Wim Dankbaar

Kathy, Sorry, my mistake, I should have looked first, instead of assuming there was no existing thread. As for the Wim/Pam go 'round, you may have noticed I was the one that was attacked. I simply took my right to defend myself against baseless accusations and slander. Gary Mack can do the same if he feels I am not telling the truth. Mark, maybe you didn't know I have a website? Here's an idea: I'll give the 6th floor museum the right to reproduce my DVD "The Grassy Knoll" to include as a gift for every single visitor that buys an admittance ticket. How's that for a gesture? Gary may even market it as an example of "conspiracy lunacy". Wim

The best lies usually come in a package of friendliness and civility. I say the JFK assassination was an evil thing for freedom and democracy (and thus America). I say Gary Mack- especially as the knowledgeable researcher he is deemed by some - is intelligent enough to know full well that his propaganda for the idea that there was no shot from the grassy knoll , is a deliberate lie. By grooming and cultivating that lie through national media he is protecting evil. It makes him an ally of evil. He is the unofficial propaganda minister for the ongoing cover-up. If I cannot say that on a forum that is dedicated to finding out what happened on 11/22/1963, then I might as well surrender to evil right away. Besides, Gary knows my opinion, I have given it to him before. http://jfkmurdersolved.com/mack.htm Look at the first clip there. Proof that Gary Mack is very capable to use his brains. Wim

Duke, I bet you can discredit Mother Theresa and Abraham Lincoln if you put yourself to it. I gave you his real testimony and will leave it to the discretion of the reader. Wim

If there's one person who deserves his own thread, it's Gary Mack. How should I start? Gary Mack is the propaganda minister for the cover-up of the JFK assassination! Now, don't delete this, moderators. I'm very serious and I can sustain the argument. Gary Mack is a grown man, peeks at this forum every day and can defend himself. He never does, and that has a reason. I predict he will avoid the debate because he knows he will lose. Right Gary? Wim

Duke, it's just funny that you label the EXACT testimony of Richard Carr as "obvious bull" before even reading it! (by your own admission) It's further funny that you can't consider the possibility that the FBI lied or altered statements. That's real funny, especially for a researcher of this case. Would you rather have no response at all on behalf of dead witnessess? So that the mud sticks on the wall? Is that your idea of research? Show me Carr's exact words where he said what you claim he said. Maybe a document? An affidavit? A testimony transcript? Show me who put out the "obvious bull". You or me? Wim

DAP was not indicted, but publicly accused of involvement. Wim Current Board of Directors Our History During the 1970s the Intelligence Community was buffeted by a number of leaks and revelations, culminating in the Church and Pike Congressional investigations. CIA officer David Atlee Phillips took early retirement in 1975 to respond to the growing sentiment that the CIA was a “rogue elephant.” As part of this effort, Phillips founded this organization, known then as the Association of Retired Intelligence Officers (ARIO). Although much attacked at the time when many people called for the dismantlement of the CIA, Phillips toured the world to speak out in favor of the need for a strong intelligence community. He was subsequently personally accused of being a participant in the Kennedy and Letelier assassinations. He successfully sued several publications for libel, retractions were issued and monetary damages awarded. Phillips donated some of these proceeds to ARIO for the purpose of creating a legal defense fund for American intelligence officers who felt they were the victims of libel. This defense focus was later moved to a separate group called Charter, which disbanded in the early 1980s, and AFIO's focus narrowed to public education within its 501©3 charter. http://www.afio.com/01_about.htm

Duke, You have the story on Carr wrong on several occasions. That's because you draw from second hand stories. Lot of misinfo on the internet. The real testimony of Carr is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. Nowhere did Carr say that one man was a negro. Neither did he say this: I suggest you read this to know exactly what Carr said: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/pdf/carr.doc Wim

Here's why Bruce and I will always get along: 10 mrt 2006 - 1:54 BB REPLY Dear Ms. Nancy Eldreth, I have just reviewed your email. Get a life, you low life sick, mental case. Your opinion counts for nothing. Don't go away mad, just go away. You had to go to Holland to find friends because you've been kicked out of the U.S., practically speaking. Nancy, take your medication. Also, Nancy, I was responding to emails sent to me you simpleton. You can't read, and you can't research, all you can do is gossip. You're a lying, two faced, back stabbing bitch, and everybody knows it. Who cares how many old letters you have. Further proof of how sick you are. You have to count old letters. Also, any moron can get a letter into the library. Nancy, go away. Take your medication like a good little mental case. Respectfully, Bruce Patrick Brychek. ********** Hurray, I agree with Pamela Ray (that rhimes!) Sweetheart, I told Nancy Eldreth you were playing head games with her. Please do not write to her at all anymore. She and Bob still want all this insanity to end up in court for all the wrong reasons. I told her I was sorry for letting this go on and on. Jimmy, she really is someone who hurts our credibility because of how confused she is naturally and then mix in the fun and games…well she can’t handle it. It doesn’t look good for us saying we are Christians and then this is going on. Please do not add to this mess. Find a new way to stir the pot if you need to do it for reasons I trust you with. Okay Honey? It will make my life much easier. I’m already dealing with her lies about me that she gets from Vernon. PLEASE STOP IT!

Mr. Kennedy further advised that because of this matter it would be very difficult to initiate any prosecution against Giancana ............. It appears Roselli has since that time, nevertheless, used his prior connections with CIA to his best advantage. For example, in May 1966, when contacted by Agents of this Bureau in connection with our current investigation of his activities, he refused to talk and immediately flew to Washington DC, and consulted with Colonel Sheffield Edwards, who is now retired from CIA. Colonel Edwards in turn advised CIA, which told us. Mr. Howard J. Osborn, the present Director of Security, CIA, freely has admitted to us that Roselli has CIA in an unusually vulnerable position and that he would have no qualms about embarrassing CIA if it served his own interests. In furnishing this information, Mr. Osborn asked that it be held within this Bureau on a strictly need-to-know basis. http://jfkmurdersolved.com/pdf/roselli5b.pdf (page 54/55)

Documents show that in August 1960, a senior CIA official, Richard Bissell, asked another agency veteran, Sheffield Edwards, if he "had assets that may assist in a sensitive mission requiring gangster-type action," according to the documents. "The mission target was Fidel Castro," one memo said. Edwards suggested the CIA could recruit mobsters by contacting Robert Maheu, a former FBI agent who'd become a top aide to billionaire Howard Hughes. Maheu, who had previous CIA contacts, agreed to work as a middleman, the memos show. He proposed the agency recruit Las Vegas mobster Johnny Roselli, whom he described as a "high-ranking member of the syndicate" and who "controlled all the ice-making machines on the Strip." The documents describe how Maheu approached Roselli at the Hilton Plaza Hotel in New York in September 1960. Maheu had been told to disguise his interest in the matter. "It was to be made clear to Roselli that the United States government was not, and should not, become aware of this operation," one memo said. Instead, Maheu told Roselli he represented businessman who had lost fortunes thanks to Castro's seizure of power in Havana in 1959 - and who were willing to pay $150,000 to have the Cuban dictator killed. Roselli was initially cool to the idea of a contract on Castro, but he arranged for Maheu to meet two other men, whom he called "Sam Gold" and "Joe." "Sam Gold" was actually Sam Giancana, the Al Capone-trained head of the Chicago mob, and "Joe" was Santo Trafficante, another mob boss. The plot took a new twist when, at a meeting in a Miami Beach hotel, Giancana offered his professional advice: Getting close enough to Castro with a gun would be a problem, but he might be poisoned. The CIA took the hint and provided "Joe" with six pills of "high lethal content." Giancana passed them on to Juan Orta, a Cuban official who was close to Castro and having money problems. "After several weeks of reported attempts, Orta apparently got cold feet and asked out of the assignment," one document said. "He suggested another candidate who made several attempts without success." Eventually, the plan was dropped because of the disastrous CIA-run Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, in the early weeks of John F. Kennedy's presidency. The documents were compiled in the early 1970s when then-CIA Director James Schlesinger was angered to learn that the agency had provided help to former agents involved in the Watergate break-in. Schlesinger ordered "all senior operating officials of this agency to report to me immediately" on any possibly illegal activity they were involved in - but the results were not made public until yesterday. "These are the top CIA officers all going into the confessional and saying, 'Forgive me, father, for I have sinned,' " said Thomas Blanton, director of the private National Security Archive, which had requested release of the documents. Some of the "Family Jewels" secrets had surfaced before - during the White House and congressional investigations of the CIA in the 1970s and in press reports. One of the most infamous cases involved the CIA testing hallucinogens on unwitting subjects. Agency germ-warfare expert Frank Olson died in a fall from a hotel window in 1953, nine days after a CIA doctor spiked Olson's drink with LSD. President Gerald Ford apologized to the family in 1975; the government also paid $750,000 to his relatives. The anti-Castro plot was first reported thanks to Roselli, the documents show. The mobster eventually realized he had been dealing with the CIA and not with disgruntled businessmen. After he was convicted in the 1960s of cheating members of the Friars Club "in a rigged gin rummy game," he wanted the government to ensure he wouldn't be deported, the documents show. Roselli renewed his concern, passed on through Maheu, in 1970 after exhausting appeals of his conviction. The CIA decided not to intervene. In 1971, columnist Jack Anderson revealed the CIA-Maheu-Roselli-Giancana connection - the biggest black eye for the agency up until that time. Anderson and three of his "leg men" aides were later put under CIA surveillance to detect their sources for other stories, the files show. In one of the bizarre footnotes to the Castro contract, Giancana asked Maheu for help with a personal matter during their negotiations. He suspected his girlfriend, singer Phyllis McGuire, had been romantically involved with comedian Dan Rowan while both were starring at a Las Vegas club, the documents show. Giancana wanted Maheu to bug the hotel room of Rowan, later the star of "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In." But the surveillance expert assigned to the job was caught and arrested. The Justice Department brought charges against both the expert and Maheu. Attorney General Robert Kennedy - one of Giancana's bitter enemies during his mob-busting days - was asked for help. "At our request, prosecution was dropped," according to an internal CIA memo. The dirty-laundry documents unveiled yesterday add other footnotes to the history of the 1960s and 1970s. In other memos, CIA officials express concern about money from the agency being used by the Nixon administration to answer letters and telegrams from Americans who approved of President Richard Nixon's controversial May 1970 speech defending the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia. The documents indicate the CIA was reimbursed by the White House for the quarter of a million letters sent out. Also, documents from December 1970 show that the head of the new Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, Robert Ingersoll, asked CIA Director Richard Helms for "some assistance in shoring up the internal integrity" of his agency. Ingersoll said the old Bureau of Narcotics "had been heavily infiltrated by dishonest and corrupt elements who were believed to have ties with the narcotics smuggling industry," one memo said. The documents indicated CIA trained narcotics agents, including some who served informants about misdeeds by co-workers. There are also occasional references in the files to former CIA agents, such as Watergate figure E. Howard Hunt. In the spring of 1972, weeks before the Watergate burglary, Hunt called a CIA official and asked if he knew of an agency "retiree or resignee who was accomplished at picking locks." Last week, CIA Director Michael Hayden commented that "the documents provide a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency." With Post Wire Services andy.soltis@nypost.com http://www.nypost.com/seven/06272007/news/...ltis.htm?page=0

Ernst Kaltenbrunner was once a feared and respected man. Another day he was sentenced to death.

November 4 , 2008 (fragment) Hi Jimmy, Thanks for your card. Once you receive this letter, you may already have sent me another. What can I say? I sure hope you will be able to beat it and manage to keep in good spirits. That’s what I admire the most in you, that you can keep your spirits and humor under the harshest circumstances. I think many people would have given up or have a depression already, but you’re a soldier always going to battle. Enclosed is some updates on communications and bickering that has been going on. Let me be frank with you. I dislike Pam with a passion. I have thought for a long time that she has a nasty self centered, revenge oriented character, who always puts the blame for mishaps and disfortune with others. I know this probably does not match your feelings about her, but I will tell you anyway. I want you to know that whatever agreement I would strike with her, I do for you and myself, not for her. The woman has tried to damage me enough to feel no compassion for her. The new agreement with her, I would only do to please you and take a stone out of my shoe. Frankly , there is nothing else for me to gain. I can handle her also when she persists in trying to be a pain in the ass. It’s funny that good friends of yours have a similar take on her. What is yours without bullxxxxting me? Let me know your position on what you truly want. I can do the new agreement with her if that’s what you want. (However, I am going to stick to the release.) *************************** Is Mr. Dankbaar thankful and fair to his helpers? Are you thankful and fair to your helper? These questions are totally irrelevant for an agreement. Frankly I don't care anymore if she is thankful or not. She has said many times she is thankful but her behaviour shows otherwise. She has also shown she has broken every promise she made me and signed for. As for me, I have been thankful for what she did untill she started breaking the agreements. And I have rewarded her accordingly and exactly according to our agreements. I have even given her exactly what she asked for each time she knocked on my door. So in fact I have been more than accomodating than what she originally asked for. Time and again I have extended my generosity. It appears that I have a hard time convincing you of this. Let me give you what I offered her in 2004, right after the loan agreement when she started to tell me that she felt being screwed: You have got quite a nerve. You got to see Jimmy and your trip was paid for. Just because of the new interview. You've got a great 60 extra pages for the book. Added credibility for the book because of my documentary. You got 10 grand on top of that, for which you had to do NOTHING. Possible future revenue in addition. Another 15 K loan to bridge the time to the book I'm sorry I did that now. And then I financed your book in the first place. You dare to say you feel screwed? There's something wrong with you! Okay! Let's reverse the whole deal. I won't use the interview, I won't market it as a separate product and you wire back 25K tomorrow, plus the money I spent for your travel and stay. How is that? Does that wake you up? Wim And her response: From: Pam To: Wim Dankbaar Cc: Daniel Marvin Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:54 PM Subject: Re: About feeling screwed I see your points Wim and I'm sorry for going off on you. As you know, I want to bring Jimmy home as soon as possible because his health is not going to last forever in there. He has been very sick since they made him stand outside in 20 degree weather for a couple of hours about a month ago. I love him and I want to help him sooner than later...that's all. I guess I should say I feel frustrated, not that I feel screwed. Sorry. Pam And don't forget that Files told Pamela Ray repeatedly to leave it alone and get on with her life. He also told Bruce Brychek repeatedly that he fully stands behind the 2003 interview. See for example email below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce P. Brychek To: David Cannon Cc: Wim Dankbaar Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:32 AM Subject: Re: James Files BB REPLY: Dear Mr. David Cannon, I have received, and reviewed your emails, both here, and on the JFK Forum. Jimmy and I are extremely close business, and personal friends for well over 30 years. I see Jimmy 1 - 2 X a week. We also write daily. Wim Dankbaar is also a very close business, and personal friend for over 2 years. Wim and I have met in the U.S.A. several times, and we talk, or email daily. Jimmy totally stands on his 2 interviews, and Thanks Wim for maintaining the integrity of Jimmy's interviews. However, Jimmy, at this point in time, wants to never give another interview, nor discuss JFK publicly. Jimmy feels that he has provided more than enough information, and is tired of being nickled and dimed to death about ridiculous details from simple minded people, not meaning you, David Cannon That being said, I will closely analyze your Post to me on the JFK Forum. I will not be able to respond without Jimmy's permission. If it is given, I will also advise Wim, along with you. Thank You for taking time to follow-up your first email so well. Respectfully, Bruce Patrick Brychek.

John, I have also read that when Roselli was under threats to be deported, he ran for help to Sheffield Edwards. But I have gathered zo many documents now, it's difficult to retrieve the right one. Maybe someone knows what I am talking about and could pull it up? Wim

It will not have gone unnoticed that Pamela Ray (mis)uses this forum to make defaming and libelous statements about my person and alleged conduct. Most of these statements are outright lies that require a response. Let me start with a quote from Pamela Ray: Mrs. Ray has given me permission to publish every single piece of material she mentions. In writing and by a legally binding contract. Hence what she claims is a bold face lie. In fact she signed away her book to me, which book I do not want to publish, but that's another issue. The only person who fails to understand this, is Pamela Ray. Pamela Ray claims she represents the will and wishes of James Files. However, nothing could be farther from the truth. James Files has sent her and me letters wherein he urges her to stop telling lies and defaming statements about my person. Pamela Ray claims that her unpublished book is the only authorised book about the story of James Files. Wether it is relevant that a book is authorised by the main subject, is not the issue here. The issue is that this is another lie by Pamela Ray. James Files has praised the book I have on the market on numerous occasions, along with his best living friend Bruce Brychek. In fact he had Bruce obtain 20 copies on two separate occassions (40 in total) of the book for Bruce to give it to people of his choice. Moreover, James Files wrote me a thank you card two weeks ago that he is in possession of the 2008 edition, but at the time too sick to start reading it. Pamela Ray claims that my book is a "plagiarized" and distorted version of the story. Not the real story. This is yet another lie. The book contains the transcripts of the two video interviews ever done with James Files (1994 and 2003). The only content that was left out is nittywitty stuff of no historical importance, like the religious leanings of Mrs Ray and the alleged romantical feelings of James Files for this woman. Pamela Ray has absorbed in excess of 60,000 USD from me, without paying it back, thereby defaulting on her obligations and signing over certain materials. Her thanks is slander, claims of "threachery", claims that I did not "take care of her" and demands for an apology......???? Pamela Ray has shown contempt of the law and ethics repeatedly by violating my rights and stealing my properties, for example by publishing fragments of my copyrighted 2003 video interview with James Files on Youtube, as well as publishing its transcript on various Internet locations, including this one. The owners of these internet sites were quick to recognise the violations of my rights and ownership, and removed the content accordingly. Below is a letter from my attorney to a publisher that will explains things further. Re: Dispute between Wim Dankbaar (my client) and Pamela J. Ray (your author) re Interview with History (AuthorHouse publication from 2007 and 2008) Dear Mr. xxxxxxx: You were kind enough to speak with me about this matter when I called on July 15, 2008, as a follow up to my letter of July 14, 2008. As you will recall, I represent Wim Dankbaar, who wants Pamela J. Ray’s Interview with History removed from publication as soon as possible. My client believes that Ms. Ray’s book infringes on his copyrights, and that—pursuant to a contract with Ms. Ray—he is the copyright owner in the book itself. Furthermore, the book includes a number of items from other copyright holders, and Mr. Dankbaar wants to avoid any liability If the book is promptly withdrawn from distribution, Mr. Dankbaar will forgo any claim of contributory infringement against AuthorHouse or the related companies. If the book cannot be withdrawn within 48 hours of your receipt of this letter, please let me know—as soon as possible—the reason for the delay. History At all times relevant to this matter, James Files has been in prison. In 2002, he signed various documents giving Pamela J. Ray (your author) the power to sign contracts and make agreements on his behalf. Ms. Ray then made various agreements with Wim Dankbaar (my client), notably in 2002 through 2004. The most immediately relevant of these is the Loan Agreement between Pamela Ray and Wim Dankbaar of January 27, 2004. That agreement provided for certain consequences if Ms. Ray did not pay off a loan by July 1, 2005. The deadline passed, and the debt has not been paid; therefore, so the following provisions relevant to publication became effective on July 1, 2005: 1. “Wim Dankbaar [is] the 100% owner, rightsholder and beneficiary of the planned book (currently known as “To kill a country”) as opposed to 50% rightsholder and beneficiary.” 2. “Wim Dankbaar will be a 50% beneficiary for income, resulting from a possible second or follow-up book.” At the time of this agreement (January 27, 2004), a manuscript of “To Kill a Country” was already in existence, and Ms. Ray and Mr. Dankbaar were both familiar with the manuscript. At that time, it was anticipated that another publisher (not AuthorHouse) would issue To Kill a Country. On September 1, 2004, the publisher informed Ms. Ray that they would not be publishing To Kill a Country. On July 24, 2006, Ms. Ray sent an email message to Mr. Dankbaar, with an approximately fifty (50) page document attached: “You own this according to our loan agreement Jan 27, 2004. “Since you are 100% owner you need to publish it and make it available. I can’t publish it. “According to the loan agreement you will receive 50% from any second or follow up book. You will receive 50% of beneficiary income from To Kill A Country II. I will send a copy of the loan agreement with the contract to the publisher. They will send you the funds directly and I won’t be involved with that part. I’m getting To Kill A Country II ready to submit and should be published within 2 months.” Ms. Ray presented fifty pages to my client as the manuscript of “To Kill a Country,” a work whose manuscript already comprised several hundreds of pages. When my client characterized this as “a fraudulous attempt,” Ms. Ray eventually emailed him (on August 1, 2006) the complete manuscript as it was published by AuthorHouse without his permission. This occurred at a time when Ms Ray was seeking a new agreement with my client to obtain permission for publishing “To Kill a Country.” Hence, there can be no misunderstanding about what my client obtained as his property under the Loan Agreement. My client argues that what Ms. Ray presented to AuthorHouse was his intellectual property, that she apparently misrepresented herself to AuthorHouse, and that the work was published without Mr. Dankbaar’s authorization or consent, in infringement on his copyright in the work. He also argues that “To Kill a Country,” as well as “Interview with History” (2007) contained defamatory material. He further argues that many texts of “Interview with History” are exactly the same as in “To Kill a Country”, and for that reason alone it is infringing on his rights. To trace some of this in detail, AuthorHouse published Pamela J. Ray with James E. Files, To Kill a Country (Bloomington, Ind.: AuthorHouse, 2006), ISBN-13 987-1420882230. The published version corresponded closely to the earlier manuscript, i.e., the “To Kill a Country” referred to in the Loan Agreement of January 27, 2004. In publishing this work, Ms. Ray violated Mr. Dankbaar’s copyright in the work as whole; the work even contained substantial portions of the fifty-page manuscript that Ms. Ray had sent to Mr. Dankbaar on July 24, 2006, as being 100% his property. As published, To Kill a Country also contained defamatory material. On Friday, June 30, 2006, Mr. Dankbaar sent an email message to Mr. xxxxx at info@authorhouse.com. In or about August 2006, AuthorHouse withdrew To Kill a Country from publication. On or about August 22, 2007, AuthorHouse issued Pamela J. Ray with James E. Files, Interview with History: The JFK Assassination (Bloomington, Ind.: AuthorHouse, 2007), ISBN-13 978-1425959920. This book was essentially an abridged version of To Kill a Country. (In terms of copyright law, it was a derivative work—and it was derived from intellectual property belonging to Mr. Dankbaar; we are concerned that a substantial amount of material from other rightsholders may also have been included without permission, as discussed below.) Strictly speaking, I would argue that Mr. Dankbaar’s 100% interest definitively vests in the first otherwise legally publishable version of the text that is published without his consent; that does not diminish his property interest in the defective, intermediate versions of the text, published or not. Again, Mr. Dankbaar complained to AuthorHouse. (I sent copies of the following cease-and-desist letters with my previous letter to you.) On September 25, 2007, Mr. Dankbaar emailed a cease-and-desist letter to you attention. On October 11, 2007, xxxxxxxxx (an attorney in South Pasedena, California) sent a cease-and-desist letter to your attention on behalf of Mr. Dankbaar. On January 6, 2008, Mr. Dankbaar sent another cease-and-desist email to your attention. On January 25, 2008, attorney xxxxxxxxxx (in Encintas, California) sent cease-and-desist letter to your attention on behalf of Mr. Dankbaar and Mr. Zack Shelton. (Mr. xxxxxxxx was engaged because Mr. xxxxxxxxxx had passed away. Mr. xxxxxxxx suggested that local counsel be engaged, which is how I became involved in the case.) Mr. Dankbaar and his attorneys got no response to their letters, emails, or telephone calls. At some point, the book was altered—with no notification to Mr. xxxxxxxx, Mr. Dankbaar, or Mr. Shelton. Defamatory material on some pages was toned down. Factually problematic material on other pages was altered. The copyright date in the front matter was changed from 2007 to 2008. But the fundamental problem of copyright infringement has not been resolved. Meanwhile, AuthorHouse.com has begun to list an electronic edition of Interview with History as “coming soon” (ISBN-13 978-1438901312). Ms. Ray also prepared to have two works published on wordclay.com. On July 13, 2008, both were listed as “coming soon.” James Files on JFK James Files on JFK: 45th Anniversary Edition. On or about July 15, 2008, Mr. Dankbaar communicated with a customer service agent (xxxxxx) at AuthorHouse through on-line “live chat.” The conversation ended with a decision to have me call you. Very soon thereafter (even before I called you), the two titles disappeared from wordclay.com. After all the cease-and-desist letters, Mr. Dankbaar wishes to see Interview with History removed from the market immediately. Not only does it infringe on his copyrights; it also exposes him to potential liability for copyright infringement. A great deal of material reproduced in this book comes from printed sources or the internet. In general, the sources are generally documented for text, but not for photographs; however, for the various photographs and a great deal of quoted matter (news articles, compilations of quotations, song lyric, essay, and so forth), I could not find an acknowledgment, either on the copyright page, in a footnote, or in an acknowledgments section. A couple of acknowledgments appear in the book, but they seem to have been copied along with material taken from another source; in other words, they seem to reflect permission given to someone else to reproduce the materials in a different work. Perhaps Ms. Ray has secured permission to reproduce the following, for example. (Page references are to the 2008 version of Interview with History.) 1. Entire internet postings and long quotations from books in the “Quotes” section, pp. vii-xxv. 2. Long quotation from Craig Roberts, pp. 10-11. 3. Various photographs throughout. 4. Mary E. Woodward, “Witness from The News Describes Assassination,” pp. 51-54. 5. Mae Brussell (compiler), “The Last Words of Lee Harvey Oswald,” pp. 61-74. (My concern would be any copyright belonging to Mae Brussell or the People’s Almanac.) 6. Marina Porter, letter, pp. 83-86. 7. Dick Russell, quotation from The Man Who Knew Too Much, p. 93. 8. Mike Wallace and Gary Paul Gates, portion of interview from Close Encounters, pp. 98-101. 9. Washington Post, Grassy Knoll Shooter Correct, March 26, 2001 (p. A6), pp. 102-103. 10. A number of photographs and texts from the internet in the photo gallery, pp. 123-191. 11. Dave Ratcliffe, March 22, 1992, web posting, pp. 198-200. 12. L. Fletcher Prouty, selection from An Introduction to the Assassination Business, pp. 201-210. (The first page says “reprinted with permission of the author,” but the last page has a signature by “daveus rattus,” who may have been the person who secured permission for his own use, but not for use in this book.) 13. Bill Weaver, “Where Is Luis Posada?” pp. 243-245. 14. Anthony Summers, selection from Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover, pp. 263-266. 15. Peter Dale Scott, New York Times interview, pp. 355-367. (The permissions statement at the end seems to be reproduced from www.assassinationresearch.com instead of reflecting permission granted from the rightsholder.) 16. P. F. Sloan and S. Barri, “Secret Agent Man,” p. 374. 17. Eric Jon Phelps, cover image from CD-ROM, p. 392. 18. Eric Jon Phelps, “The Missing Link: The Assassination of President Kennedy,” pp. 393-401. Since the usual indicators of permission are missing, and since Mr. Dankbaar was not asked about inclusion of the fifty pages that Ms. Ray had assured him were 100% his property, I worry that a number of permissions have not cleared. I do not want my client to get sued (as owner of Interview with History) for copyright infringement. He is a victim of infringement himself. Mr. Dankbaar looks forward to the immediate withdrawal of Interview with History from the market. Again, my client has agreed not to sue AuthorHouse for contributory infringement if the book is removed from the market promptly. If you need any further information or any clarifications, please let me know as soon as possible. Yours truly,

Pam, how can you say that? You have the floor for truth promotion. Please start with how Jimmy put a pea in Rose's head and ran over her skull. The red Chevy, was that the same one as the one Jimmy used in Dallas? I guess Rose was a "piece of trash" that didn't want to tell the truth like you do? It was God's will that you would tell it, 40 years later, right? Why don't you "come clean" with your truth promotion? Why so shy on being a blabbermouth on that? And how about a PDF on the Raven? Can you send that too? Or do we have to wait for the 30 minutes interview? Pam, You're killing us with the suspense. Wim

Bill, let's see, we have a political assassination, David Atlee Phillips, who was charged but the FBI said was not involved, and a guy that (later) said he was involved but was certified "non credibile" by the FBI about his involvement, although he didn't say anything. Deja vu? I guess the only credibility comes from the FBI who said that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy....... alone. Wim

Oh, and Pam, Mike Cain doesn't want to believe that Jimmy killed his brother. Can you give him some closure too in the 30 minute interview? Wim

Pam, why don't you either XXXXXXXX or tell us what you already know about "the Raven" instead of trying to put yourself in the limelight with your 30 minute interview. The Raven was Gary Marlow, you know that only since I told you so. If Jimmy has decided he can now give the goods on him since I found his identity, then yes, we are interested in that, but why would you let us wait for your little interview if you already have the info? You can give us the info here and now. Start writing the two books here you said you could fill on the subject. I'm sure that two books don't fit in 30 minutes. And while you're at it, ask Jimmy why he killed Rose Cheramie and ran over her skull, and on whose orders, or will that not fit in your 30 minutes? Or is that still supposed to stay a secret? I'm sure that her son Michael would like to know the truth. Maybe you would be so kind to give him some closure during that 30 minutes interview, now that Jimmy's health is failing? Or is your "compassion" only reserved for Jimmy and the truth as it fits you? Wim Edited by moderator due to inappropriate language.

Okay, I am somewhat amazed that nobody responded thusfar to this thread. Meanwhile I have learned from a credible researcher that James Files WAS questioned by the FBI concerning this case, but that the FBI dismissed him as "non credible". I wonder: How can you dismiss someone as "non credible" if he refused to answer any questions? Wim

Is there already a thread on him? If there is, this post can be removed. If there is not, I suggest to start one. Wim

Duncan, I agree. Not the Babuska lady, and certainly not Beverly Oliver. Now maybe we could make this thread a little more interesting by starting a discussion whether FBI agent Regis Kennedy, reportedly in Marcello's pocket, could have visited Beverly in Dallas to take her film? The likes of Dave Perry and Gary Mack claim it could never have happened because Kennedy was stationed in New Orleans. Wim

How about she is on the grass and in the second picture she is STILL on the grass?

Oh well, now we know why Bruce said this: Further, Jimmy regrets this all, as his comment is that she is out of control. She refuses to listen to Jimmy, and Jimmy now realizes that he told her too much in the past. Even worse, she quotes everything wrong, out of context, or just exaggerates to make herself look better. Jim Marrs and I showed the Moorman picture to James Files during the 2003 interview. It's on film and this is what he said. W - You’ve got the Moorman picture there? Or do you want to get that later? J – No. Let’s look at this right here (putting Moorman picture before James Files). Is that the tree you were talking about? JF - Yep, you can see the branches from back over here coming right down over the wall. W – And that’s the vicinity where you were standing? JF – Right there! W – In this picture there is a uuh .. an object visible if you blow it up. Right here next to that tree. And if you blow it up it looks … it may look like a hat, or a fedora. J – Do you remember which side of the tree you were on? Was it to your left or your right? JF – (Thinking) I could be mistaken, I believe … no, the tree was to my right. It had to be to my right. The tree was to my right because I didn’t want to have the tree in the way to my left. ….. And you can’t see the sign here, but the sign is right on down here. W – Yes, the sign is here … This is the blowup. This is sky and this is sky and this is the shape. Yeah …. Do you see a hat in there? JF – Do I see what? W – A hat. JF – Not to me! You’re asking the wrong man. I’ve got a hard time seeing with these glasses, believe me.

Pam, if you put these two together you have the avatar of your dreams. With a little imagination Jimmy is the groom.

Duncan, Files has said that to the best of his recollection, his position was next to that large tree, in the position of what is called "hatman". No clear shot , huh? I wonder if they are going to show the Moorman picture in that documentray tommorow