syria in those days. America has unreservedly supported Israel from 11/22 to the present day and has embarked on a dangerous partisan path in this region ever since. The media participates of course.

The CIA and Mossad shared intelligence from the early fifties. Influential Jewish Americans like Teddy Kollek helped broker this arrangement. I believe they shared a world view and still do.

I really can't see JJA as an ally of JFK or his 'catholic constituency'. If anything JJA willingly betrayed JFK.

The result of years of limp aquiescence to this flawed vision may soon be realised in the Middle East.

I see Angleton as a malignant influence, infecting US strategic policy at a critical period in its history. He and JFK were poles apart.

Not in the summer and fall of 1960.

Angleton hung out in the same social circles as JFK (JJA was tight, after all, with JFK's

girlfriend Mary Pinchot Meyer), and Angleton's also-Catholic boss Allen Dulles colluded

with JFK to hit Nixon from the right on Cuba policy in the 1960 election.

They say Sam Giancana backed JFK in 1960.

As I pointed out in my previous post, these elements of JFK's "Catholic constituency"

turned on him after the Bay of Pigs.

Personally, I take your posts with the great dollop of humour which I suspect you intend, and sincerely hope that you continue posting your thoughts, irrespective of whether you are right or wrong about this or that hypothesis in any given case. I do find it odd that those who claim to welcome fresh perspectives and new "outside the box" thoughts in this ancient case are unwilling to entertain just that when you present it. Important new discoveries will not be made by simply retracing the same old ground on the same old paths.

Add sarcasm and a dash of hyperbole to the great dollop of humour, then the above, most eerily, is precisely my perspective on Ashton's posts.

If only Ashton could refrain from smearing anyone who dares disagree with

him as a "disinformation magpie" and "agenda hornet" (just to cite two examples

that he's directed at me), then we could all enjoy his input...

Now, Cliff, my bird and insect analogies are always terms of endearment, not smearing. I reserve my scatological analogies for smearing, and you have remained entirely unscathed. I would expect at least a little gratitude.

Ashton

Ah...that being the case, it's the magpies and hornets who may feel slighted by your analogies...

Personally, I take your posts with the great dollop of humour which I suspect you intend, and sincerely hope that you continue posting your thoughts, irrespective of whether you are right or wrong about this or that hypothesis in any given case. I do find it odd that those who claim to welcome fresh perspectives and new "outside the box" thoughts in this ancient case are unwilling to entertain just that when you present it. Important new discoveries will not be made by simply retracing the same old ground on the same old paths.

Add sarcasm and a dash of hyperbole to the great dollop of humour, then the above, most eerily, is precisely my perspective on Ashton's posts.

If only Ashton could refrain from smearing anyone who dares disagree with

him as a "disinformation magpie" and "agenda hornet" (just to cite two examples

that he's directed at me), then we could all enjoy his input...

Colby candidly informed me that he had pre-positioned more than one million pounds of cocaine in Panama between December 1, 1975 and April 1, 1976. This was done with the aid of our gallant ally, General Manuel Noriega. The cocaine was transported into El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Honduras between 1976 and 1981. Colby now sat in front of me, with hat in hand, and requested my help in the delivery of the cocaine to the American market...

...By 1984 all pre-positioned cocaine had arrived at Mena airport, and additional cocaine sources were secured.

Lemme get this straight...

Colby "pre-positioned" 1,000,000+ pounds of cocaine in late '75/early '76, but it wasn't

distributed to the American market until 1984?

Sorry, folks, the drug market doesn't work that way.

In the early 80's an ounce of cocaine went for about $2000. Do the math.

This strikes me as classic dis-info -- wrap the truth (CIA/Mafia/Vesco drug smuggling ops)

in bullxxxx, thus the truth is disputed when the bullxxxx is revealed.

You have taken the Yankee/Cowboy analysis to its most logical conclusion. I am sure Oglesby will be proud.

Dawn

Dawn, ask Carl if he thinks Howard Hughes was a "handmaiden" for the Rockefellers.

Ashton's in the right church.

He's just in the wrong pew.

His point with the farcical Parkland Hospital Shiv Scenario is that the

plotters would not have taken any chances.

That last bit I buy.

But they didn't have to recruit Diana Bowron to shiv the obviously-soon-to-die JFK.

They had the technology to fire a blood soluble paralytic, setting JFK up for

an easy head shot, which is fully consistent with the medical evidence --

especially that airpocket overlaying C7 and T1 as seen in the thoracic x-ray.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca..._Vol7_0117b.htm

People don't talk about that little detail because it doesn't fit pet theories.

In the afterlife may all RAW's women have green eyes and red hair.

23.

R.I.P.

Regarding BLACKDOGMAN...my opinion again, if anyone is interested:

1. BDM is NOT Gordon Arnold.

2. BDM is not a gunman.

3. BDM is seen ONLY in two photos...Willis and Betzner.

4. BDM is NOT seen in Moorman.

5. BDM is not seen in any movies.

6. BDM in Willis and Betzner IS VERY BLURRY AND INDISTINCT.

After studying all the facts, my guess is that BDM was added to Willis and Betzner

by RETOUCHING to HIDE A MAN IN UNIFORM OPERATING A CAMERA. Such an image

of an UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER TAKING PHOTOS WAS VERY TROUBLESOME TO THE

CONSPIRATORS.

In short, BDM did not really exist, in my opinion...or there would be other evidence

of him than only two blurry indistinct images.

Jack

Rosemary Willis told the HSCA that a man in that position was "conspicuous"

and appeared to "disappear the next instant."

HSCA Vol 12 pg 7

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca...DealeyPlaza.pdf

A human figure who appears in only in two photos and then instantly disappears

is more consistent (albeit not conclusive) with a shooter, in my opinion.

Do people watching the President drive by pop up, take a look, then pop down?

Or people photographing the President?

Please note that Ms. Willis said her Dad, Phillip Willis, was upset because cops

were running away from the area where the shots originated -- consistent with

shooters dressed as cops, imo.

The claim that BDM was a "no see'em" is contradicted by the statements of

cameraman James Altgens in his 11/1/65 phone conversation with David Lifton,

as quoted by Lee Forman in the "Additional Claims About the Knoll Wall"

thread, June 17, 2005:

NOV.01..1965 : Telephone conversation between David Lifton and the

"Associated Press photographer/news photo editor/wire photo operator,

James WILLIAM ALTGENS," Ike"......

He was friendly on the phone and mentioned quite casually that just before the

motorcade came by, a number of people suddenly appeared behind the wall on

the knoll. He added that he thought it was an odd place to watch the parade

from since the car would speed up right there as it entered the Stemmons

Freeway. This was new, exciting information, but I was worried that Altgens

might be confusing this recollection with his description of people on the

overpass, which was mentioned in his Warren Commission testimony. But he

assured me he was talking about the wall on the grassy knoll--to the right of

the stairs when one faced the knoll.

When I asked Altgens if there were any police among the "people" he saw, he

replied, "I seem to remember that there were. "

On the "culture" timeline, don't forget this guy...

http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/lennybruce/

Or the censorship trials of D.H. Lawrence's LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER (in 1959),

Henry Miller's TROPIC OF CANCER (in 1961) and William S. Burrough's NAKED LUNCH

(in 1962)...

From the CIA Factbook:

Haitian Oil - production:

0 bbl/day (2003 est.)

No oil in Haiti -- but lots of interest from Poppy & Co in '63....I'm looking forward

to seeing more on what that was all about, although I can make a pretty good guess...

From my discussions, I found that I was the first (and perhaps the only) person to speak with Agent Heiberger in regards to the laboratory examination of the clothing[ and he certainly knew that there was some problems with what I was informing him as to the WC testimony stated and what he claimed was actually examined and how.

It is my sister's understanding that Heiberger refused to speak with Oliver Stone

for the making of "JFK," that Heiberger was extremely reluctant to ever speak of

the JFK case.

To the best of my knowledge, the only researcher other than Tom Purvis

to speak to Heiberger is John Hunt.

That I am aware of, no other researcher had ever spoken with him until such time as I made public that information relative to examination of the clothing on JFK Lancer some years back.

This may or may not be the case with John Hunt, as I know nothing of his having spoken with Agent Heiberger.

Hopefully Agent Heiberger discussed the topic with John Hunt, and we now have considerably more than just "Tom Says".

The name "Purvis" and a distant relationship to Melvin Purvis certainly opened many doors within the FBI to me.

Hunt refers to a conversation with Heiberger in "Frazier Speaks," which would have

been earlier this decade, I presume.

If you're on good terms with Hunt, perhaps he'll share his conversation

with you.

I believe that they all started hunting Frazier & others after I let the cat out of the bag on Lancer some years back, as well as provided a group of names and addresses.

It is actually irrelevant to me personally what Heiberger did or did not tell Hunt.

I know what he told me, and that is all that I care about!

The hunting of Frazier was despicable.

The intellectual dishonesty of "Frazier Speaks" is egregious.

John Hunt very publicly accused Frazier of obstruction of justice

before he ever bothered to speak with the man.

Hunt took Frazier's comments out of context to create the impression

that Frazier told him 3 different "stories" about the FBI lab 11/22-23/63.

Hunt needed a body count -- Hunt always needs a body count.

Hunt has done some good work...Unfortunately he's also responsible for

arguably the worst work done by a professed CT in the case.

Based on a few other things inconclusive that have turned up, I'm currently inclined to think that WUBRINY/1 may have been Poppy himself, given the later known 12 June 1963 date for Devine being brought on board—at least in an "official" sense.

Ashton

Of course! (slaps me head)

A very reasonable conclusion given his ownership of Zapata Offshore.

To what god does the Harriman/Bush crime family pray?

Guns Oil Drugs

From my discussions, I found that I was the first (and perhaps the only) person to speak with Agent Heiberger in regards to the laboratory examination of the clothing[ and he certainly knew that there was some problems with what I was informing him as to the WC testimony stated and what he claimed was actually examined and how.

It is my sister's understanding that Heiberger refused to speak with Oliver Stone

for the making of "JFK," that Heiberger was extremely reluctant to ever speak of

the JFK case.

To the best of my knowledge, the only researcher other than Tom Purvis

to speak to Heiberger is John Hunt.

That I am aware of, no other researcher had ever spoken with him until such time as I made public that information relative to examination of the clothing on JFK Lancer some years back.

This may or may not be the case with John Hunt, as I know nothing of his having spoken with Agent Heiberger.

Hopefully Agent Heiberger discussed the topic with John Hunt, and we now have considerably more than just "Tom Says".

The name "Purvis" and a distant relationship to Melvin Purvis certainly opened many doors within the FBI to me.

Hunt refers to a conversation with Heiberger in "Frazier Speaks," which would have

been earlier this decade, I presume.

If you're on good terms with Hunt, perhaps he'll share his conversation

with you.

From the Ashton Gray et al timeline:

[*]The 26 April 1963 meeting of WUBRINY/1 (reportedly Thomas James Devine), Clemard Joseph Charles, and George DeMohrenschildt in the New York office of Wall Street investment firm Train, Cabot and Associates (a.k.a. WUSALINE).

Reportedly? It was recently confirmed by unearthed CIA memos, no?

http://realnews.org/rn/content/zapata.html

The Harriman/Bush crime family (Zapata Offshore/Train, Cabot and Associates)

did lots of smuggling out of Haiti, obviously, because Fidel crimped them a bit after

he used their bid'na to get into power and then turned red on 'em...

Just the 2 cents of an admitted hobbyist.

From my discussions, I found that I was the first (and perhaps the only) person to speak with Agent Heiberger in regards to the laboratory examination of the clothing[ and he certainly knew that there was some problems with what I was informing him as to the WC testimony stated and what he claimed was actually examined and how.

It is my sister's understanding that Heiberger refused to speak with Oliver Stone

for the making of "JFK," that Heiberger was extremely reluctant to ever speak of

the JFK case.

To the best of my knowledge, the only researcher other than Tom Purvis

to speak to Heiberger is John Hunt.

FBI Agent Henry Heiberger informed me that he X-rayed the hole in the shirt.

FWIW...interesting hearsay...

About 7 years ago my sister became acquainted with one of Henry Heiberger's

immediate family members, who spoke guardedly of Heiberger's work

on the Kennedy case.

The story my sister got was that Heiberger regarded the Warren Report as

a lie -- and that he'd never tell the truth about his examination of JFK's shirt

out of fear for his family and his pension.

As I say, FWIW....

In the anim below, the photo of the back of JFK's shirt was overlaid on the autopsy photo of the back wound, and a good faith effort was made to get the shirt situated in a reasonable approximation of correct size relative to the body, with attention to JFK's right shoulder and the neck line. The effort was hampered, of course, by the somewhat twisted position of JFK's body and the angle of his neck, but it is believed that the experiment is completely within acceptable tolerances for what is being demonstrated:

Ashton Gray

Thank you, Ashton!

Now we're on the same side...

That post was not directed toward you, Terry.

I know your heart is in the right place...

Jack, I went to Sibert's testimony and excerpted this for you. Compare it to how I summarized it versus the complete whole-cloth spy fiction you were fed:

I stand corrected on one point: the discussion among the 5 occured after

the probing of the back wound, but before the formal end of the autopsy.

Makes no material difference at what point this discussion occured,

only that it occured BEFORE the call to the FBI Lab and the JFK murder

cover-up kicked into high gear.

Ashton's fiction: that Sibert called the FBI "independent" of the autopsists input.

From the FBI autopsy report signed off on 11/26/63:

Insomuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain

area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area

of the body as determined by total body x-rays and inspection revealing

there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were

at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets.

Either Sibert and O'Neill did a Vulcan mind-meld with the autopsists, or

the issue was openly discussed right after the probing of the shallow back

wound.

From O'Neill's HSCA sworn affidavit 11/8/78:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact. There was no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet.

From Sibert's sworn HSCA affidavit 10/24/78:

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely...Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize.

When this discussion of blood soluble rounds occured the night of 11/22/63 is irrelevant.

Both FBI guys indicated in their 302 report and HSCA sworn affidavits that the

call to the FBI Lab followed a discussion among the 5 men after the probing of

the back wound.

When dealing with Ashton Gray, gentle reader, make sure yer back up bullxxxx detector

is in as tip-top shape as yer main rig...

The facts—according to the testimony and 302 report—

Citation please. Cherry-picking the testimonies won't do.

Sibert and O'Neill wrote sworn affidavits.

Where is the sworn testimony that contradicts the version both gave?

The absurdity of the CIA plotting for months to effect what has proven to be a very well-executed assassination,

only to leave their calling card of a type of projectile that only could have come from them is too ludicrous to entertain

The info that would tie them to the crime wasn't fully revealed until 1975.

—particularly from the very person going around claiming that at the same time the CIA purportedly were trying to frame a patsy (who had no record of even having been to Cuba) as being the trigger man for Fidel Castro in order to set off a military...

If you're not reading SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED, you're not researching the case.

Ashton, you don't seem to understand the complicity of Hoover.

The investigation was under the command and control of the perps.

Now that concept may be too simple for some supple minds to get around,

but I think anyone who has studied the case for 5 minutes will get it.

Charles Barkely once said of basketball beat writers -- "The more they

watch the game, the less they understand it."

Something like that is true of certain JFK researchers as well.

I love this line...Great writer, one of my favorites...

Ishmael Reed says in Mumbo Jumbo, "The real history of the world is a history of competing conspiracies."

From "Conspiracy" Theories vs. "Coincidence" Theories

by John Judge

It doesn't help that nowadays anybody with a suspicion and a bone to pick can be a Conspiracy Theorist, all you need is a website. If the latest rumor you hear fits your paranoid paradigm it must be true. If someone challenges it, they must be an agent of the conspiracy.

The latter is an interesting phenomenon.

I've recently been "obliquely" accused of being a "disinformation magpie,"

"agenda hornet," a perpetually prevaricating pet-creature of "THEY" -- all

very recently on this Forum.

The two views I've argued that engendered these smears are as follows:

1) CIA coup masters murdered JFK to establish the pretext for an invasion

of Cuba. In a broader context, there's a direct line of false-flag/ginned-intel

operations from Dealey Plaza to the Green Zone thru the Gulf of Tonkin and

Ground Zero.

2) The the nature of JFK's non-fatal back and throat wounds clearly

point to high tech weaponry known to have been available to the CIA

in 1963.

If I didn't have a sense of humor about myself -- if I took my research

so seriously that I actually thought anybody in the CIA actually gave a

xxxx -- then I'd suspect my attacker was himself a CIA disinformation agent.

No way.

I don't buy it for a second, even though he has been so accused by others.

We're both go-for-the-glory ego heads.

As far street cred goes, I got him beat by a mile...

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Th...p;search=Search

Why insist "BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A PARALYTIC AGENT"?

Because it is a fact of history that the autopsists and the FBI

men at the autopsy shared a "general feeling" that JFK's back

wound was caused by a blood soluble round.

If you are shooting to kill someone you don't fire rounds that penetrate

an inch, like the back wound, or nick the trachea, bruise the lung tip,

cause a hairline fracture of the tip of the T1 transverse process, then

stop and disappear leaving only an air pocket, as the throat shot did

No conventional medium powered firearm is going to do that, Charles.

JFK acted frozen in the motorcade....

Gentle reader,

...Let's look at the case a little differently...

A gunshot murder occurs in a large American city.

The autopsy is conducted by three doctors, with two FBI men observing

and taking notes.

After the autopsy the 5 men huddle to discuss what appears to be two

entry wounds with no exits and no bullets.

There is a "general feeling" that these wounds were made with a high tech

weapon.

The FBI men call the FBI Laboratory to inquire as to the existence of such

a weapon, and they are told that the CIA is purported to have a gun that

fires a round the size of a .22, designed to immobile a person within 2 seconds

with the round dissolving in the body and not turning up on x-ray.

The autopsists look at the x-ray: they see the bruised lung tip and a hairline

fracture of the T1 transverse process. There is a pocket of air overlaying the T1

and C7 transverse proccesses. A pocket of air, but no bullet.

Suddenly the door bursts open and someone comes running in with some film

of the shooting -- the victim acted frozen for 6 or 7 seconds before his head

was blown off.

Who are the FBI guys going to suspect first?

Someone within the CIA, of course.