Phil Nelson

[THIS WAS A REPLY TO SOMEONE WHO ASKED ME FOR MORE INFORMATION SO THAT HE COULD BETTER DETERMINE WHETHER TO BELIEVE ME AND THE TRUE STORY OF THE LEGENDARY WHISTLEBLOWER "TOSH" PLUMLEE. EVIDENTLY HE COULD NOT BELIEVE THAT MEMBERS OF THE MARY FERRELL ORGANIZATION WOULD EVER INTENTIONALLY "GASLIGHT" TOSH PLUMLEE. WHY AND HOW HE MANAGED TO GET HIS POST DELETED WITH NARY A WORD ABOUT THE REASONING WILL REMAIN A MYSTERY UNTIL SOMEONE (THE ADMINISTRATORS?) EXPLAIN IT]. Did you not read my previous attempt to vindicate him in my June 13, 2021 blog? I provided multiple links back to it in case anyone missed it, as it appears you did. I thought I laid the case out pretty thoroughly, citing specific instances of how MFF officers made such statements, including Bill Simpich (where I furnished a recording of him doing precisely that), of Hancock making general, non-specific critiques such as "his story changes too much" (words to that effect, with no citations) and how Jefferson Morley glibly stated that Tosh should be in the Cancellare photo, but couldn't be found. Did you see that?? What about how I deconstructed that argument by pointing out that Cancellare was in a car stuck at the intersection of Main St. and Houston when the fatal shot was fired. Morley presumed that he somehow appeared on the knoll immediately after the shot, and I explained that Tosh left the south knoll as soon as the shot was fired and the limo left the scene. So how could Morley miss all of that, which explained how wrong he was. Did you not read all of the post? Please explain why you think it's OK for you to call me on what you claim you can't agree with, and want more proofs?? Please address what I've already provided, if you really think you can properly rebut any of it.

Everything that Mary Ferrell and her assigns / and Foundation "descendants" tried to do in his character assassination campaign has now been exposed. He is the "real deal." She and they are not. See it here: https://lbjthemasterofdeceit.com/2022/12/17/the-official-and-final-vindication-of-tosh-plumlee/

See it here - click on title: NEW BOOK: Evidence that LBJ Visited Mob Friends in Las Vegas 3 Weeks Before JFK Assassination!

Contrasted to Jacob Hornberger’s Partial Explication — Augmented with a Glimpse Into a New Book That Will Put the Last Piece of the “Zapruder Family Secret” in Place https://lbjthemasterofdeceit.com/2022/11/15/reflections-on-alexandra-zapruders-expiation-of-her-grandfathers-anguish/

Joe, the only persons named Wallace in the Index of his last two books are named George and Henry. No one named "Malcolm, Malcomb" or "Mac" either. Not only did Caro miss that person and event, he didn't note the name "Billie Sol Estes" either. Not even his corrupted buddy U.S. Attorney Barefoot Sanders (later made a federal judge), among many others' doors remained closed, and their related sub-plots. Such as the one I discovered and reported HERE. (About Chad Mills and his Great Uncle Milton Good--who had been on RFK's task force to find dirt on LBJ-- killed just days before the 1960 Democratic Convention). By not naming Estes, he also gets a pass on the 7 associates of his as well as many other related murders and financial crimes too numerous to mention which also involved Billie Sol and the ever-increasingly tight tether to Lyndon Johnson's invisible hand.

See HERE

You decide . . . see HERE. At LBJTheMasterofDeceit.com

Chad has asked me to inform readers of this post that he is cancelling the "Fund Me" site. As I stated in a previous post, I was the one who thought this up and "sold" him on the idea, since he has lived with these health issues several years and I felt like his dilemma was far more worthy than many that others have used to achieve their goals. Unfortunately, his complex and "undiagnosable" issues (both the eyesight and adrenal problems) did not lend themselves to a short paragraph (2nd time) or a too-lengthy essay (the 1st time). He feels that God has other plans for him and is confident that he will find some other avenue for getting the medical attention that he needs. Anyone wishing, in the future, to inquire about Chad's health can contact me through the Forum and I'll pass it along to him.

Chad Mills, still awaiting confirmation that his membership application is approved, asked me yesterday to post this in his behalf: ____________________________________________________________ “I can appreciate how one might question the reasoning behind linking to a crowdfunding page to try and raise money, especially when so many across the nation are struggling to make ends meet themselves. However in this case I can confirm that this condition is deadly serious. I am prepared to release some of my medical records to confirm the claims I have made. The first image [to be added by him] shows my lab results regarding the adrenal issue. The low levels speak for themselves. They are the lowest levels that my oncologist at University Medical Center has ever seen and he was shocked that I could even walk with numbers that low. The second image is of my creative kianase numbers which were also the highest that my rheumatologist had ever seen and is only a level found in severe multiple sclerosis patients. I travel today to my endocrinologist and am prepared to get notes made, about my mysterious condition, if needed to further prove my illnesses is not one that has been conjured up. Where possible I would actually prefer if you can share these files with any medical specialist if it meant getting me to a diagnosis faster as opposed to a donation. Respectfully, -Chad Mills”

OK, that's understandable, given the circumstances. All I can say about that is I have now corresponded with Chad (who's 44 years old) for about 16 months (less half of that, as I encouraged him to proceed with a manuscript, during which I wanted to leave him alone so that he'd have time to work on it). It was not until recently that I learned that he lost his job several years ago and, having spent all of his savings while assisting his mother in her child-care business, he manages to just "get by." When I recently decided to assist him in doing a "Fund Me" account I erred in several ways, firstly picking "GoFundMe" which, for many reasons, I later decided was a mistake (SEE HERE). Another one was that I thought, of his two major health issues, that his severe case of peripheral vision (but only to one side -- the left -- in both eyes, a unique condition that no eye doctor he's seen had ever encountered before) was the one he needed to be diagnosed. It was not the priority he had in mind, however, that one, he says, he can live with. It was the other health problem he feels must be remedied, due to the probability that it may significantly shorten his life if it isn't: It something affecting his adrenal glands that must be diagnosed by a specialist in that part of medicine. He had been to an oncologist, who had never seen anything like it, then an endocrinologist who Chad has visited several times over the last year has also not been able to determine the cause. That doctor advised Chad to get an appointment with specialists at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Chad does have Medicade coverage, however, he has been advised that the Mayo Clinic will only accept Minnesota residents under that program. Thus, the need for him have financial help if he is ever going to have any chance of surviving this condition. I've asked him to join the EF and post some thoughts and documentation of his situation. I urged him to cancel that one and refund everything a half dozen or so folks had already ponied up. Before all of that, when I had to explain to my wife why I needed to lead this effort and make a significant contribution (Chad isn't expecting, or even hoping that anyone else contribute as much--and, BTW, I had to talk him into this approach, he definitely was very reluctant to do this). My wife and I are both renowned penny-pinchers from way back -- we've always agreed that any expenditure over $25 or so must be ok'd by the other one, since she has been the actual "breadwinner" around here since my retirement 20 years ago -- and I explained to her why I believed in Chad and his story, which can be summed up thusly: Because, if ever there were actual stories that qualify for the "you can't make that up!" category, this was it. I honestly think that most other readers will be absolutely blown away by Chad's story when it is published. For the others (the complement of the "most") this book will at the very least get their attention in a big and undeniable way. Of course, some of them may still cling to the fairy stories about the great, generous and magnanimous liberal image drawn by Robert Caro (and Doris Kearns-Goodwin, Michael Beschloss, Mark Updegrove, Jack Valenti and countless others) -- except for Bill Moyers, who refuses to publish the volume he had previously promised to write, probably because he can't, without running the risk of self-incrimination. This book will be a very detailed, documented account, not only about his story of RFK's two interactions with his family (first recruiting Milt Good in 1960; second recruiting Good's nephew Harold Elder in 1961-2 to assist in the Billie Sol Estes investigation), but also a fascinating "old west" set of stories revealing a history of Mr. Good's life as a West Texas rancher who won the World Rodeo Championship in 1921, then, after falling in with a no-account neighbor, wound up in prison, convicted of murder and given a 55 year sentence. He eventually became friendly with the warden, who then promoted Milt to be, not only his personal chauffer, but the chief "mail reader" of the entire prison. That role put him into direct touch with the legendary Texas Ranger Frank Hamer, and assisted him in catching the rambling lover-robbers Bonnie and Clyde. Directly as a result of that, Hamer then arranged with then-governor "Ma" Ferguson to give Milt a pardon, which she did, taking 43 years off of that sentence. Hamer then hired this ex-convict to work as a special investigator for the Texas Rangers[!] I found all of that very fascinating, but it wasn't until I read his own story that I knew immediately that Chad was "the real deal." A short excerpt of that piece follows, explaining an incident that occurred during his long search of West Texas/East New Mexico libraries, museums and personal visits to various people's homes . . . ______________________________________________________ EXCERPT - Chad Mills Intro: On May 26, 2016, my uncle Doug drove from Austin (a 6hr drive) so we could have a day of research on our uncles (in my case, it was related to my great uncle Harold Elder and my great-grand uncle Milt Good). We decided to start off by making a trip to the Southwest Collection on the campus of Texas Tech in Lubbock, TX. When we arrived there we were flooded with a treasure trove of information regarding every aspect of their lives. The courtroom testimony alone on the 1923 self-defense murders was roughly one thousand pages. After sifting through the mountain of documents over several hours we were shocked to find out at the front desk that we were only allowed to take a small fraction of what we needed. The price for that small amount we were allowed totaled $400.00! Total bust! What a waste! we thought. We had learned a tough lesson that day about research. Depression set in as we passed the Lubbock [Population 201,191 City Limit] sign for the 120-mile ride back home. I was even more dejected than him. It was like having a dream come true in the palm of my hands only to have it snatched away. I reclined the seat back and with the heat bearing down on us, I turned up the A/C and readied to take a nap. An hour into our drive home we pulled into Seagraves, Texas. I was well into some good sleep when Doug jerked the wheel. My head lurched hard left into his right shoulder. I said to him "what are we doing?” I knew everything was fine when he calmly responded in a typical West Texas accent... "sign bacck ‘derr said museum .... we haven't had any luck today, couldn't hurt to try't.” One half second longer upon making the decision to veer and we would've missed that turn. He just as easily could’ve kept the wheel straight, staying on the direct route, straight home, ending our miserable day. One block down the street we pulled up to the museum and parked. As we stepped onto the sidewalk we looked at the front door which showed open and walked inside with 5 minutes left before closing time. As soon as we stepped in I looked to the right and an older man dressed in white was seated quietly reading an antique newspaper on a bench. A lovely woman walked up and greeted us. "Hello, my name is Leslie . . . is there anything in particular I can help you guys find?" My uncle Doug went on to tell her about the quest to find out more information on a relative of ours by the name Milt Good. She thought she had heard the name before and gave a quick look in her records but came up empty. I was not surprised; the day was filled with bad luck, and it seemed that this was the capper. We thanked her and we started to walk out the door, Doug leading me back out so I would not go blindsiding into any of the ornate antiques. I caught another glance at the man sitting on the bench by the exit and a voice echoed a whisper in my ear... “ask her about the Elder’s.” My great uncle, who RFK approached in 1961-2 to testify against Billie Sol Estes, was named Harold Elder. He died in 2013. Coincidentally he was originally from Seagraves. I turned around and asked her pointedly... "Do you have any information on Harold Elder?" After a slightly less than awkward pause she responded, slowly saying... "My grandfather married an Elder, his last name was Stanfield” I was not sure what went through my uncle Doug's mind, but my first thought was: Wow, this is amazing, we are probably distant cousins. I had no clue. What happened next gives me chills and I’m tearing up even now writing this two years later. My uncle paused, then responded by saying... “My biological dad was Les Stanfield." The truest expression of shocked disbelief instantly and very visibly washed across her face. Leslie turned beet red, tears covered by trembling hands welled up then streamed down her face. She spun around as to start running away but as she went to take the first hurried step paused, turned back facing him direct and stiff as a statue looked Doug in the eyes and with a face that I will never forget she said... "Doug. You. Are. My. BROTHER!” Doug, his facial expression in a frozen smile, with no hesitation at all, magnanimously said: “Well come over here and give me a hug Sis!” It almost brought me to tears at that moment. Two seconds later after my brain processed all of this and the fact that she was MY aunt hit me, the tears streamed down my face. They stepped to each other and embraced in a hug. On the way out, I glanced at the man on the bench dressed in white; my face full of tears now, he said, with his eyes looking straight thru me... “He works in mysterious ways” “YES HE DOES!,” I said.

Unfortunately, Joe, the short answer is: "He didn't." He has not covered that trial in any of his four volumes on LBJ, the last of which brought him to the end of 1963. Within those 4 tomes there is no mention of any of the following names: Mac Wallace, Josefa Johnson, Judge Charles O. Betts, or DA Robert Long or anyone else connected to that crime and trial, which was widely reported in the local newspapers. He must have felt (or was instructed) that this little incident had no bearing on LBJ's skyrocketing career. Perhaps the reason for that so many other names are either missing (e.g. Billie Sol Estes or Madeleine Brown, for example) or referenced only as it pertained to their ordinary duties -- for example Cliff Carter, who of course isn't linked to his real job, of being Mac Wallace's supervisor, but some arcane other stuff. Let us not forget that Barefoot Sanders (once the U.S. attorney who was sent to supervise the 1962 grand jury on Henry Marshall's (another unmentionable name) murder to ensure that it did not fix the ludicrous "suicide" C.O.D. As I've pointed out in another blog HERE, there are so many things that Caro threw into the ditch along the way that his famous line about "turning every page" is nothing but a joke (at least for anyone expecting to find real truths about this subject).

Milt Paul Good -- One of Robert Kennedy's Special Investigators: Murdered July 3, 1960 -- one week before the DNC Convention in Los Angeles - See HERE

I wouldn't look to Wikipedia for anything about Valenti's true past or his intrinsically shady character traits. Within my book "Who Really Killed Martin Luther King Jr. -- The Case Against Lyndon Johnson J. Edgar Hoover" there are eight (8) pages directed to that very point: See Chapter 13, in the first section titled "More Revelations of Lyndon Johnson’s Connections from Washington to Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, and Memphis: Jack Valenti and Jack Ruby—Partners in Porn? The bottom line is that Jack Valenti had a very checkered past, but ultimately, a hugely successful 40+ year run as "Mr. Hollywood." Thanks to LBJ (having previously used Bill Moyers to squire Mary Margaret around town as a "beard" to ensure she was available for him whenever he signaled that the time was "now"), by 1962 he came up with the plan to have her marry Jack, so he could be with her anytime simply by letting Jack replace Bill for the "long-term" relationship. Evidently that marriage survived despite the rather unconventional way it came about.

Mssrs. Niederhut and Bauer are on the right track. Caro himself described Johnson as a great planner and manipulator in his first book, I think he even used the adjective "meticulous" or something near it. For anyone who hasn't read it already, Ed Tatro's great work "Lyndon Johnson the Charlatan Liberal" is must reading. Proving that LBJ's real attitudes were exactly opposite of what he portrayed them to be; but above all, he was a master politician who knew that passage of civil rights legislation would effectively erase all the bad stuff and provide him a grand legacy, just like Washington, Lincoln and FDR (his mentor).

Joe, think of it this way: If he was capable of murdering numerous others, evidence of which I have noted in four books and numerous blogs -- BTW, including RFK and MLK -- but also his attempt to sink the USS Liberty and all 294 men aboard, merely to secure reelection in the next year -- in his deluded mind anyway (while risking nuclear war with the USSR) then wouldn't such a man pass this hurdle you've constructed? Tom Cahill, who was subjected to the most vile and hideous treatment imaginable (an honorably discharged veteran BTW), all for his protesting LBJ's Vietnam policies "in his backyard," had this to say: “As far as I’m concerned [Phil Nelson’s] exposure of “Operation Cyanide” is the smoking gun in the case against LBJ for his role in the execution of JFK. If Johnson was criminally insane enough to conspire to send to “the bottom” a US Navy ship with all hands as well as nuke millions of residents of Cairo, why would he not conspire to kill the man in the way of his ambition to be president. And you have certainly proved Johnson was indeed criminally insane by the strictest definition of the term. [ . . . ] And you deserve a Presidential Medal of Honor for your work in closing a fifty plus year cold case. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your hard work.” ~ Tom Cahill, Oswald Innocent Campaign — Cluny, France

NOTE: Due to problems with GoFundMe, this appeal has been temporarily suspended. It will be resumed shortly on "a new and improved platform." ___________________________________________________________ New researcher Chad Mills -- who has a "Blockbuster" trove of new information about Robert Kennedy's June 1960 attempt to "eliminate LBJ" from the national ticket a month before the DNC convention -- has an urgent need to find an eye doctor for a rare eye condition that other doctors have not been able to diagnose. Chad has been told that eye doctors at Mayo Hospital in Rochester, Minnesota are probably his best bet. Unfortunately, as he explains in his Go Fund Me page, he was forced out of his job due to this condition and has few resources to draw from for his medical needs. All of this is explained further in my latest blog, which can be found Thank you for helping Chad ensure he does not lose his eyesight!

Robert Caro's first book proved that he was a great writer, that he had been drilled in the fine arts of prose, riddled with force and aggression, where that mattered. And it mattered a lot in this piece, then marketed as the "first of a trilogy" -- later revised to four volumes. The last book he published on LBJ was introduced ten years ago, and it was simultaneously announced that a fifth, and final volume would then be written, which still hasn't been published. Robert Caro, God willing, will turn 87 this October. That first book established his creds across the gamut, not merely the usual "suspects" -- journalists, historians, all of academia -- but brought forth many other people simply interested in reading good literature. It was hugely successful, because the reader quickly noticed that he did not back off from going where many other biographers would not venture. The second book was a magnificently constructed "nuts and bolts" look at Johnson's time in Congress, leading up to his brazenly stolen 1948 primary election against Coke Stevenson. But it is also where his manners changed a bit after Lady Bird banned him from the publicly financed and administered, federal government owned, "LBJ Library and Museum." Someone later apparently explained to her that she really didn't have the authority to do that. It appears that Lady Bird learned a lot from Lyndon Baines Johnson (and of course, there were plenty of things he learned from her). The third book is where the back wheeling became noticeable, the critical commentary cut by half, while the laudatory aspects of Lyndon's brilliant leadership became more pronounced. By the fourth book, last book he had completely capitulated to even the most outrageously untrue assertions about LBJ's conduct, in the most critically-important passages in his subject's lifetime, not merely during his tainted administration. He has been working on the fifth book for ten full years (since 2012, the publication of book #4). I believe that it was In one of the final chapters of that book, where he explains the need for still another book, where he also noted that "the tone will change" (though I can't find it now, I remember reading that -- it might have been in one of his many interviews). But in the meantime, as the world awaits that day, he found time to write, and, in 2020 published another (non-LBJ) book titled "Working," Why such an odd title? Is he admitting that he finished the new manuscript for the 5th and last book . . . apparently years ago? For one to conclude that that book will never be published a long as he is alive might be the most logical and realistic answer to the question: Is he (and his publisher) holding it back for publication until after his death? In the meantime, that question can be expected to grow like topsy. In fact, I have heard that expressed by more than one person lately. This blog, an examination of the numerous errors, contradictions, and misrepresentations of provable witness testimony related to the most critical moments of JFK's assassination, may be considered a high risk for those who are content with the status quo: "The CIA [or fill in the blank with Military Intell, Israel, Castro, et. al. -- other than the single most obvious, LBJ], did it." The facts presented here (together with a rare instance or two where I openly engage in minor "speculation") are the basis of that point. See HERE for blog.

Or, How Mary Ferrell, Entrusted with National Secrets, Was Ultimately Exposed by Her Own Long Buried Secrets. See HERE This is a detailed review of Mary's mysterious past, about how she purportedly became obsessed with collecting documents and government files on the JFK assassination immediately in the aftermath. This despite the fact that she had never supported Kennedy, and yet she did all of it as a volunteer at her own expense, in her spare time--while she worked full time as a secretary raising four teenagers. The 2001-2002 acquisition of her files by a venture capitalist named Oliver Curme is also closely examined, to the extent possible due to the lack of true transparency as to who, or what entity, really financed that deal.

I agree, that would have been very nice to see. I asked Christopher about that and he explained that certain documents, such as Bouck's affidavit which he gave to Fulton after their Arlington conversation, not-so-mysteriously disappeared after his arrest on August 9, 1998 (Had be gone to the trouble of taping his conversation with Bouck as they walked around Arlington Cemetery under their umbrellas, those tapes would have also disappeared on that day of course). His description of that scene was very similar to the video a week or two ago of how 29 SWAT team officers (plus 20+ SUVs, helicopter and two boats) stormed Roger Stone's house, caught on tape by the fortunate crew of CNN, thanks to a "tip" to them, and them alone, allegedly because they wanted to make sure that he didn't try to destroy any evidence (the premise being that, after having badgered him for two years during which, if he had anything incriminating, he had not taken the opportunity to trash it?). Both were scenes reminiscent of the storm troopers of the Gestapo, but putting that aside, in Fulton's case it was done for the purpose of ransacking his house looking for whatever property they could find, which they did. So, the fact that that piece was made to "disappear" can now be (and is) thrown at him as "evidence" disproving his story! As many of us suspected --- upon seeing the multiple references to LBJ's work "behind the scenes" and RFK's determination to secure the real evidence away from the FBI, CIA, SS, et. al., so that he could use it to go after the real plotters (i.e. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Angleton, and on down the org. chart) when he became president -- the "CIA did it alone crowd" would come out of the woodwork to disparage Fulton's excellent non-fiction book full of truths that just can't stand, at least in their conflicted minds.

JD: "This is why Mr Nelson will never be a valued critic." I agree with this one, at least in JD's opinion (a mutual one, in opposite context, BTW). JD: "I do not dispute the meetings. What I am questioning, quite specifically, is the content of the discussion." Then why did you sarcastically frame it as: "For instance, if one recalls, about 25 years ago there was the famous General Lebed in Russia. Well, guess what? Fulton puts him in this book" Your message portrays it as if Fulton exploited the name of the "famous general" that he had read about somewhere, knowing that he had since died therefore choosing that name so that no one could ever prove or disprove his assertion? (Speaking of devices, as you repeatedly referenced in your first post, then again in the one above, where you are attempting to show that everyone he's cited is now dead, "conveniently" so they can't be questioned. That particular false theme might have worked, but there are too many critical instances where he has proven that his experiences were factual.). JD: "As per Nelson's specialty, the cheap shot on Drain . . ." How is my referencing two specific factual cases where Drain's credibility has been questioned a "cheap shot." And, BTW, I acknowledged this was an error on Bouck's part in not giving "credit" to the FBI for their role in heisting all the evidence out of Dallas, even at a time when the FBI's "authority" to do so was not entirely clear. Had it not been for the ephemeral (a few days at most) "fear" of a conspiracy (which they were concurrently denying) that would have been "NONE" and that evidence should have remained in the custody of the Dallas PD. Why are you continuing to argue about a point that has been "asked and answered" already? JD: "How anyone can write about the Waldron/Hartmann thesis today escapes me." Jim, if you haven't noticed, it was you who introduced that topic. I merely responded to you to demonstrate that it was impossible for Gen. Lebed to have used Waldron's thesis since his book came eleven years after that meeting, and six years after Lebed had died. Fulton merely reported what he had been told, unaware that doing so would cause you so much angst over the fact that the story was so close to Waldron's book. So please do us all a favor and drop it. Again, a point "asked, answered and resolved in the last post." (But since you're still so proud of getting a "thumbs up" from some teacher, please accept my hearty "congratulations" for that magnificent work. I'll make it a point to read it someday). I note that, in not responding to it, you graciously "accepted" the premise of the last paragraph in my previous post, implicitly acknowledging the intrinsic truth of everything there (unlike every other paragraph, where you did find some "nits" to pick). I will take that as the compliment that I'm sure you intended to make, though very subtly as is your usual style.

There is a reason – and it has nothing to do with Christopher Fulton’s choice of literary styles to pen his memoir – why Mr. DiEugenio has been unable to do a review of this book. It should become clear by the end of this post. The way Jim framed Mr. Fulton’s encounter with General Alexander Lebed belies the undercurrent of contempt he evidently felt about the entire book and how it has apparently created conflictions for him personally. But contrived insolence does not disprove the merits of this profoundly important book, it merely reflects DiEugenio’s own frustration as noted in the first few sentences of his “non-review.” As for Fulton’s meeting with General Lebed, if Jim really doubts that it occurred, maybe he should check with the assistant district attorney (in the 1997-99 period) who, rather brutally, interrogated Christopher on multiple occasions, Mr. Stewart Barman. In the first one, March 3, 1999, Barman grilled him on the meeting with Lebed, so he must have had reason to believe the story. Regarding DiEugenio’s astonishment that Fulton had the temerity to use material from Waldron’s book, how could he do that when the conversation with General Lebed took place eleven years before Waldron published his book? And the fact that Fulton is merely reporting the information volunteered by Lebed does not constitute an endorsement on his part of what Lebed told him. There is no denying that what he was told by Lebed is similar to Waldron’s “thesis,” so – instead of using “kneejerk” analysis, if one approaches it more thoughtfully – there is a veritable explanation for that anomaly, though Fulton would have no reason to have determined what it was: Given that his conversation with Lebed occurred in April, 1997 and Waldron’s book was not published for over decade after that (together with the fact that General Lebed’s death in a helicopter crash had also occurred six years before Waldron’s book was published) it appears that the genesis of Waldron’s story might have begun with Lebed (where he got it from is open to conjecture). But the fact is, Waldron had obtained much of his information about the story from Harry Williams (see Legacy of Secrecy, p. 766), who was closely associated not only with Almeida, but Robert F. Kennedy as well. Capisce Jim? Next, Jim’s unsubstantiated doubt about the meeting Robert White had with Ronald Reagan, as retold by Mr. Fulton, was highly substantiated: Hint, look at the top of page 440, where you will find definitive proof – a photo of their meeting – affirming indeed that it occurred. Yes, it is unfortunate that both White and Reagan died and made Jim’s job so difficult, but thankfully the 120+ pages of photographs, in addition to the numerous references (verbatim copies) within the narrative to many affidavits and other correspondence will live on so that future generations will learn essential truths (as much as that seems to bother some folks with restricted agendas). DiEugenio’s next point related to Bill Kelly’s inconsequential “review” has already been addressed in my own book review, so I will leave it at that. But, given the FBI’s and SS’s many well documented manipulations of evidence, witnesses and falsified documents – and their choices of sending only those agents who were well-schooled in compliance to those methods (see James Douglass’ pp. 309-310 for more information on that issue, if anyone is unfamiliar with it) – it is troubling that Jim would reference Vincent Drain as a presumably credible source for anything. In fact, his credibility has been an issue on multiple subjects over the years. One was his failure to initial the bullet shells during the period he had custody of them, which “broke” the chain of custody, thereby devaluing their possible use as evidence. For another instance, see the document “The Paper Bag: An FBI Blueprint for Revised Documents” by Edgar F. Tatro for more on this point: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=520805 Finally, regarding Bouck’s statement that the Secret Service had gathered all the evidence (ignoring the FBI’s key role in that) is, so far, the only substantive “error” that I have seen in this otherwise magnificent and completely new work. Bouck’s oversight might be explained by the fact that he was a ranking official of the Secret Service, probably habitually used to speaking about their role and forgetting momentarily that their sister organization was also involved. But comparing that omission to the numerous misstatements within DiEugenio’s own “non-review,” as noted above, is disturbing, to say the least. The real, and transparently clear, reason that Messrs. DiEugenio, Kelly and Schnapf (among numerous others) are aghast about the publication of this book is that it has turned their long-embraced beliefs – that “The ‘CIA did it’ all on their own with a little help from their friends,” – on its head because of the numerous references to Lyndon B. Johnson’s central role in it (and by logical extension, the other assassinations done during the period of his reign). That Christopher Fulton obtained this information from a high-level Secret Service official, who had been sworn to secrecy about all of it, by Robert F. Kennedy himself, is simply too much for these purported “truth seekers” to swallow. It is as if they are in a room with many doors to open for “real truths” but the one marked “LBJ” must never be opened, only all the others. The massive locks they and their forebears have installed on that door is precisely the reason that the “Crime of the Century” has still never been solved to anyone’s satisfaction.

The "Deep State" exists as a "secret entity" alongside, albeit embedded invisibly into, both/all political parties. The last paragraphs of my review reference LBJ's own party, which at the time also included some of the (real) "best and brightest" senators of all time, IMHO. That comment was made not to indict the party -- then or now -- but to suggest that getting to the "truth of the matters" will inextricably embarrass the party(ies) from which the highest-level plotters came. And further, to insinuate that the potential of that occurring is/will be inherently present in any attempt to conduct an honest and open reinvestigation of the assassinations.

My first post on this forum in about 8 years; no particular reason for that, other than that I had other priorities. My review of Christopher Fulton's book explains why I believe this is one of the most important books ever written about the JFK assassination. It also attempts to explain why the reader must leave their own prejudices about the literary tools used in Fulton's memoir "checked at the door." The two examples I used to do that (Robert Caro's very meticulous use of all the conventional scholarly methods didn't stop him from ignoring important facts, witnesses and events that did not conform to his narrative, and Hunter S. Thompson's "Gonzo Journalism" style -- without using that scholarly approach -- to present the most profound truths of events [including the JFK assassination] were merely to illustrate that one cannot always presume that truth exists only in works that have the appearance of scholasticism. There are numerous other "non-fiction" books written sans end-notes (etc.), some of which contain essential truths (e.g. Peter Maas) and others which should be re-categorized as "fiction" (e.g. Bob Woodward, Hampton Sides). Fulton has produced a factually-based, elegantly-written book designed to reveal his own personal experiences, all because of his interest in acquiring JFK's gold Cartier watch as his personal memento of his hero from the time he was a child. He wrote this book as anyone who simply wanted to describe how that desire eventually practically destroyed his life (and actually did destroy his wife's and mother's in the process). Although he chose instead to substitute 120 pages of photos and documents, plus copies of others within the narrative itself, for the foot-notes should mitigate that issue sufficiently for most objective readers. That he inserted certain dialogue to "round out" the story -- clearly such discussions had taken place -- given what he personally experienced could have only resulted from such actions, it is reasonable to accept them as a "given" predicate.

That statement is not correct, according to the official J.E.H. calendar at Mary Ferrell. Thursday, 11/21/63 was wide open; his first appointment on 11/22 was at 10:00 a.m., more than enough time for him to catch a few Zs on the airplane back to DC and take another 3 or 5 hour nap before getting himself into position for "the news from Dallas."

Shocking indeed. A very dedicated and tenacious researcher, one of the very best. My condolences to his family and and to all who were close to him. Phil Nelson