Anthony Thorne

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

So enough with this stuff about Ferrell being a spy out to contain or destroy the research community. 

 

Your choice of words, not mine. If she'd been asked to just keep track of it, did she do a good job of that or not?

I didn't know her, you did, but I find it odd that it's ludicrous to suggest she kept track of - or kept tabs on it - because of her being personally warm and helpful to others. So I'll ask again, since you avoided answering the question last time.

If an intelligence group did want someone to just keep tabs on the community for decades - not destroy it, not wreck it, just keep tabs on it - would they get someone personally warm and helpful to do that? Or would they get someone cold and unfriendly and unhelpful to do that?

I'm assuming it would have been a useful thing to have someone, warm and friendly, helping out in the community for years. And you're saying it's ludicrous to suggest this, because Mary was warm and friendly, and helping out in the community for years. 

The intelligence agencies have sponsored propaganda books on the case for five decades. Did they ever want to know what the researchers were doing in advance, or did they just decide to wait until each researcher's volume was in the shops before deciding on a response? The former would suggest in interest in the matter, the latter a lack of interest. So were they interested in what researchers were up to, or not?

If it helps, I'm sure Mary was a nice lady, and I never met her, so my query just goes as far as it goes. And the Mary Ferrell Foundation website is a great site. But Joe isn't the first writer to question her motives first hand, and when I read the responses, there's a lot of "But Mary was so nice and helpful for years!" as the main point of rebuttal, and I'm waiting for the rest of the argument to be offered. Beats me. Joe has more details about her background in his piece than some others here. Did Mary ever contribute an article to a book talking about her interest in the case, or did she just hang out with researchers all the time?

I also don't think that people who help out the CIA from time to time - if they do - are necessarily the devil. So again, this query isn't intended as a personal slight against Mary Ferrell. I'm sure she was nice to have a coffee with, while she was encouraging every researcher out there to bring their papers and discoveries just to her.

I note in passing that Mary seemed to have an easier time of things overall than Mae Brussell.

Both things can be true.

Ferrell’s documents have proven very helpful.

Also, Ferrell could have put on the helpful act to keep tabs on researchers for someone else.

If you wanted to keep tabs on researchers, would you send someone helpful into their midst, or someone unhelpful? Who do you think would have more luck?

Also, if you were a researcher, who would you be more likely to talk to? Someone who was always around helping out? Or someone who was never around, and who was never that helpful?

It’d be interesting to see whether people think the intelligence agencies wanted to keep tabs on researchers, or whether they didn’t. And also - if they did - who you think they might have sent to keep tabs on things.

All this does depend, I suppose, on whether you think the people who planned the assassination, and the groups who worked to cover it up afterwards, were of a conspiratorial bent, or not. Possibly opinions might differ there.

Joseph, that network of chemists, scientists and industry advisors you allude to as being in the background of the party where George De and Marina and others circulated, opens up a very deep trail, rabbit hole and narrative that has been desperately overlooked by most researchers. Just as a note - Joshua Lederberg, the Nobel Prize winning scientist, later was the key figure pressing for anthrax attack funding in the 90’s. His Defense Science Board colleague Norman Augustine - the future Lockheed head - went into panic mode in the late 80’s following a series of studies predicting a domino effect of defense reductions affecting national security investments as the Cold War was coming to a close. It was circa this period that Lederberg and Augustine joined a company board with Dick Cheney.

Ferrell’s documents have proven undoubtedly useful, but I ask again if people think the intelligence community was indifferent to what researchers of the era were up to, or whether they wanted to carefully monitor in the long term what was going on. And if it was the latter, how were they going to do that again?

Thanks Joseph. I will read POLITICAL TRUTH soon.

I have all of Griffin's books on that subject (except his very last one), as well as Scott's three volumes from 2007 onwards that go over the topic, along with 20 or more other volumes in the same vein, some better than others. Rob Couteau has read my unpublished essay on the event, which covered around 10,000 words that were cut from my essay at the end of COUP IN DALLAS going through the 70's, 80's and 90's looking at various gatherings and participants. More thoughtful books on the subject would be good to see, as I believe there haven't been any particularly useful new books on the topic for a while.

A really good, fair and enthusiastic review of the release.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/JFK-Revisited-Through-the-Looking-Glass-Blu-ray/316081/#Review

Joseph - in the introduction to POLITICAL TRUTH you mention in some detail your concerns about the official 9/11 story, and how it's a 'third rail' for the mainstream media, who don't want to go near the topic.

I agree and note in passing that this puts you into the category - I think about half of them fit the mold - of JFK researchers who openly question the official story of 9/11. Joan Mellen, Peter Dale Scott and a handful of others have also put their names to articles and books questioning the official story of that event. Doug Horne went the opposite route and spent a coulple of pages at the end of his multi-volume series attacking people who questioned the official narrative.

Have you ever thought of writing a book on that subject? Not the easiest of tasks, obviously.

I bought both the older, and the recent versions of Summers' book. I eventually threw the recent edition out as I found it so annoying - there was a line at the end of it where Summers wrote something like, "Was there a conspiracy? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not [shrug].."

I figured if a writer was spending his time learning less about the case rather than more, then I didn't have to read him, so into the bin it went.

John Newman just posted, Volume 4 in his JFK series, UNCOVERING POPOV’S MOLE, is out in the near future.

Volume 5, ARMAGEDDON, will be out by this May at the latest. So he has two new volumes coming out across the next four months. There are further details on Facebook and I’m sure someone will post about them soon enough.

Twitter helps too. I saw a comment at one point that one young guy was watching the film with his dad. That was nice to see.

Someone please post a direct PayPal link or address that we can send money to. It will make it easier to keep it topped up through the year.

The whole Rogan interview is on Spotify and it was uploaded there about 24hrs ago.

CBS President Frank Stanton had previously been floated by the CIA as a possible director of the Psychological Strategy Board, and he was a chairman of the RAND Corporation's Board of Trustees. Stanton was also on the Executive Committee of the Business Advisory Council at the Department of Commerce. In CIA letters online (at CIA Crest) I see correspondence between Stanton, Dulles and Charles Cabell. Moving in those circles it'd be no surprise if Stanton and a few other CBS figures had been in the loop.

Great work Joe. Will pick this up in the new year.

I think I read Ian Griggs' book on the DPD was forthcoming from Lancer.

Leslie Sharp reply to Greg Doudna’s assumptions

GD: This is the risk of saying what one thinks with respect to someone else's published work, if it is critical of a basic source used: no matter how nice of a person I may be in person, and Leslie Sharp in person, I am close to getting on some kind of "list" (metaphorically speaking), with some hints of ad hominem coming back my way. I don't seek to make an enemy.

LS: Thanks for your considered response. I hope to do it justice.

GD: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This is a basic statement of method which was often cited by the late astrophysicist Carl Sagan. The Jean-Pierre Lafitte datebook which is foundational to Coup in Dallas is an extraordinary claim. It has every earmark of being, and I have very little doubt it is, phony, made-up, and that Albarelli and you have been, with no ill will intended, almost certainly bamboozled. 

LS: Sagan aside, I question the professional integrity of anyone who makes an assessment of an instrument they’ve never seen. I would respect your subjective opinion more had you, at the beginning, said to the forum that until you see a formal report,, you would reserve judgment of the authenticity and leave it at that. Adults participate on this forum, and I doubt they needed you to spell out what they should be concerned about. But here you continue to make the bold statement that you have “very little doubt it is phony, made-up,” based on what exactly? You have absolutely no evidence the datebook is not authentic, and I argue the burden of proof is at the very least, shared.

Were you burned at one point in your career and might this be projection? And might you be attempting to bamboozle the potential market e.g., forum members and their contacts, for these revelations? Is it unreasonable to ask why you might choose to do so?  Are you worried that forum members and others are so naïve as to require your ilk to keep them from being “hoaxed”? I know it’s a purely philosophical question that applies to any similar debate, especially those as emotional as the murder of John Kennedy.

GD: And if that is correct, it should hardly come as a surprise given that Jean-Pierre Lafitte, the apparent author and source, was, not to put too fine a point on it, a lifelong con artist and swindler. This is where you have put your trust. No one is able to see or examine the original (there are poor-quality photos of selected pages published). 

LS: The poor-quality reproduction of datebook entries was a stunning printing error, and I cannot explain it away.  It will be remedied; and in the meantime, we offer anyone who purchased the book to send me a request via emaillesliemsharp17@gmail.com, and I will send a PDF version of the screenshots. The PDF is an improvement of the printed version. The reprint of the hardcopy will include screenshots that are as legible as possible given the aging paper and ink. I’m sure you appreciate that the instrument must be handled carefully to avoid damage and or compromise the chain of custody.

GD: You say in Coup in Dallas that you rely upon Albarelli's having seen it and knowing of it. Albarelli never met Jean-Pierre according to his account (he contacted the widow after Jean-Pierre died). Albarelli gives no year he first saw the document (though you refer in your post to 37 yrs after 1963 = 2000 as the year Albarelli learned of it; it first comes to light published in 2021). In the entire book Coup in Dallas I could not find a year of Jean-Pierre's death given, that most basic item of biographical information. There is no statement from Rene Lafitte, the widow, concerning the circumstances of origin, production, of the document--the most basic starting information one wants and needs to know to assess an extraordinary claim of a new source.  

LS: You failed to mention that my statement makes clear that I’ve held and studied the datebook on numerous occasions. I describe Hank arriving in Dallas from London with the datebook and our spending the following week studying it carefully. Further, I was in FL on numerous occasions where we again, studied the datebook together.

GD: I do not consider myself a full member of this community or guardian of it (the JFK assassination research community), though I post here as a free-lancer and think of myself as a guest. 

LS: That is very self-effacing, and I appreciate it all the more because I slot into a similar category, as did Hank.

GD: I never accused nor do I think Albarelli was party to doing any hoax. Jean-Pierre is the known con, on a mega scale, throughout his whole life, or if not he then someone in his circles who would have done this bogus JFK assassination datebook--not Hank Albarelli. 

LS: But you suggest that he was inept?

You must not have read Hank’s introduction. It was he who tracked down his source. They did not contact him and say, “hey, Hank, we’ve got this amazing datebook you might wanna see.” Are you suggesting that Pierre was such an extraordinary con artist that he conjured Hank, from his grave, to knock on his widow’s door?

GD: The only reason I mentioned some recent personal knowledge of forgery issues in my field was to make the point that personal honesty, and scholarly or academic competence and excellence and high reputation, are simply no guarantees against falling victim to forgery and cons. I have seen this up close, could cite instances. 

LS: This is referred to in psychology as extreme projection—once burned, forever shy. But the simplest description of your reaction remains, “if A was a hoax, and B was a hoax, then surely C is a hoax.”  That is an illogical argument on its face.

GD: There is the Morton Smith "Secret Mark", a claimed incendiary ancient text which to the present day remains heavily debated by New Testament scholars as to hoax vs. authenticity. I played a minor role in prompting that discussion at an earlier stage (on the hoax side). There are the founding documents of Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). There were more recent forged documents which fooled the hierarchy of the LDS church who, convinced they were real, paid back-channel hush money to cover up documents they believed were genuine which would impeach the church's belief in its historical origins if they became public--when actually the shakedown was a con. In the JFK assassination area, there have been so many fake claims.

One of the patterns of forgeries (in other cases) is that the issue of authenticity is jumped over and a massive publication is presented with extensive scholarly and philological minutiae in order to frame the debate as being "what is the interpretation" of this sensational new find, rather than the first order of business: establishing that it is authentic.

LS: The science of authentication … paper and ink dating, etc … is fundamental. I can assure you that the analyst did not hesitate to confirm to Hank that the instrument itself comports with products available in 1962; the cover stamp is 1963 (the Christmas gift distributed for the forthcoming year), and the frontmatter including calendars, etc. align with a 1963 (and ensuing years) publication. I’ve addressed ink analysis previously. This leaves us with handwriting analysis, and as stated before, the expert told Hank within hours, before he spent the requisite time applying the tools of his trade, that he believed the datebook was maintained by one and the same person in a constricted timeframe. You want to see the written preliminary report? That is understandable. So do we.

I shared with a colleague just this week that I’m prepared to receive a call or a letter to indicate that the analysists consider the datebook “highly dubious.” But I ask, why have they not issued a statement to the effect to those involved, and/or why are they unwilling to respond to my inquiries? Thus far, the response, “non-disclosure” remains in play, which I respect objectively; but what if theirs is an ongoing exercise that could result in a documentary that excludes the authors and publisher, and presents the Lafitte story in an alternative context and narrative? Surely, as a skeptic and astute “investigator,” you might contemplate that possibility?

GD: To go to specifics: you mention several times a criticism that I did not read the entire 700-pages before commenting. You cite the late Albarelli's spirit as if he would say the same: read the entire book before commenting. No I did not read all of the 700 pages, but it is not necessary to read an entire book before fact-checking the first footnote or source cited, in this case the datebook. At that point I searched through the book for whatever bore on the question of authenticity of the datebook.

LS: It is a valid criticism, and I’ll note the errors in some of the conclusions you drew momentarily, but to first, a review of a book should be, if one wants to retain respect, predicated on having read the book in question. Fred Litwin, known to many on this forum, pulled the same stunt by posting a scathing review of Coup on Amazon having read 9 pages. I find that reprehensible, and at least filed an abuse report that unfortunately, to date has gone unanswered.

GD: You questioned my opening words, "I have respected the work of Albarelli..." thinking I was being disingenuous but I was not being disingenuous when I wrote that. What I knew of Albarelli was I had and had read part of A Secret Order (2013), which I thought had some interesting material, and I knew Albarelli had written a book on Frank Olsen although I have not seen that one but I have seen and was moved by Errol Morris's powerful film Wormwood. 

LS: Would you care to elaborate on the “some interesting material” you found in Hank’s A Secret Order, or would that compel you to pursue discussion of the content of Coup, and you have no intention of doing so?

And this is an example that you know nothing of Hank or his work.  His pending project “Wormwood Revisited” was intended to lay out another significant and alarming lack of professionalism.

GD: Therefore that was two positives and no negatives predisposing me favorably such that like others I advance ordered the book on amazon, followed the notifications of the delays, and then when the book arrived immediately started reading it because of the claims of important new information--until I pretty quickly realized it was grounded upon the Lafitte datebook, and found that source just struck me as nonsensical and looked like so many other classic forgeries which take in bright researchers and academics, in this case, it looked to me, Albarelli. 

LS: Skepticism is healthy, and I have no problem with anyone expressing it; I do have a problem with making blanket statements to suggest Hank was a victim of a hoax and by extension all involved in the project are also victims, when you a) have never held or studied the datebook, b) have not read the book in its entirety, and c) did not have the professional courtesy to contact Hank’s coauthor to express your concerns before bringing them here. 

Had you read the book, you would recognize the uniqueness of the revelations in the Lafitte material, how it all comes together in a tightly woven tapestry of the plot, and that only someone with direct knowledge and, more significantly, involvement could have maintained the record in real time. I notice you’ve avoided the question of Dick Russell. 

You’ve compartmentalized each aspect of provenance and authentication of this instrument at the expense of the composite of facts, to the detriment of your professional reputation I believe.

GD: That was the basis for my favorable opening words. But I do not go along with the Skorzeny/pan-poopoo international-connections JFK assassination conspiracy thinking, and was not referring to that aspect of his work. 

LS: Of course you don’t. 

Note: I’ve been advised that the word pan-N*a*z*I is moderated carefully on this forum and has been substituted by the infantile “pan-poopoo”. I hope you’re equally insulted, and that forum members will express at least a modicum of concern related to censorship of reference to Nazis.

Why does it disturb you so much that Lafitte identifies poopoo SS Otto Skorzeny as strategist, named alongside long-known participants including James Angleton, William Harvey, Frank Wisner et al,? Hank knew that Lafitte’s records would upend several sacred cow theories, and by extension, reveal the failure of many within the assassination community to accept the far right element in the US – including independent oilmen, proto fascist military veterans and contractors and the upper echelon rabid anti-communists in intelligence—as well as their peerson a global scale, all of whom did, at the very least, endorse the lethal removal of the President of the United States, attempts on the President of France, the murder of the Prime Minister of the Belgian Congo, et al. This resistance has been the Achilles heel of assassination research for far too long.  

GD: On the Skorzeny papers, critical review of Michael La Flen on Kennedys and King: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/major-ralph-p-ganis-the-skorzeny-papers-evidence-for-the-plot-to-kill-jfk 

LS: You’re selective in your sources, as are well all, but it doesn’t always serve the truth.

In spite of his disagreements with Major Ganis, Hank was convinced that Ralph’s book will eventually be considered one of the more significant contributions to history in decades, because it lays bare the history (in his private papers) of a conscripted poopoo, Otto Skorzeny and his wife Ilse, both of whom played a significant role in American’s Cold War on behalf of our intelligence agencies, and their duplicitous involvement in global weapons and related operations to foment the strategy of tension, for profit and an effort to “revive the Reich.” You are apparently blinded to the Skorzenys for some reason. Perhaps you might be more transparent?

On Jean-Pierre Lafitte as lifelong con artist: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,941724,00.html (Time magazine, Dec 19, 1969):

"Lafitte returned to the U.S. in the 1930s. He first came to the attention of the authorities in the early 1940s, when he failed to register for the draft and was sent to Ellis Island to await deportation to France. While there, he saw a chance to ingratiate himself with the law by becoming an informer. He won the confidence of some racketeers who were being held on the island and offered to carry a message to their fellow gangsters in New York. Instead, he carried it to the Government. 

"From then on, Lafitte, who changed identities as easily as he changed his stylish clothes, led a double life. Although police records show that he was arrested 23 times in 48 years for fraud, confidence schemes and burglary, they also show that he was a valuable undercover man for the Federal Government. He helped trap some of the late Vito Genovese's mafiosi for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. He also posed as a buyer for the FBI, luring thieves into selling him stolen paintings and jewelry and then testifying against them in court. 

"Expensive Tastes. In public as well as private enterprise, Lafitte has always had flair. His expensive tastes appalled the Government auditors who approved his expense accounts as an informer. He drank only the best wines, smoked only the finest cigars. He rented only Cadillacs, stayed only in hotel suites. His bait was costly and effective. Once, when trying to ferret out some stolen paintings, he set himself up at Chicago's Drake Hotel. Instead of getting down to business right away, he entertained the thief's intermediary over dinner, sent wine, caviar and crêpes suzette back to the kitchen for imagined flaws, then prepared the crêpes himself before the wide-eyed fence. Lafitte refused to rush the business discussion. "Not now," he told the middleman. "See me tomorrow." Convinced that Lafitte was genuine, the thieves delivered the paintings the next day—and stepped into an FBI trap. 

"As expected, Lafitte's undercover activities made him a prime target for underworld revenge. In 1956, as a matter of self-preservation, he dropped from sight. A year later, he reappeared in Kittery Point, Me., posing as Louis Romano. There he offered to help speculator Ralph L. Loomis out of his difficulties with the Securities and Exchange Commission for $30,000. One deal led to another, and Loomis soon found himself investing more than $300,000 in a pair of Lafitte-organized companies to develop mineral rights and diamond mines in Africa. When the mines produced glowing reports but no acres of diamonds, the Government moved in and indicted its errant undercover man on 15 counts of mail fraud and transportation of stolen property. Lafitte posted a $25,000 bail, and on Dec. 3, 1963, vanished. He was reported in Africa, Europe and the Bahamas. 

"Lucky Pierre. Two years ago [two years before 1969], he turned up in New Orleans, where he answered the Plimsoll Club's advertisement for a manager-chef. He was a stunning success. Local gourmets praised his Dover sole, sighed over his crêpes suzette. (. . .)

LS: I find it disturbing and highly revealing that you’ve taken the time to post five paragraphs drawn from other sources, widely available to anyone on the net, but not one single line from the newly published Coup in Dallas? What is your rationale?

Those who have read our book will know that Lafitte makes no mention of diamond deals in 1963, unless the numbers 848 represent a clue. He ran the diamond scheme in question in the mid-1950s that also included rare flowers.

His 1963 entries indicate that he is, however, immersed in a major nickel deal in the spring, a commodity considered as the “true war metal” at the time, and one that he had a history of illicit transactions, as did Otto Skorzeny. In fact, Otto was under indictment in Europe that year for dealing in nickel. So, you’ve made a significant misrepresentation of Lafitte’s activities, honed in on information that has been in the public domain for decades but misrepresented the significance of omissions in those reports, and yet you do not have the courtesy to include excerpts from Coup that flesh out the facts … facts you seem bizarrely threatened by. 

GD: Some JFK assassination insider! 

Albarelli states on p. xxvii, "Laffite, who resided with his family in New Orleans in 1963...". The 1969 Time magazine article (above), says of Lafitte, "two years ago [i.e. in 1967] he turned up in New Orleans". How accurate is Albarelli's statement of Laffite in New Orleans in 1963? 

LS: His statement is based on interviews with people in a position to corroborate Lafitte’s presence in NOLA in 1963, including his WIFE. (What an absurd suggestion that she didn’t know where she lived.); personal friends who knew that the Lafitte’s had left their former residence; supporting records of James Phelan and testimony from his family. You are intent on proving that Hank was a highly inept, gullible investigator, and I would ask why. You’ve not read “A Terrible Mistake,” obviously.

GD: Albarelli is not living to ask himself, and there appears to be no known written source or document that verifies the statement. 

LS: You have no idea whether there are documents. Can you go in search to prove that Lafitte was not in New Orleans in 1963, and provide them to the forum? 

When Hank asked me to join him in the project, which was to include negotiations on our behalf with the film company, he said that he was confident that I could “lower the boom” when appropriate. So, you can consider me not only his cowriter, but his proxy in this specific debate.   

Your sleuthing has also been done by dozens of others in the community far more familiar with this material. The Time magazine article has been circulating for years. You rely on it, but fail to highlight Lafitte’s break-in of the Garrison offices, or provide a single reference to his having worked at the Wm Reily Coffee Company in the early ‘60s, his having been a sous chef in New Orleans in the early 1960s, his having owned a home in Gretna in the early ‘60s, his having been hired (likely influenced by former ITM director Clay Shaw) at a new club housed in a building Shaw had moved into, etc.

Reluctantly, I suggest you are deliberately misleading the audience here … directing their attention to material that you THINK could contradict information in the datebook.  That, by definition, appears to be an agenda on your part. Can you please put my mind to rest that is not the case?.

GD: Supposedly Lafitte wrote the datebook with details of Oswald and Oswald's associates and the ongoing progress of the JFK plot in Dallas in 1963 while dealing with his sideline illegal African diamond mine investment scams carried out in other states on unwitting marks.

LS: Had you read the book, you would know that a nickel deal was in progress, not a diamond deal [with one caveat: 848]. You’ll rely on 1956 material, but you won’t consider the detail we uncovered? Why?

GD: What about Rene Lafitte, who may have control over the Lafitte daybook with the incendiary real-time JFK assassination plot information which no historian is allowed to see or study, which has never been turned in to a proper agency for investigation? 

LS: You have no idea what might be unfolding, so please stop jumping to conclusions. 

GD: Who knows, perhaps with your help, Leslie, she or the heirs may be able to get a good price for such valuable documents one day at an auction! (Are you certain in your own mind that that can be excluded as what this is about?) 

LS: You have a talent for moving slowly toward your underlying agenda, and then pounce with a crude accusation that we’re in it for the money.  I’m wondering why you hesitated to suggest that in your initial critique?

GD: Rene Lafitte's claims too sound a bit dubious to me:

LS: in essence, you’re saying that Hank was a fool.

"Rene clearly remembered Otto Skorzeny: 'He was imposing; his presence dominated a room, any room.' Ilse Skorzeny: 'She was all business. Maybe the woman behind the man, meaning the brains.' Lee Harvey Oswald: 'I only saw him a few times. Pierre didn't care for him. A confused young man. Pierre always said: 'He's always desequilibre'. Marina Oswald: 'We felt sorry for her. She had no idea what was going on. He seemed to stick to her like glue but shared nothing with her.' Jean Souetre: 'Oh, he was very handsome, but a modest person, and very serious about his beliefs.' Thomas Eli Davis, Jr.: 'You couldn't help but like him.' Charles Willoughby: 'A dedicated soldier. A little too dedicated, with a sky-is-falling mindset.'" (p. xix)

LS: You are once again, denigrating Hank’s intelligence, and his reputation as an astute investigative journalist. Do you honestly think he would repeat this string of observations made by Rene if he had spent sufficient time with her to recognize a prefabricator? The woman was 90 something years old. What possible motive, other than reflecting on what she considered a fascinating life with a man she dearly loved, with someone of Hank’s temperament. There was no kinder, calmer listener in his field than Hank Albarelli. As Hank explained, she eventually came around to agreeing that Pierre’s story should be told. Perhaps there’s a bit of professional jealousy in play as well among Hank’s detractors.

GD: OK(?). Here is Rene Lafitte explaining why the handwriting in the datebook may look different from the handwriting on a genuine letter of Jean-Pierre should some outsider produce such: 

LS: More mocking? And you deigned to read at least a portion of Hank’s introduction, and address your concernsfrom that vantage point?

"Rene was not only well aware of Pierre's entries in his datebooks--and in a few cases helped early on in deciphering his handwriting because, as she explained, Pierre had had a 'mild stroke' in 1962 that affected his handwriting, which she said at one time was 'near beautiful'" (. . .) (p. xviii)

LS: Hank explained this to the handwriting expert, and he said that it was entirely plausible, and he had no difficulty accepting the possibility because he had encountered similar medical issues that affect handwriting throughout his career. Why can’t you accept it is possible, when the expert did?

GD: Changed his handwriting, but fortunately not his ability to sell non-existence diamonds in Africa/

LS: Please provide us with documentation he was still dealing in diamonds in 1963?

GE: . . . and chronicle the day-to-day Dallas JFK assassination plot details every day. 

LS: We note in the narrative that Lafitte was a master at juggling schemes and operations, and we suggest some were directly related.

GD: And in 1963, when Lafitte is claimed to be writing knowledgeably of details and names of the Dallas JFK plot via secret communications, 

LS: Why do you continue to twist the narrative? We do NOT say that he is “writing knowledgeably of details ….” We state that Lafitte is the project manager, and making entries in a datebook as either reminders of forthcoming meetings and event,  personal reflections, or an aide memoire. Esteemed assassination researcher that was investigating this crime before you were in high school probably, writes that in his professional career, he always maintained daily notebooks—often scribbled in as he drove down the road. Surely you’ve kept a record of appointments, names, etc. in your career as well?

GD: . . . all written in the form of a few words in the center of mostly pristine pages of a notebook, one for each day's entry, 

LS: why do project on to others your expectation of how they should maintain a datebook? A fascinating study in human psychology.

GD: . . . here is what the federal government thought Lafitte was up to:

New Orleans States-Item, 1/12/70. Lafitte goes on trial in Boston. Lives Armonk, NY. Fraud charge now down to $100,000. Feds say he has used many names and came to New Orleans Plimsoll Club [at the World Trade Mart, formerly Clay Shaw's International Trade Center] about two years ago, brought by management firm which has operating contract. Feds say he jumped $50,000 bail in 1963. (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White Files/Garrison/Garrison Files/White's Letter L.pdf)

LS: This is not evidence that Lafitte was dealing diamonds in 1963, but if you need to believe that to support an agenda, your prerogative, but perhaps you should add a caveat that you’ve only recently delved into Lafitte history.Others will recognize the flaws in your thinking.

GD: Sounds like a complicated life, hiding from bail bondsman bounty hunters over that $50,000 bail skip, and maintaining lines of communication with the plotters of the assassination of JFK keeping him informed of day-to-day operational details to be written down in entries to his datebook while he is on the lam from the feds on that irritating bail-skip charge.

LS: Had you read the book, you would know who protected Pierre and the extremes they went to. In one instance, he walked into the courtroom where he was due to appear, handed the judge a black manila folder, and walked out. In another incident, following publication of his photograph, Helms and his squad rushed to recoup the negatives. 

GD: It is like a claim of a UFO sighting

LS: [serious students of the phenomenon, note that Doudna is relegating you to crazy conspiracists similar to Bigfoot sightings]

GD: or a sighting of Bigfoot, or a claim to have unearthed through murky circumstances a private confession letter of Allen Dulles or James Angleton or Lyndon Johnson telling a mistress exact details of how they did it. 

LS: You introduce Angleton in context of hoaxes … but you refuse to discuss his role in the assassination as laid out in Coup.  

GD: Before discussing 700 pages of commentary on such a claim, the first question front and center must be to establish and address all that can be known toward the question of authenticity. I realize this situation is not of your doing, in which there is no ability or authority for you personally to accomplish that. 

LS: Others have approached the book differently, and are reading it with an open mind. You chose to compartmentalize the datebook without considering, in context, a larger body of facts that support the overall investigation. If the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls were around, would you have weighed their testimony, along with additional circumstantial information, as you analyzed (scientifically) the instruments? 

And I must ask why you presume to know my status? You know nothing of my legal position in this project, the contract I had with Hank and with Skyhorse, nor do you know what is being pursued outside public view. This is not your project, nor is it your role to make demands of its authors. Suggestions made by those acting in good faith arevery much appreciated.

If you choose to reject the datebook, that’s obviously your prerogative. And if you choose to undermine the book based on your suspicion that Hank and I were bamboozled, we can’t prevent you from doing so. I trust the members on this forum will weigh your agenda against the potentially explosive revelations we present. 

GD: I also realize (having gone through publishing books myself) how a book is one's baby, it is one's life, months and years of heart and labor, and some outsider so unthinkingly and unfeelingly can so easily make a comment that wounds, and may hurt economically. 

LS: Please shed no tears. The book will survive your claims, and we’re in it for the long haul. Your remarks are a reflection of your professional integrity or lack thereof, not ours. And again, you introduce, ever so delicately, that we’re in it for the money. Perhaps that is more projection on your part? This was a collective effort by dedicated researchers and writers who want the Kennedy case resolved. If you’ve published books to pay the rent, you must know that you best not give up your day job.

GD: That is not my intention (though it is probably unavoidable when readers give their reactions--part of the dilemma of living in this world, this vale of tears), and I hope you will not regard me as an enemy, nor do I intend to make this a project of my own to impugn your views or those of others if you continue to believe and write about the Lafitte datebook being authentic. 

LS: I detect the influence of Armstrong College, regardless of your excellent exposé. Having grown up in the Texas Panhandle, and being assaulted daily from the airways by both Herbert and Garner who fueled the toxic climate in our region in the 1960s, I’m perhaps more attuned to this particular exchange than others on the forum.  I think dropping this issue from your bucket list might be the prudent approach.

You might at least thumb through your copy to find the sections of Coup that address characters who were clearly either proto-fascists or closet poopoo sympathizers, including Generals Walker and Willoughby. I’m beginning to detect the fundamental of your agenda.

GD: I do not regard it as my issue, apart from I paid in advance to amazon for the copy and then said my reaction. 

LS: I can arrange for a refund.

GD: I meant no misrepresentation of your reference to "the timeline Hank left in his Frank Olson book, A Terrible Mistake, reflects dates tied to the Lafitte material that sometimes contradicted my understanding of the trajectory of events." You have clarified that was in reference to "Hank's own recollection of the timing of his access to the exclusive material and his interactions with sources over the years ... I came to realize that Hank had the equivalent of dyxlexia when recalling his own timeline." OK, but some kind of serious timeline with annotation and critical evaluation and discussion ought to be offered, with specifics to the best of your knowledge and ability, if this source's authenticity is to be seriously considered. 

LS: I don’t understand your apparent need to involve yourself and insist on how this material should be presented. This is not your project. I’ve received similar overzealous recommendations privately, and my response is the same.Believe me, I’m being far more patient with this than Hank would have been.

For the record, sales of the book are steady, and driving our decision to reprint the hardcopy in the not too distant future, which is indication that your concerns are not shared by many in our target market.  

I’m curious. Are you working on a book related to the Kennedy assassination?

GD: As it stands, you know specific timeline discrepancies in the circumstances of this source's discovery 

LS: That is not what I said, Greg. Can you please either lift my words verbatim, or stop kicking this can down the road?

GD: but do not say what they are; you conclude that you are satisfied with an "equivalent of dyxlexia" explanation for those discrepancies, therefore there is no need to provide the specifics to anyone else; but woe be to anyone who questions and does not accept your conclusion with faith equal to your own.

LS: I resolved the discrepancies, and I believe that those who have studied Hank’s previous work will likely appreciate that I caught the errors and have been transparent. You on the other hand have taken my transparency and twisted it to suit an agenda, yet to be disclosed.

Unless you have an alternative and informed argument, why do you continue to address these questions? You know nothing of Hank, or me, or the circumstances around this material, or the analytical processes applied as we brought the project to fruition. Unless you are pursuing an agenda, I believe you’ve presented your concerns and the forum members can draw their own conclusions. 

Perhaps we might shift the discussion to the content of the book?

GD: You say,

"The ink analyst also offered a preliminary assessment. After taking hundreds of samples from the datebook, he told Hank that he was persuaded that the only anomalies were likely the result of rare writing instruments Lafitte could have picked up during 1963 while traveling that would not necessarily be in the analyst's database."

But do you not see that unless you name this ink analyst, or unless this ink analyst is willing to make a statement signed under his name, this goes nowhere? And why would the ink analyst not be willing to say so? What is the block, the big deal? Who is stopping him? 

LS: I explained to you why this is not being made public. Why can’t you accept it? “The Public Right To Know” does not extend to private papers. We are pursuing all issues that can be under terms and conditions.

GD: If there is a nondisclosure agreement stopping him, who is not willing to release him from that nondisclosure agreement? Or is it the ink analyst wants to be paid before releasing his findings? (Understandable if that is the reason.) 

LS: Please reread my related paragraph, carefully. 

GD: Perhaps some from here would raise the reasonable payment to this expert if so. 

LS Hank’s access to the select materials was made with terms and conditions. Until legal questions are resolved, funding concerns are premature. I recommend you not pull a hoax and set up a go- fund-me! You could be indicted, as was Bannon. [I jest.]

GD: What were the "anomalies" that are to be explained in terms of "rare writing instruments Lafitte could have picked up during 1963 while traveling", instead of explicable in terms of ordinary non-rare writing instruments? Just based on what you have said here, this ink analysis could be a very good material test relevant to the authenticity vs. forgery issue. 

LS: I’ve explained. The ink analyst has a massive database, but by his own admission, certain inks and pencils, etc. from that era would not be in his base if they were found in remote areas of the world. You won’t accept thatexplanation, so where do we go from here? Perhaps you can do some research to identify the analyst? I’m proceeding as I know Hank intended, so we choose not to disclose the experts’ identities, for now. They, or those who paid them, are invited to come forward.

GD: To answer another question you asked on a different topic, regarding Jack Crichton and H. L. Hunt, I did ask John Curington and he told me he did not recognize the name of Crichton. He asked me who that was and I told him, but he said he still did not recognize or remember the name. 

LS: I must have missed that moment in the interview. Was that specific question and answer recorded? I would love to hear the nuance behind Curington’s reaction. Do you think Curington was transparent? I believe he has said that there are things he will not discuss.  Might Crichton have been one? I’m reminded of asking a well-regarded investigative journalist and author why he accepted the short, negative response to a very serious question from a retired admiral. I asked, “why didn’t you press him?” And the journalist said that the admiral told him he didn’t know anything, and the journalist accepted his word. In another instance with the same author, I asked, “why didn’t you pursue Ulmer” and his response was along the lines, I wasn’t interested in him. Fair enough, until you learn of Ulmer’s roles over the decades. Yet another example: we’re being told by serious researchers that Souetre couldn’t have possibly been in Dallas on Nov. 22, because he and his friends insist he was elsewhere… speaking of being bamboozled..

GD: Finally, I am sorry you experienced difficulty getting your comments posted here, but am glad that Anthony Thorne (the neutral party) has posted yours. I am privately sending Anthony Thorne my email address to forward to you. If you ever have difficulty posting a response to anything I say now or in the future, send to me and I will post it.

LS: You’ll pass a note through the prison bars? I think you may have missed the point. I know how to “work around” posting here; but I’m concerned that on a forum such as this the system does not automatically adhere to rules of fair play. Kangaroo Court jumps to mind.

GD: I remember long ago I wrote an article, put my soul into it, and gave it to a faculty member whom I greatly respected for feedback. He just ripped it to shreds in written comments. It stung like crazy. But he was knowledgeable in what he was talking about. It also came from the heart. After blistering my paper, he ended (he was observant Orthodox Jewish) by citing a Proverb out of the Bible, "Faithful are the wounds of a friend", and expressed the hope that I would take his criticisms in that spirit. That softened it a little (though I still bled). That is the spirit I would like my comments to come across.  

LS: Had you befriended me first, Greg, before attacking the book, I would accept your impassioned, religious anecdote. You did not do so, which gives me pause to question your sincerity.  

There is no need for you to reply, unless you believe I’ve been inaccurate or unfair. I wish you no ill will.

Martin, good questions.

Both the Northwoods planners and the JFK assassination planners were looking to use the violent event as a trigger. The Northwoods attack would have used widespread media coverage to sell the chosen story, and the JFK assassination did just that.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff were instrumental in planning Northwoods. They clearly are figures of interest in Kennedy's assassination.

Both William Harvey and Angleton had connections to the Italian right, Harvey through being moved over there, Angleton through various connections. The Northwoods planning was precipitated by Italian figures coming to the US and giving a talk regarding how a coup might work in Europe. The Northwoods document date to a few months after that talk.

Much more to add but I'm about to start work. An interesting subject for sure.

Leslie Sharp contacted me a few days ago noting that she had wanted to join the forum to comment on this thread, but wasn't able to do so because the forum isn't admitting new members. True enough. So, she asked if I could post a response in this thread to some of the criticisms that have appeared. Sure thing I said.

A day or two later Leslie sent me a lengthy piece to post. The version that appears below is a slightly revised version of it. 

The introduction of my new day job means I haven't even finished reading COUP, and the Lafitte stuff was new to me when I encountered it in the book. I have a nifty PDF that shows those tiny page reproductions much more clearly, but beyond that I'm something of an observer. I spent most of my time on COUP dealing with the subjects and material that appear in the essay I wrote at the end. So while I'm certainly intrigued and I'm watching both sides of the argument, all I can really do is shrug follow along. I haven't dug enough into the final book to have a concrete opinion. Leslie however is less uncertain about the matter and gives her thoughts below. (Side note. The word l.i.a.r appears below with four XXXX's as the forum software seems not to like it). The below opinions and commentary are all Leslie's.

........

Quote

 

Hank Albarelli, investigative journalist and author of the recently released Coup In Dallas: The Decisive Investigation into Who Killed JFK, would have celebrated his 75th orbit on December 22nd. 

In his honor and on his behalf, the following is my rebuttal to one Greg Doudna whose low information analysis of Hank's primary source material for this project—referred to in our book as the “Lafitte datebook”—was posted on this forum on November 24.

 Continue to rest in peace, Hank.

 

Greg Doudna (GD) writes:

I have respected the work of Albarelli but I see a serious issue of authenticity versus forgery in the Pierre Lafitte datebook which is central to this posthumously published Coup in Dallas. 

LS: Doudna should know that several researchers and authors who didn’t know Hank personally have shared with me how much they respected Hank’s work, followed with a similar, “but . . . “

My reaction has been, and remains, “but . . . you think he might have been duped by perpetrators of a hoax, or that he might risk contriving a forgery himself?” 

 I suspect that Doudna knows very little about Hank professionally, and I presume he knows less about him personally, so his purported respect for Hank’s work has boundaries and is therefore a bit disingenuous considering where he goes from there. Perhaps it would be more authentic had Doudna simply cut straight to the chase (to borrow his phrase), because he arrives there eventually when he suggests that the datebook is a hoax, and by deduction, Hank was somehow involved. 

Obviously Hank anticipated the inevitable challenges regarding authenticity, and he expected that detractors would leap to cry fraud. By the time he submitted the preliminary manuscript, he had come to terms and was resigned to the likelihood that the controversy might never be resolved. Even if—and perhaps especially because—the British handwriting analyst, whose clientele included MI6, and the Russian ink analyst, had each given the datebook a formal imprimatur, Hank knew that suspicion could then be turned to their professional credentials.  

We knew that certain in the community would be disturbed by the revelations and the conclusions drawn in COUP and could have a field day with “British Intel and The Russians” had they confirmed authenticity, which is the opposite of, but not dissimilar to, the knee-jerk skepticism of Doudna and company. I joked with Hank, “what? you couldn’t find even more controversial experts?” He decided that it was (and is) a no win scenario, and that once the book was published, he would leave the debate to the skeptics—thus our reticence to engage on these forums, until now.

 

Skeptics like Greg Doudna—who seems genuinely committed to protecting the community from hoaxes, and S. T. Patrick—who seems determined to protect all Americans First from misinformation and propaganda as evidenced by his professional career at Holocaust Denier (and man hidden behind layers of curtains of the K assassination) Willis Carto’s “American Free Press”—have chosen to launch the debate on Ed Forum that demands a response from Hank’s coauthor.

I can hear Hank telling me to, “first, ask them if they read COUP cover to cover before they brought their concerns to this forum.” The book was published on Nov 16th, yet a mere eight days later (seven if you check his time stamp), Doudna was prepared to present a 1500 word, in-depth analysis focused solely on the coauthor’s statement, without one word to indicate that he had read the 720 page manuscript, let alone mention of Hank’s own introduction.

In that eight day timeframe, S. T. Patrick also weighed in on the same thread at Ed Forum, saying nothing of substance about the actual content of the book. Ironically, for those who know the history between S. T. and Hank et al, he seems especially worried about cracks in the community but not the least intrigued by possible cracks in the Kennedy case. We should ask why.

GD: I think a better explanation of basis for belief that those datebook pages were written in 1963 prior to the assassination is needed than the explanation offered by Leslie Sharp in the only part of the book I can see which addresses this most fundamental starting question of authenticity: pp. 571-574, "Coauthor's Statement on the Provenance and Authenticity of the Lafitte Datebook".

LS: Did Doudna choose to read my statement first, and then, presumably, read Hank’s introduction? If so, I’m wondering why he didn’t reverse the process? And why does he focus on my statement, but dismisses altogether Hank’s story related to his access to the Lafitte material which places his professional stamp on the provenance and authenticity of the Lafitte datebook? Might Doudna only be comfortable accusing Hank of being a victim of a hoax, or participant in a fraud, in Hank’s permanent absence? If so, that would hardly be a professional or admirable approach.

 

I urge Doudna, and others to read Hank’s intro carefully and in full. For now, the following are relevant excerpts:

Hank writes: I had learned through my Olson research that Pierre and his family lived in New Orleans during the 1960s and that Pierre had been briefly employed by the William Reily Coffee Company where alleged JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald had also briefly worked in May and June 1963. . . . What is important here is that I eventually gained conditional access to several of Lafitte’s datebooks and a precious handful of his letters. . . . To make a long and convoluted story short, I was able to study Lafitte’s 1963 datebook. And as expected, although for entirely different reasons than my initial expectations, it was remarkable for its contents. Perhaps “remarkable” is not a strong enough word. 

There, in a worn, but well-preserved, leather-bound datebook, was a stunning parade of names: . . . Through the datebook, the story of Lafitte’s involvement in the events of 1963 rolled out page by page. . . . One thing, however, should be made clear: I, as the author of this book, do not own any of Lafitte’s datebooks or letters. Fortunately, I have been granted the right to reproduce certain selections from the 1963 datebook. . . . Rene was a beautiful, petite woman who remarkably resembled actor Geneviève Bujold. Indeed, she was a former and successful fashion model. She was from a prominent French family and had been well educated in France, England and Brussels. She spoke and moved with an unearthly grace. . . . Rene explained: “I’m sharing parts of the datebooks with you because [there’s] a story that should be told. Pierre did many things in his life, inexplicable things, things I didn’t understand but always trusted him to know that they were wise and well chosen. The story of President Kennedy’s death may be one of those stories.” 

Significantly, Rene was not only well aware of Pierre’s entries in his datebooks—and in a few cases helped early on in deciphering his handwriting because, as she explained, Pierre had had a “mild stroke” in 1962 that affected his handwriting, which she said at one time was “near beautiful”—but in many cases she lived alongside Pierre during the instances he wrote about.

 

LS: Hank also includes notes from interviews with Rene describing in detail her perceptions of a number of characters identified in the Lafitte datebook. 

So, will Doudna commit to providing a follow up and perhaps elaborate why—after reading Hank’s explanation of the circumstances that landed him exclusive assassination related material and the ensuing years as he pursued the leads—he might still argue that Hank could have been the victim of a hoax, or worse? 

Thus far, maybe without meaning to, Doudna—who apparently established himself in just twenty plus months on this forum as somewhat an authority on the assassination—has sent a message to the Ed Forum, in effect, “why bother discussing the contents of COUP because the primary source material is fake.” We all know that the power of the review pen comes with a great deal of responsibility, accountability… and karma. 

GD: This statement merits careful reading. In it, coauthor Sharp tells of her own earlier serious doubts as to authenticity and reasons why, before ending with a full endorsement of its authenticity. 

LS: Apparently Doudna finds transparency unsettling. I believe that most readers will recognize that my statement was deliberately constructed to reflect a process, offering both an objective analysis and a subjective perspective spanning two years related to the Lafitte documents. It’s possible, and most would consider prudent, to hold two — sometimes competing — views before drawing a final conclusion.  

GD: Sharp recounts that her original reaction to seeing the datebook shown her by Albarelli was "a mixture of awe and skepticism, both of which I did not hesitate to share with Hank". She determined "that this instrument and the contents therein are either a brilliant fraud, or a miraculous find". 

LS: I’m relieved that, on this occasion (see the preceding remark), Doudna opts to quote verbatim, instead of paraphrasing words inaccurately in an attempt to support his argument. 

GD: Sharp continues, "After Hank passed away, I experienced levels of doubt and uncertainty equal to the most severe critic". She lists a series of reasons which prima facie call authenticity into serious doubt.

• "During one phase, I realized that the timeline Hank left in his Frank Olson book, A Terrible Mistake, reflects dates tied to the Lafitte material that sometimes contradicted my understanding of the trajectory of events."

In other words, minor chronological errors (apparently) in A Terrible Mistake are echoed in the supposed Pierre Lafitte datebook.

 

LS: As Doudna inches forward in what I read as a pattern of deliberate obfuscation, he misreads again: I stated clearly that I realized the timeline . . . reflects dates “TIED to the Lafitte material”. The operative phrase, Mr. Douna, is “tied to the Lafitte material.” Had I meant there were chronological errors in the datebook entries, I would have said so.

To be clear, chronological errors are NOT echoed in the Laffite datebook, and if Doudna gave it thought, he would realize the assertion makes absolutely no sense. 

The chronological questions that bothered me were Hank’s own recollection of the timing of his access to the exclusive material and his interactions with sources over the years. 

 GD: But Albarelli did not know of the Pierre Lafitte datebook when he wrote A Terrible Mistake. A Terrible Mistake was published in 2011. 

LS: Where did Doudna come up with “Albarelli did not know . . . “?

GD: Although Leslie Sharp does not directly say so, the question is raised whether A Terrible Mistake written in 2011 was a source utilized by the author of the Pierre Lafitte datebook, since it reflects the same chronological peculiarities (though Leslie Sharp does not give specifics). 

LS: Doudna not only paraphrases my statement inaccurately, he misinterprets it as well. I did not reference “the same chronological peculiarities”, so why would I give you, Doudna, specifics? I invite Doudna to read it again, carefully: “During one phase, I realized that the timeline Hank left in his Frank Olson book, A Terrible Mistake, reflects dates tied to the Lafitte material that sometimes contradicted my understanding of the trajectory of events.” As noted above, I stated that Hank’s timeline in ATM, e.g., his reference to the year(s) and circumstances around his access to the Lafitte material, did not comport with what he had told me privately. I further noted that, over time, I came to realize that Hank had the equivalent of dyslexia when recalling his own timeline. This saga began for him around the turn of the century.

GD:But if so, that would mean the Pierre Lafitte datebook was written some time [sic] after 2011, and not in 1963.

LS: When Doudna misinterprets statements, the result is a seriously flawed, and in this case, erroneous deduction. And he is intimating that someone took Hank’s book, A Terrible Mistake,created a datebook that supported the narrative in that book, and then gave the datebook back to Hank to use for COUP. Think about the circular, and dare I say, stupid logic in this.

Perhaps if Doudna had reached out to Hank’s coauthors directly, his concerns, assuming they are presented in good faith, could have been assuaged. Instead, he chose to bring them here for a public airing. In spite of his having employed all the subtle mechanisms in a critique of this nature, the astute reader realizes early on where Doudna’s headed: COUP IN DALLAS is based on a hoax. I think he owed it to Hank (posthumously) and his coauthors, and to the forum, to cut to the chase, instead of a lengthy (as if to suggest his interest in the book is genuine) manipulation of the coauthor’s statement as a mechanism toward his end game.

 

GD: Albarelli before his death had arranged for a London-based professional handwriting/document analysis as well as an international ink expert, to study the physical artifact and render a professional opinion. 

 LS: Unfortunately this is further example of misrepresentation of the facts: Doudna, for whatever reason, says “Albarelli before his death had arranged …” He completely ignores my clear statement, (and I quote)—He [Hank] had NOT [emphasis added] initiated authentication himself because he knew the chain of custody of the Lafitte records firsthand; however he recognized that the proposed authentication process would provide compelling visuals that could advance public knowledge of these exclusive revelations of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy—End Quote. I explain that the documentary film co. contracted with Hank to produce a multi-series based on the book; the initial foray would be to film the first phase of authentication of the Lafitte datebook in London so Hank made arrangements to have the datebook in his possession for that filming. There is a subtle nuance in Doudna’s version, but the astute student of subtleties will realize what he’s up to when they continue reading his critique.

 (note: having reflected on this particular example of Doudna’s obfuscation of facts, however trivial it might seem to some, I became more and more alarmed by his approach. After weeks of careful consideration I decided, with great reluctance, that the best—not the only— but the optimal option would be to respond.) 

 GD: There were "issues" unresolved at the time Albarelli died,

 LS: For reasons known only to Doudna, he also fails to mention that I identify the critical impediment to a final analysis by the handwriting expert: they wanted dozens more samples of Lafitte’s handwriting which Hank simply did not have access to. For that reason, the analyst withheld a final “official” report. 

 Note: Surely it has dawned on Doudna and others here that the more samples, the more detail known only to Lafitte would be revealed in those samples; and the more detail, the greater the potential gain for those that might want to distort the narrative, or contrive a different one; and with that, the greater impediment Hank might pose to various agenda that may have been in play outside his knowledge or control. It certainly dawned on Hank and this coauthor.

 Within the first few hours of handling the datebook, the analyst in London assured his client, the documentary producer, as well as Hank, that his instinctive reaction (based on decades of experience in his field) was the instrument, cover and paper, is a 1963 traditional, commercial datebook* and that the entries were all made by one and the same individual within a constricted timeframe. 

 At that moment, Hank said it became obvious to him that all parties recognized the explosive nature of what they had before them. 

 The ink analyst also offered a preliminary assessment. After taking hundreds of samples from the datebook, he told Hank that he was persuaded that the only anomalies were likely the result of rare writing instruments Lafitte could have picked up during 1963 while traveling that would not necessarily be in the analyst’s database.

*Hank tracked down a retired executive of the food purveyor that gifted Lafitte this particular annual datebook who confirmed that it was their 1962 Christmas present to favored restaurant owners and chefs.

GD: . . . and Leslie Sharp reports that there is no disclosure of results or findings and no known prospect of any, by contractual agreement with the owners of the datebook (not named but presumably family members). 

LS: This is, unfortunately, another complete jumble of my words strung together by Doudna. The contractual agreement in this instance is related to the parties that hired the analysts, and has nothing to do with the owners of the datebook, contrary to Doudna’s mistaken assertion. As a supposed expert in his field, I would expect him to provide a more accurate representation of anyone’s written statement. Also, can Doudna cite where I said, “and no known prospect of any”? 

GD: "The London professional would only state that he remains under a Nondisclosure Agreement and could not comment".

 LS: Anyone familiar with Nondisclosures would know that this is a standard (and in many circles, required) legal response. The analysts were prohibited by contract from discussing this analysis, pro or con.

 GD: This is not encouraging. One possible interpretation is an outside professional opinion was sought but the opinion or initial provisional opinion rendered was not to the liking of the customer, and therefore that finding will never be known. 

LS: And here is where Douna reveals himself fully. He planted the seed earlier, that Hank sought authentication and when it was not to his liking, he decided that as a defense, he would just say that a finding will never be known. I can only guess why Doudna chose that interpretation. Hank did in fact come to the realization that authentication would forever be challenged, but Doudna is suggesting something else entirely. 

Further, the possibility that those paying for the authentication might not have “liked” the results is not an original thought. I make the same observation toward the end of my statement.

I want to pause here and say just how discouraging it is to read Doudna’s purely subjective opinion (having never even seen the Lafitte datebook), when it’s clear, considering the other errors he has made, that he has not given this book fair consideration or any semblance of serious thought; he does seem somewhat desperate to advise others that Hank was either a fool or a xxxx.

Perhaps another read through, at least of my statement, might prompt Doudna to consider other interpretations. If the analysts’ conclusions were negative, and not to the liking of their customer [the film company], they could have made it abundantly clear to the film producer they did not want their name identified with the process, and the producer and his company could have then moved on to more pliant analysts. For the record, all parties involved, including the analysts and the film group, have had ample opportunity to distance themselves, and even disavow the record of their participation in the preliminary findings and their conversations with Hank and me. To date, to our knowledge, no such public or private pronouncement has been made. They’re all invited to come forward with their version of events, anytime. In the meantime, there is nothing contractual to preclude me from identifying those parties; however, out of professional courtesy, I will refrain, for now. Time will tell if another agenda was in play in the lead up to Hank’s death.

 LS: And here, in Doudna’s preface to one of my quotes, he interjects his own phraseology to confuse provenance with authenticity.

 GD: Reference is made to the handwriting analysts requesting further samples of Pierre Lafitte's handwriting than initially provided and such samples not being provided.

• "Of deep concern were those parties in a position to confirm the provenance but refused to cooperate; every feasible effort to secure a definitive statement has gone unfulfilled."

 LS: As I noted, subjectively, in my statement that perhaps the refusal to discuss provenance (based on personal knowledge) was predicated on concern of being associated with these volatile revelations, or, perhaps the decision was predicated on far more personal issues that remain private to those directly involved. Regardless, as this was Hank’s final investigation and one he was quite proud of, it was and remains discouraging.

 GD: Again, not encouraging. 

What then changed Leslie Sharp's mind, tipped it in her assessment, convinced her that it was genuine? She gave two reasons: (1) Hank Albarelli could not have been duped. "He would not be a victim of fraud". This is simply asserted, explained with this non-explanatory statement: "In my relatively informed opinion, Hank would never have subjected himself to ridicule were the datebook to be determined to be the equivalent of the 'Hitler Diaries'. That is, Albarelli would never willingly subject himself to ridicule if it was fraudulent, therefore the datebook is genuine. Some might find this syllogism less than satisfying.

 LS: I’m discouraged by Doudna’s remarks. Deductive reasoning is acceptable and frequently satisfying to many investigators. Perhaps Doudna’s profession doesn’t allow it because the expertise relies solely on science when analyzing and authenticating multi-centuries old documents. But is carbon dating etc. such an exact science now that it allows no quarter to those that also apply deductive reasoning? When analysis of scientific data differ, doesn’t all hell break loose in Doudna’s professional world? 

 Doudna also seems to take particular issue with my observation, “Albarelli would never willingly subject himself to ridicule if it was fraudulent,” which Doudna follows with the cynical, “therefore the datebook is genuine.”

Others who knew Hank personally appreciate that I chose my words carefully. He had a number of works in progress, including “Wormwood Revisited,” a George Hunter White manuscript, the sequel to A Secret Order focused solely on June Cobb in Mexico City, and others. Would anyone who knew Hank contemplate that he might fall for a hoax that could wreck his career, his reputation, his livelihood? Doudna and others here may choose to extract the human element from this discussion; I do not.

GD: In my own field, the Dead Sea Scrolls, there have been high-profile cases in recent years of major-name senior scholars and prestigious museums taken in by forgeries--forgeries done by professionals who are very good at it. It is not the original Dead Sea Scrolls of the late 1940s and 1950s I am referring to here--those were genuine. I am referring to a series of alleged later secretly-privately-owned Dead Sea Scroll fragments of biblical manuscripts, as well as other sensational alleged archaeological finds from the legal and illegal antiquities market, sold to collectors and museums in the 2000s and 2010s (or appraisal obtained at high dollar value for tax deductions when donated, a more sophisticated mechanism for profit through charitable giving) which finally became exposed as large-scale, industrial-strength fraud. Similarly a "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" manuscript discovery in 2012 was endorsed by a Harvard professor as genuine and received much attention and learned discussion until a brilliant piece of investigative-detective work exposed it as a con job in 2016, with much professional embarrassment (https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-catholic-porn-producer...). Many more examples could be cited.

 

LS: Invoking a centuries old conflict over ancient text is a good opportunity for Doudna to advance his status and afford him a promo, and I respect why he chose to go the route of appealing to authority (his own). However, it’s perplexing that appeal to authority is a reasonable tactic in his favor, yet not so reasonable in Albarelli’s favor? 

 And Doudna’s argument might have been persuasive had he compared more contemporary hoaxes. There are numerous examples that are far more appropriate to JFK assassination research than the Dead Sea Scrolls, so I’m curious why he didn’t draw on Chauncy Holt, or the duplicate (one of which must be fraudulent) records stored in the FBI, for example? Perhaps, as a latter day student of the Kennedy assassination he isn’t actually aware of how fraught this investigation has been with frauds and hoaxes.

 It’s difficult, regardless, to ignore the irony of Doudna’s deductive reasoning: If A was a hoax, and B was a hoax, then surely C must be a hoax.

GD: There is that saying in the investment world: "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", and the same high bar of skepticism is merited toward a document which purports to give sensational diary-like cryptic entries with names and dates of the JFK assassination plot, first discovered over fifty years later,

 

LS: Had Doudna studied Hank’s statement, simple math would tell him that it’s thirty-seven years, not over fifty. Perhaps thirteen years plus is a blink of an eye and insignificant in his area of study, but certainly not in our area of research. 

 As an aside, Doudna’s interview with John Curington is well worth the time, but having worked for the Hunt family at a point in my career, I’m especially compelled to follow up with Doudna to understand why he didn’t ask if Curington knew Jack Crichton (who we now know with certainty served as the point man for the conspirators on the ground in Dallas), or his East Texas oil buddies (who we now know had been dealing with assassination strategist Otto Skorzeny since the early 1950s). Crichton joined the board of a Hunt Foundation in the summer of 1963.

GD: . . . whose argument for authenticity is confidence that "Hank Albarelli would not be a victim of fraud". 

But Leslie Sharp gave a second explanation of basis, in addition to confidence that Albarelli would not be a victim of fraud: (2) "I have studied the contents of the datebook for more than two years and find it persuasive for similar (although more in-depth) reasons outlined by Dick Russell".

 LS: I urge Doudna to reread Dick Russell’s analysis instead of attempting to diminish that particular step of my process toward ultimate conclusion. Were he familiar with Dick’s reputation as an impeccable investigative journalist, he might have been more circumspect.

 GD: Dick Russell's reasons would be found in several pages of introductory material at the beginning of Coup in Dallas written by Dick Russell, "The Lafitte Datebook: A Limited Analysis", pp. ix-xiii. So I--we--go to there to find what reasons persuaded Dick Russell that it was authentic. And the answer is: no reason is given apart from a listing of ways in which if it is authentic then it is very significant. Well yes, but is it authentic is the prior question. Here is Dick Russell:

"Pending verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts, I have carefully reviewed the 1963 datebook allegedly written by Jean Pierre Lafitte. Based on the entries I have seen, cryptic as many of them are (no doubt intentionally), this is a crucial piece of new evidence indicating a high-level conspiracy that resulted in the assassination that November 22 of President John F. Kennedy. Many of the names mentioned are familiar to me (. . .) A number of these names, however, were not known publicly in 1963 and for more than a decade thereafter. Thus, assuming the datebook entries were indeed set down at that time by Lafitte, this adds substantial credibility to the likelihood that the document contains never-before-revealed information about a conspiracy involving accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as well as his own killer, Jack Ruby. (. . .) I believe that this datebook fills in many gaps about what really happened on November 22, 1963 (. . .) I believe, presuming the datebook is verified as having been written by Lafitte in 1963, that this constitutes probably the strongest evidence that has ever come to light of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy."

In the "Foreward" to the book by Dick Russell (pp. v-vi), the authenticity of the Pierre Lafitte 1963 datebook is assumed, not argued, and its importance emphasized:

"The book you are about to read contains the strongest evidence ever published of a high-level conspiracy by the military-industrial complex and its ultra-right-wing-allies to assassinate President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. As an author who has spent years researching and writing three books on the subject, I state that unequivocally. The narrative by H. P. Albarelli Jr., coauthored with Leslie Sharp and Alan Kent, is based upon a 1963 datebook, or desk diary, kept by a mysterious, deep-cover intelligence operative named Jean Pierre Lafitte (. . .) I'll let the authors describe how he gained access to the datebook. It is eerie to see this come to light after all these years--a template, albeit intentionally cryptic, for the diabolical planning resulting in a coup d'etat that haunts our national psyche (. . .) Lafitte's datebook, a faux leather-bound red volume with a vintage poopoo coin taped to the inside front cover, is of immeasurable importance toward unraveling the takeover that took place that terrible day in Dallas (. . .)"

To cut to the chase, Dick Russell gives no reason for believing it is genuine other than it contains important information if it is. 

LS: Doudna is completely off base, and misrepresenting Dick’s position. I invite him to read the analysis again, carefully, adjust his comments accordingly, and perhaps apologize to Dick.

 GD: Based on that--the significance of its contents if true--Dick Russell concludes "this is a crucial piece of new evidence", i.e. genuine, not forged. (The apparent logic being that surely no forgery would have such interesting content, therefore it is genuine.) 

LS: Doudna has drawn yet another flawed conclusion, and sprinkled it with derision.

Dick states that entries in the datebook include names and details associated with the assassination that were not in the public domain prior to the 1970s. He goes on to identify the more obscure Lafitte entries that mention detail no researcher had ever considered until his 1994 publication of “The Man Who Knew Too Much.” Cases in point, A. Ehrman; Col. Jack Canon; the implications of Ilse Skorzeny and the Amerasia Spy Case. 

Further, it was not up to Dick to determine whether the ink and handwriting in the datebook aligned with pre and post-assassination records kept by Lafitte in 1963, nor was he in a position to vouchsafe in any manner for provenance since he was not involved in access to the exclusive material. That was Hank’s experience alone, which was quite serendipitous. Hank then continued to interact with his sources to the degree that he was finally convinced the entries were made by Lafitte, contemporaneously with the evolving assassination plot in 1963, and that those entries were not recorded years after the coup in Dallas.

GD: Leslie Sharp says her reasons for believing are similar to Dick Russell's. None of the other writers in the book address the issue of authenticity.

 

LS: Hank’s other contributors are in a position to share their perspectives on a selection of screenshots from the datebook that Hank shared; I know they also applied logic, and personal experience with and faith in Hank. My own statement reflects the evolution of my evaluation of the physical datebook—having examined it and the contents directly for a number of months. It is a combination of subjective and objective analysis, and I stand by it.

GD: My reaction is it sounds too good to be true.

LS: Perhaps the truth is uncomfortable for Doudna. If the datebook is authentic, then the revelations presented in Hank’s narrative not only upend the Warren Commission conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated Kennedy, and completely debunk less credible conspiracy theories, but perhaps more disconcerting, they also introduce expanded context that challenges theories (perhaps even Doudna’s own) of the conspiracy—including those that have achieved ‘sacred cow status’ over the past five decades. Many honest brokers will welcome this seismic shift; others with equally honest intentions may be compelled to reflect, and, as Hank had hoped, pursue the possibilities of convergence.

 

On air.

Does the interviewee need all those things you listed? Often they don't have those things, yet things are fine.

Rogan digs, yeah, but he also does discursive three hour chats which go all over the place. Stone I think has been on before and people liked that appearance well enough. I'm not sure why you think they'll like what he's saying any less just because he's talking about a newsworthy documentary he made, on a topic of interest.

This all avoids the additional point, that people want to see what Stone has to say about the topic, and they particularly want to see what he'll say about it with Rogan. The assumption is that the two of them will have a conversation. Jim is a good interviewee and I enjoy it every time he speaks, but he's done interviews. Yet I've never seen Stone talk specifically on the topic with a guy like Rogan at vastly expanded length. I'm curious to watch it, millions of others probably are as well.

I'm not sure why you think there's a problem with Stone and interviews, He's been doing them for decades, and they're always interesting and watchable.

Part four is an outstanding conclusion and contains valuable, extended sequences on both Oswald's intelligence connections, and the foreign policy ramifications of Kennedy's murder. Both those topics appear to an extent in Through the Looking Glass, but they receive more substantive examination in Destiny Betrayed.

I'll offer more thoughts on this when my review is done. The upcoming holiday period gives me a number of days to work on it. If it's alright Jim I'll get it to you early January, probably first week.

To the poster who wished that Through the Looking Glass had dug deeper into Oswald's background, Episode 4 from the longer, uncut Destiny Betrayed series does exactly this. Watching it now.

I actually sent Richard an email a week ago (a really short one) just to note how much I'd liked his book Sons and Brothers. And I mentioned that I was writing him now because the documentary had mentioned the University where he worked, which had enabled me to find his email and send him the message. He wrote a kind note back sending his best wishes. His contributions are really great in the documentary.

The final episode is streaming today and I'll be looking at it sometime today.

Jim, yes, I can do that for you. Will take a couple of weeks as I've been thrown into a new job and am retraining and watching the series in my spare time. But I can write a review for you.

Had to think for a moment but yes, that part was great. Also very impressed with the X-ray medical evidence showing the direction of bullet fragments in the skull (hit in the front, moving to the back). So many great extra segments.

Once I've finished all four episodes I'll likely leave it a few days then do a rewatch. Also very excited for your eventual book on the series Jim. That will be really good to read.

Well Oliver's interviews are really good too. But hats off to the entire team, including yourself, Robert Richardson, and everyone else involved. It's stellar. I would be very happy if Oliver can make a return appearance on some of the higher profile venues he's appeared on in the past, just to talk about this movie.

There are heaps of little vignettes like that and all of them are gold. I'd love to know what newcomers are making of the documentary as they watch it. It would have to be eye opening.