Christopher Hall

I would certainly be interested in the info, but, as an attorney, I don't like seeing another lawyer completely ignore the attorney-client privilege. I don't care how long it has been or how egregious the crime, if a client confides in a lawyer, the attorney should take the confidential info to his or her grave.

I don't care whether Craig (or anyone) is gay or straight, but trolling for sex in a public bathroom is disgusting. And his "I am not gay" protestations ring as hollow as Nixon's "I am not a crook." Incidentally, I passed through the Minneapolis - St. Paul Airport a couple of times over the weekend, but I didn't see any cops or politicians trolling for action. And to think that he probably paid some consultant to assert that he adopted a wide stance.

As I recall, either the History Channel or A & E did a 5 evening special entitled "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" in November, 2003, but I was unaware of what PBS was airing in connection with the 40th anniversary. In fact, I think that I have it on DVD. In reality, even if O'Reilly wanted to truly push the issue and give it a lot of continued air time, the decision as to whether to proceed in that manner would invariably be made above his pay grade, presumably by Roger Ailes or Rupert Murdoch after they had received a visit from someone high up in the Administration. Maybe envisioning O'Reilly taking on VB is just wishful thinking, but I would like to see someone cross swords with VB instead of, in effect, asking him why we should buy his book.

I think that O'Reilly's ego and bombastic style would be an interesting antedote for VB's. O'Reilly would interrupt and talk over VB the entire interview. I don't think that he would be a LN lapdog like Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity.

Harold Ford, Sr.'s son, Harold, Jr., no longer serves in Congress. He gave up his House seat in 2006 in connection with an unsuccessful campaign against Bob Corker to succeed Bill Frist in the Senate. Harold Ford, Jr. is the Director of the Democratic Leadership Conference (Bill Clinton's benefactor organization in 1992), and he is a commentator on Fox News Channel and a Director of Merrill Lynch. I think that he holds 2 or 3 more positions, but I can't recall them. Harold Ford, Sr. is a lobbyist in Miami, Fla. The "Ford" seat that was held by Sr. and Jr. for 30 years is now held by Steve Cohen, a white former State Senator who is much more liberal than Jr. Cohen may actually be a great candidate for Congressional sponsorship of efforts to re-investigate the assassination of JFK and its cover-up. My guess is that Jr., who is perhaps more influential now than when he was a member of Congress, would probably oppose the re-investigation of the assassination of JFK and its cover-up as a result of his "centrist" views. Chris, I think important to understand that Congress will not and should not re-investigate the assassination of JFK, nor is anyone other than TGratz trying to convince anyone that is the way to go. As far as Congress goes, the legislative branch of government is responsible for making laws, overseeing them and approving the budget. If we can convince Congress of anything, they should live up to their responsibilty to oversee the JFK Act, and hold hearings on the issues related to that law - the destruction of records, missing documents and the illegal withholding of documents. When those oversight hearings on the JFK Act are held, and they will be some day, then they will spark additonal legal actions - that will assit in the eventual solving of the crime. Congress, as we learned from the HSCA, is no place to investigate a homicide, but they have an important role to play, and the citizens and the public must convince them to do their job. Trying to convince them to re-investigate the assassination will get nowhere. Bill Kelly What you are saying makes sense. Nothing would come of yet another Congressional investigation into the assassination, and I wouldn't trust the results anyway, because it would wind up being just another brokered bipartisan report. But, it will be fun to see whether Congress can determine what happened in the Men's room of the Minneapolis - St. Paul Airport a few months ago, which should be considerably more in keeping with what Congress is capable of competently investigating.

What about Nancy Grace, Catherine Crier, Gloria Allred, Geraldo, or Greta van Susteren? They all claim to be lawyers. Seriously, though, Dershowitz has the greatest combination of gravitas and national visibility. I suspect that he would also spoil for the opportunity to nail VB to the barn door. I also think that he could parlay the matter into serious air time, which would inexorably be followed by his own book.

Harold Ford, Sr.'s son, Harold, Jr., no longer serves in Congress. He gave up his House seat in 2006 in connection with an unsuccessful campaign against Bob Corker to succeed Bill Frist in the Senate. Harold Ford, Jr. is the Director of the Democratic Leadership Conference (Bill Clinton's benefactor organization in 1992), and he is a commentator on Fox News Channel and a Director of Merrill Lynch. I think that he holds 2 or 3 more positions, but I can't recall them. Harold Ford, Sr. is a lobbyist in Miami, Fla. The "Ford" seat that was held by Sr. and Jr. for 30 years is now held by Steve Cohen, a white former State Senator who is much more liberal than Jr. Cohen may actually be a great candidate for Congressional sponsorship of efforts to re-investigate the assassination of JFK and its cover-up. My guess is that Jr., who is perhaps more influential now than when he was a member of Congress, would probably oppose the re-investigation of the assassination of JFK and its cover-up as a result of his "centrist" views.

Well spoken. There are a lot of people, on both sides of the political spectrum, who were born a long time after 11/22/63 and who are extremely concerned about the current loss of individual liberty and the legislative, executive, judicial and bureaucratic facilitation of a police state. The comparison of 11/22/63 and today is replete with similarities, and the continuing governmental veil of secrecy surrounding the JFK assassination is emblamatic of the reasons which exist today for public distrust of government.

I would be happy to spring for some money for the ad, but I agree with some of the above ideas re corporate and foundation sponsorship. It would be quite helpful to have a few people in Congress who would spearhead any re-investigation initiatives. Someone who has no qualms about mixing things up with the CIA would be particularly suited to the task. I don't think that most Americans know that a lot of the results of government-sponsored "investigations" into the JFK assassination remain under lock and key or have been lost or destroyed. What security reason remains, 44 years after the assassination, for not revealing that info? Whose career will be destroyed at this late juncture (noting that EHH is deceased)? Someone who is on whatever House and Senate intelligence appropriations committees should be in a position to ask the FBI and CIA these questions, particularly in the upcoming election cycle.

I sounds like one of the Murchison women shopped like Imelda Marcos and Robert Mugabe's wife. The 11/21/63 meeting at Clint Murchison's house has intrigued me for quite some time. The lowest price on Amazon for a copy of "Texas in the Morning" is $74.00, which is somewhat steep. I have seen footage of LBJ's girlfriend, who attended the "smoker" (as Barr McClellan called it) at Murchison's house, and I had some doubts as to her credibility. I may be wrong about those doubts. I would like to read some more about the soiree. Liver toxicity is a side effect of acetaminophen, but I would think that you would have to take a ridiculous amount of it to cause death. Clint Murchison seems like a shadowy firgure in the assassination, who was either not involved in it or who has done a masterful job insulating himself from scrutiny with respect to his role in it. Thanks for the interesting thread.

Someone should check Dick Cheney's whereabouts on the date of the death.

I have a hard time believing that Sullivan died accidentally under these circumstances, because: 1. Hunters wear copious amounts of blaze orange clothing (assuming he was a safe hunter); 2. He foretold his likely death; 3. It is difficult (but not impossible) to mistake a deer (particularly one with antlers if it was buck season) for a human; and 4. There were a lot of other deaths, of people who may have relevant testimony in the HSAC proceedings, at that time.

Hemingway worked for ONI during WWII, sailing the Pilar out of Cuba and Key West, reporting on any sightings of Nazi U boats. His son was an OSS Jedberg, parachuted behind the lines before D-Day to meet with partisan commandos, but was captured. Hemingway then became a war correspondent, liberating the bar at the Hotel Ritz in Paris with OSS officer David Bruce. His mental health may have deteriated at the end, and like DeMohrenschildt, officially died from a shotgun blast to the head. Bk Corn is an awful writer, and I don't think that I have read (yet) Russo's epistle, The Outfit (about the Chicago mob). And they say "Blowing away Castro at the onetime home of Ernest Hemingway" like it's some kind of bad thing. I appreciate the reminder of Hemingway's prior service during WWII. I think that he actually chronicles it in one of his posthumously published works, the name of which presently escapes me. The name of the book is "Islands in the Stream".

I agree. So do I. The government's refusal to release all data, 44 years after the assassination, essentially creates a presumption of conspiracy which must be rebutted by Bugliosi, Posner et al. In civil matter in the US, the loss or destruction of evidence by a party (i.e. spoliated evidence) creates a legal presumption that the same is contrary to the interests of such party. What secrutiy interest of the US would be breached if it is revealed that: (a) JFK was assassinated by factions of the CIA who colluded with some Mafia dons and anti-Castro Cubans, ( LEO was a CIA asset (in Japan, the USSR, Mexico City, New Orleans and Dallas), © Gerald Ford believes that the neck area extends half-way down to the tail bone, (d) Ted Kennedy and the rest of the family really don't buy the WC as the final word on JFK's assassination, (e) LBJ and some of his oil buddies/benefactors may have had prior knowledge of the assassination, or (f) the AG and the CIA were conspiring with the Mafia to hit Castro? Do Congress and the President really think that they have any remaining credibility that would be lost by any such revelations? Perhaps all 535 members of Congress could take a break from their busy earmark efforts to give this issue some legislative attention. Wouldn't that be just swell? And since, per Pelosi, "impeachment is off the table," the table has plenty of room for the critical business of finally exposing the truth about President Kennedy's murder. I don't expect [sadly] to see it in my lifetime.....the Empire is too intact and the Serfs too passive. I agree. The issue isn't even particularly newsworthy to most Americans. And Congress, the CIA and the FBI are not going to try to unravel (or cooperate with the solving of) the mystery at this juncture. Maybe it will get a little attention on the 45th anniversary.

Bill O'Reilly is a supreme right wing jerk. Jack A cerebral response, indeed. And your selection for television personalities to advance and debate the CT issue would be? I don't watch O'Reilly, but his ratings dwarf those of CNN, MSNBC and the other Fox News Channel shows. He already (unlike, say, his left-wing counterpart, Chris Matthews) thinks that the MB theory is garbage, and he would get the CT issue the visibility that it needs. When you quote someone's post, you may want to respond to what they say. Matthews is equally obnoxious. But either O'Reilly or Matthews would attract attention. Also obnoxious, but with far greater credibility if he would "confess", is none other than Danny Rather. Imagine if he would say I WAS PART OF THE COVERUP! None of the above has real "credibility". Someone I think people would respect would be Brian Williams of NBC, whose stance on JFK seems untainted as far as I know. One with great credibility (but who is a lone nut believer unfortunately) would be Bob Schieffer, who was there on 11-22. If you want a "debate" let's pit Fetzer, Marrs and Lifton vs Bugliosi, Posner and Mailer. If Prouty were alive, I'd want him on my team also. I hope you find this reply satisfactory. Jack Sorry for my tempermant, Jack. I was no gentleman, and I edited my post. I agree that Brian Williams would be a great spokesperson for advancing the issue. He may have the most credibility of any media personality in the US today. Rather fessing up to being part of the cover-up could certainly not hurt his negligible credibility at this point. Best regards. Chris

Bill O'Reilly is a supreme right wing jerk. Jack The fact that he is a narcissistic jerk may make him a good one to advance the CT issue. I don't watch O'Reilly, but his ratings have historically dwarfed those of CNN, MSNBC and the other Fox News Channel shows. He already (unlike, say, his left-wing counterpart, Chris Matthews) thinks that the MB theory is garbage, and he would get the CT issue the visibility that it needs. I don't care who gets the CT issue and debate in the public domain, and not just within the research community and occasional authors.

Actually, getting O'Reilly interested in the assassination debate would be a great thing, particularly in view of his prior piece on the MB. He would stay on the matter until he got the attention of someone in Congress, and he would demand that all records be opened. He single-handedly revealed the fraud that the Red Cross was perpetrating on the public post 911 when it was keeping most of the money that donors sent it for that specific purpose. He brutalized the Red Cross until it completely changed its distribution method (and percentages) to bring them into considerably greater conformity with donors' expectations. It would be a great opportunity for someone like Larry Hancock to appear and challenge Bugliosi or Posner to a debate. The only other current television personality who I think would do a good job on this matter would be Keith Olberman, but no one, other than NBC close friends and family, watch his show.

I agree. So do I. The government's refusal to release all data, 44 years after the assassination, essentially creates a presumption of conspiracy which must be rebutted by Bugliosi, Posner et al. In civil matter in the US, the loss or destruction of evidence by a party (i.e. spoliated evidence) creates a legal presumption that the same is contrary to the interests of such party. What secrutiy interest of the US would be breached if it is revealed that: (a) JFK was assassinated by factions of the CIA who colluded with some Mafia dons and anti-Castro Cubans, ( LEO was a CIA asset (in Japan, the USSR, Mexico City, New Orleans and Dallas), © Gerald Ford believes that the neck area extends half-way down to the tail bone, (d) Ted Kennedy and the rest of the family really don't buy the WC as the final word on JFK's assassination, (e) LBJ and some of his oil buddies/benefactors may have had prior knowledge of the assassination, or (f) the AG and the CIA were conspiring with the Mafia to hit Castro? Do Congress and the President really think that they have any remaining credibility that would be lost by any such revelations? Perhaps all 535 members of Congress could take a break from their busy earmark efforts to give this issue some legislative attention.

And isn't it coincidental that a mob-connected strip joint operator would be so driven by the notion of the First Lady having to testify at trial that he would essentially sacrifice his own life to stop it. Similarly coincidental are his visit(s) to Cuba to see Santo and his feeling the need to go to Parkland Hospital after the hit.

Thanks for the great article. I find the fortuitious get-togethers at the Cabana and the supposed party thrown or attended by the Hunts, LBJ and a host of significant others to be quite interesting. Do you have any recommendations as to what books (or other resources) which thorougly cover them? Thanks.

I have almost finished Cigar City Mafia by Scott and have just received, via Amazon, The Silent Don. I have thoroughly enjoyed Scott's writing style and have found Cigar City Mafia easy to read, unlike some of the JFK assassination epistles that I have recently read (and enjoyed, even though getting through them was a lengthy, laborious exercise). Thanks for the helpful work, Scott.

I agree with you, Charles. I watched a segment on you-tube yesterday which featured Bugliosi on Chris Matthews and some CT person whose name I didn't hear. Bugliosi doesn't debate fairly, with any level of civility or fact-based argument, but only with diatribe, spin and hectoring. He is useless, and is merely pitching a book. Kind of like he did with Helter Skelter, which was really more about him than the Mansion murders and Family. Ignore him and he will go away until he writes some other drivel.

I agree that citizens of any country have an obligation to criticize governmental wrongs and to read, view or listen to media with a good bit of skepticism (or even disbelief with respect to sources which have squandered their credibility chasing bad stories, etc.). Our media in the US is primarily focused on stories about missing white coeds and American Idol and Dancing with the Stars finalists to the exclusion of the pursuit of truth in meaningful matters.

Did the CBS exercise involve moving targets? Also, it would be interesting to know what type of field of vision the Carcano's scope provided. Sometimes a very narrow field of vision will occur when certain adjustments to the scope have been made. The nature and name of the scope feature doesn't come to mind, but, when present, it can make for a field of vision which takes extra time for me to pick up. I would find it considerably easier to try to quickly pick up the target through iron sights than a mil-dot scope, but I am not much of a rifleman. Update: The scope adjustment to which I was referring is the adjustment for eye relief.

Thanks for the great link. I watched all 11 segments. I also recommend , which is entitled CAI Involvement in RFK Assassination.I particularly found the LAPD's discarding or destruction of the doorframe from the kitchen/pantry (the one with the 2 bullet holes in it) to be quite plausible, kind of like the FBI's losing the front door of the Branch Dividian compound, which would either reveal entry or exit bullet holes. And the guy that LAPD trots out to smooth over this issue and others is none other than Daryl Gates, whom I recall being fairly discredited in the Rodney King case. The LAPD still refuses to release the vast majority of the Black Dahlia file sixty (60) years after Elizabeth Short was murdered.