Christopher Hall

Glad to hear it is not likely the Queen. When I was in University there was a group who met and called themselves the Society for Creative Anachronism. The 'Royals' seem like a society for not-very creative anachronism. I realize their role in your history, and don't mean to offend anyone who holds them in full esteem, but maybe they should be put in a museum [retired from active service], rather than the gold-rimmed fishbowl....but then what would the tabloids do?! Well, nice to know they are human....and have human foibles [if the blackmail allegtions are true]. When Princess Diana was done-in [as I so suspect!] they really should have perhaps rolled-up the institution in a long red carpet, and just stayed in their lovely hard-earned [sic] castles having tea and scones IMO. Strangely, in the USA we are turning our Presidency and Oligarchy into something more akin to your Royalty. [and we can 'see and raise' you, poker-style, with Mr. William Clinton anytime.] I agree. They are a boring lot, and the Brits, media, papparizi, etc. who fawn all over them similarly bore me. They should be treated as the relic that they are. And Diana certainly had more integrity than her in-laws.

I don't like the notion of using one's office to sic the authorities on political adversaries, whether it is a politically motivated wrongful prosecution of a rather independent-minded expert, like Dr. Wecht (whom I admire, from what I know of him) or WJC's causing the IRS to audit his adversary (Paula Jones) in a civil proceeding. We have an Assistant US Attorney in Tn who has unsucessfully prosecuted some political targets and who did not have much success in keeping the jury out for even a modest amount of time. When people are wrongfully prosecuted, they spend untold family savings and suffer the anguish that seemingly well-trained prosecutors are trying to take away their freedom. The stress, economic impact, and general ripple effect on people's lives is tremendous. Based on what I know, I hope that Wecht is exonerated at trial or, preferrably, that his prosecution be dropped. And, for that matter, I hope that some future Inspector General (or whatever relevant authority) inspects that US Attorney's office with the same white glove and microscope that it is apparently using on Wecht.

I agree with most of your observations, Charles, particularly No. 2 re segregating the how, who and why issues. And thanks for the gratuitous Hyman Roth quote. I find myself quoting Godfather I and II lines with some frequency.

Yes, to buy some LN theory(ies), Oswald and Ruby must both be cast as desparate losers who feel the need to assassinate someone to be famous or to vindicate themselves (or the Jewish people, in Ruby's alleged case). That is quite a peculier confluence of insecure assassins (an alleged Commie agitator and a mobbed up Jew who thinks that, by assassinating LHO, he will vindicate Jews (from what I don't know) everywhere). They should have been in therapy together giving each other a group hug. People assassinating others to gain immortal notiriety happens all the time, doesn't it? Every 10 - 15 years is more like it (Chapman, Hinckley come to mind).

John- I have tried to send you (or Andrew, who sends me updates under your signature) an avatar photo to post for me. I am clueless on posting phots. Thanks.

Then why, 43 years after the incident, doesn't the US government release the remaining evidence, information and documentation on this matter? Its release should simply reaffirm the government's initial position that LHO was the sole shooter and, thus, not compromise national security in any way. It looks to me like the US government has something to hide.

I agree that a shooter who is familiar with a specific fixed sight weapon can learn to compensate for any variance between his or her own hold, vision and aim and those of the machine or shooter who set the fixed sights. I frequently have to do that with fixed sight handguns, and I can essentially get the knack of aim and shot placement for a specific fixed sight gun by engaging in a lot of practice. The problem is exacerbated, of course, with a target which is moving, at an angle, away from the shooter. Left eye dominance, on the other hand, is analogous to a Biblical plague which afflicts right handed long gun shooters. I don't know whether LHO was left eye dominant and right handed, but perhaps he shot long guns from a left handed stance if that was, in fact, the case. I certainly haven't yet learned to shoot rifles and shotguns left handed, although it is on my long term to do list. I believe that a lot of this discussion is academic, though, because I don't believe that LHO was the lone gunman, if, indeed, he was a shooter at all.

The ex-Fug was Ed Sanders. Good book. [Coined the unforgettable term "vomit-eyed trolls of Satan."] Despite being primarily about Son Of Sam, also recommended for its overlapping content is The Ultimate Evil by Maury Terry. Thanks. I will try to order a used copy of Ultimate Evil on Amazon. Helter Skelter is largely about VB. More importantly, however, I can see the need for 1,600 pages to refute all of the various political dynamics, intelligence machinations, people in Dallas on 11/22/63, governmental cover-up, and other seeming coincidences that one must explain away to defend the LN position.

I plan to read "Guests of the Ayatollah" sometime in the next year or 2. I enjoyed Doctor Dealer, Blackhawk Down, and Killing Pablo. Interestingly, when I Googled "Larry Lavin" last night, it directed me to Wim's site and the interview with James Files. Lavin is the Ivy League dentist who became a fairly bigtime cocaine dealer in Philly in the 1980s. Files (if you believe him) talks about serving time with Lavin in prison and about how Lavin's brother gave him up to the authorites when he was busted on a pot charge. I looked up the US Bureau of Prisons info on Lavin last night and note that he was paroled 2 years ago. It would be interesting to know what he says about Files and any discussions that they had.

I agree with the need to review all POVs, and I wanted to get Posner's book to see how he treats (or, apparently, dismisses) important issues. I will pick up a used copy of VB's treatise on Amazon sometime in the near future so I can use it for the same purpose. I thought that Helter Skelter was of very modest quality, certainly compared to "The Family", which was outstanding. I will update this post later with the author of The Family, but he used to be a member of the 1960s era psychedelic band called the Fugs.

Does this mean you are fessing up to buying Reclaiming History? I must admit that I recently purchased (on Amazon) a copy of Case Closed, primarily to see how Posner addresses the various issues that we discuss on this forum and that I have read in detail about in the last 12 - 15 JFK assassination books I have read (e.g. Someone Would Have Talked). Fortunately, it came wrapped in newspaper inside the shipping box, so no one at the office could see what I purchased. Equally fortunately, the Federales who survey my book purchases can see that I am a good (i.e. LN) citizen.

I am getting the feeling that Portugal's criminal investigative capabilities are pretty similar to those of Aruba.

I agree with Terry and with a lot of what Tom says about Von Pein. He likes to employ personal attacks and cyber-vitriole instead of evidence. He kind of reminds me of VB on the Chris Matthews interview on Youtube.com. He is so over the top that I can't take him seriously, based on my review of his postings on the Google board.

I looked at the Google group, of which I was previously unaware. Von Pein certainly is a prolific poster.

Your analogies are spot on.

Thanks for the link, John. I will watch the film over the weekend. Who is the news media luminary who worked under LBJ? Influencing or controlling people who produce the movies we see and people who buy ink by the barrel are certainly good ways to impact public opinion.

The EHH "confession" to his son, St. John Hunt, is quite intriguing. I initially dismissed reports of it as an opportunity to give EHH one last chance to propagate more lies. But, after reading the interview of St. John Hunt in Rolling Stone, I think that it may contain some truth, because it really sounded more like an admission against interests and less like the posthumous deflection of blame that DAP is said to have written. In the Rolling Stone article, St. John describes a piece of paper which his father requested that he return after one of their spats. I believe that St. John kept a copy of it. It had "LBJ" at the top of the page and several other names written on it. Cord Meyer is one of the names, and he refers to a French sniper (presumably Lucien Sarti) on the GK. I don't recall the piece of paper showing the names of any Cubans or organized crime characters, but, if EHH is being truthful with his son (perhaps a first), I anticipate that Cubans and organized crime figures probably would have acted in supporting roles to a CIA (or, at least, CIA rogue agent) - orchestrated assassination. This scenario sounds plausible and implicates the CIA, which renders it an admission against interests and not a deflection of blame. Maybe EHH finally remembered, before he died, where he was when the assassination news broke. I will look forward to reading a summary of this discussion.

A good deal of Hopsicker's material is on his site. Can you highlight what you think his most compelling points are? You've made this claim before, can you document it? Peter wrote: You've made this claim before, can you document it? Citation? I have questions about Hopsicker's veracity. I just completed reading "Barry and the Boys", and his style vacillates from being quite credible to innuendo based on comments with a guy named "Blackie" from Miami and many pages of extremely redacted text, which apparently result from threats of litigation by a lawyer. It is still worth reading, but he should have quit after he completed the first 75% of the text. Maybe his 9-11 book is more credible, but, the more I read of "Barry and the Boys", the less convninced I felt about his veracity.

Great video, my love. Recall David Morales is alleged to have told Bob Waldon re JFK "Well we took care of that son of a bitch didn't we". The Last Investigation Gaeton Fonzi p390. Dawn psw Now Gratz what were you saying on some other thread about"proof the CIA was not involved"? Horsehockey!! The following is a good article which appeared in the Guardian last year. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1952393,00.html To me, the people who were apparently in the ballroom are as important as the number of shots that were fired, the destruction of evidence by the LAPD (I know, I am shocked, too), the woman in the polka dot dress, the angle of the injuries, and the master spy (Khaiber Khan) who worked as a volunteer in the local RFK campaign office during June 1 - 4, 1968. The following is another good site on this topic. http://flag.blackened.net/daver/misc/rfk.html

Tim- PM me sometime about where you live and work in KW. I get down there once or twice a year. I have tried to PM you, but your inbox is always full. Chris

"This is why Murdoch and other successfully capitalists did not grasp the importance of the web when it arrived. He could not see how he could make a profit out of the web. The multinationals tried the idea of subscription sites but they could not make it work while people like me gave their information away for free. In certain areas of the economy, such as the communication industry, the web poses a serious threat to capitalism. The mass media has always been controlled by the wealthy and powerful. I believe that the development of the web will undermine this idea. In fact, I believe it will eventually revive our threatened democratic system." I hope that the web will continue to revive the exchange of ideas, unfettered by economic loyalties, influences and relationships, and the fostering of debate. However, that it poses no threat to capitalism, even though it clearly poses a threat to certain sectors of the mass media, which is a good thing. The web has been a great thing for capitalism (e.g. Amazon.com, my personal weakness). Some sectors hit it right, and others decline from its free exchange of information and ideas. The media, or the Fourth Estate (as it was formerly known), was able to unilaterally control the scope of the public discourse, which was an unfortunate cornering of the market on ideas and debate. Now, however, when it makes a mistake, its error is seized on by bloggers, who frequently challenge the offender so boldly that he or she has to make a correction or retraction. Talk about a healthy change of course.

The inmates are running the asylum. Send in the clowns.

I concur with Bill that we don't need another Congressional investigation or a JFK Truth Czar. We need access to government-held data and documentation. I certainly trust people like Larry Hancock to distill that type of information more than any committee that the Congress or President could assign to the task. We have already had a Presidential commission and a House committee investigation. I confess ingnorance of the JFK Act, but I will search around to find a link and get up to speed on it. Governmental refusal to open records on aged old crimes and other non-national security matters creates in me (perhaps as a result of being a lawyer) a strong, but potentially rebuttable presumption that it is significant and adverse to the party sitting on it. By way of example, I recently read "The Black Dahlia Files: The Mob, the Mogul and the Murder that transfixed Los Angeles," by Donald H. Wolfe, which makes a compelling case of mob (Bugsy Segal) and media (the Chandler family) involvement in the case. More troublesome, though, is the revelation that the LAPD is still sitting on the vast majority of evidence adduced in its investigation of the 60 year old murder. Does the LAPD actually think that revealing any of the Black Dahlia info could result in someone having a worse opinion of it? Get real. Maybe I am too susceptible to CTs in general, but I distrust governmental secrecy on matters which don't involve national security; and, when a governmental body creates and enforces an unnecessary veil of secrecy, I get suspicious.

I just ordered "All American Mafioso: The Johnny Rosselli Story" from Amazon. I may tackle it after I finish "Barry and the Boys", which is an excellent read. I have read "Double Cross ..." by Sam Giancanna's brother (or step or half brother), but parts of it seem to be a stretch. I have also read "Cigar City Mafia", but have not yet read "The Silent Don." I doubt that Roselli left a lot of evidence strewn about, but I hope to garner some information about it, particularly about his stints in LA and No Name Key (where I have spent a fair amount of time). I am hopeful that some of these books will give me some insights into their respective subjects and their mindsets and motives.

No, but it only applies to confidences (revealed by the client) and to matters that the attorney should know to be harmful to the client's interests or reputation. In this case, however, Roselli was apparently using his lawyer as his mouthpiece ( for revelations, disinformation, or both) to the media, which I had forgotten. Roselli is an interesting figure, and I would sure like to be privy to the information that he took to his grave.