Also Vincent Salandria, who was a great thinker and writer.

Mary LaFontaine died several years ago.  She did some original research with help from her husband and people like Bill Adams.

Sandy asks the right question:  "Who's been doing the work of searching and releasing the records beginning in 1998 when the ARRB closed, up till the latest release?"

NARA stated in the Federal Register in 2000 that it was them.

“NARA continues to maintain and supplement the collection under the provisions of the Act…Agencies continue to identify records that may qualify as assassination records and need to have this guidance available.” 

NARA was wrong.

It turns out that between 1998 to 2017, NARA did virtually nothing to supplement the collection, and agencies did virtually nothing to identify new records.

The agencies waited out the American public - as another example, after the government spent enormous amounts of money to locate hundreds of living sources during the ARRB era of 1994-1998, the agencies lobbied to have their sources' names hidden - and then let these sources die off between 1998 and the present.

Many of us assumed that records were continuing to be released between 1998-2017.  Except for a few documents, we were wrong.

Many of us assumed that the last of the records would be released in 2017.  We were wrong.

What has happened is that the executive agencies used new, made-up standards for release, "Transparency Plans" created by the executive branch, replaced them with the standards for release created in the JFK Records Act, and released the documents that they felt like releasing.

The President then used the new made-up standards to state that the rest of the records will not be released until certain events occur, such as "when diplomatic relations with Mexico will not be affected" and "when nuclear policy changes".

The "major blow" occurred in July, 2023 when the court moved to dismiss much of the case because it ruled against our interpretation of the JFK Records Act.

Today, the case is stronger now than it was before this week's order.

The new ruling expands the case to include documents "removed" from government possession, not just "destroyed" documents.  This is one of the reasons we amended the complaint.

What it means is that we have a stronger argument for enforcement - at least one court case states that enforcement is "mandatory" when documents are removed, but not when documents are destroyed.

As to the other aspects of the case - the President was dismissed from the case six months ago.   Preliminary injunctions are very difficult to win.   

The judge made it clear in his initial ruling that he believed that the President and NARA had carte blanche to modify the JFK Act with Transparency Plans, and that NARA had few duties except in those instances where the ruling was in our favor.

In this ruling, the judge has now further stated his reasons for these findings.

We have made a very strong and complete record to challenge any aspect of the case, should we choose to do so.

We are also going forward with our claims that NARA must create the proper Identification aids so that the Collection can be easily accessed: for release of the non-executive branch records; and to recover removed and destroyed records (destroyed records can sometimes be re-constructed through various electronic means).  

We will let you know our next steps.

Bill Simpich

Leslie,

I haven't studied Trettin extensively, especially re his role as deputy CI - but check out the Cuban Operations Group that deserves more study:

Here is the docket's text:

CLERK'S NOTICE THE MOTIONS [#78, #91, #92] SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON JANUARY, 18, 2024 AT 1:30 P.M. SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 7-1(b). ACCORDINGLY, THE MOTION HEARING IS VACATED. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2024)

 "In the Judge’s discretion...a motion may be determined without oral argument or by telephone conference call."  - that's the language of Rule 7-1(b) referred to above.

This is part of a nationwide trend towards taking away oral argument - less than 20% of federal cases have any oral argument - see that statistic and more in this linked article on "The Disappearing Oral Argument".

The federal judges are overloaded with cases - why have a legal system if you can't afford to fund it properly? - and this is the result.

I have no problem criticizing the legal system - but it is counterproductive for me to comment on the judge, pro or con.

Let's wait and see what happens.   Lawsuits take a while.  No matter what this ruling contains, we have a number of options.   We made many good arguments in the briefs and our complaint covers a lot of ground.

If you want to review the filings themselves, go to the JFK Lawsuit page at the Mary Ferrell Foundation.

Bill Simpich

I wanted to revive this thread because my research led me to conclude that the report that Michael Paine said to Ruth on 11/22 that "we both know who is responsible" was made up by an intelligence operative who then passed it on to Irving police chief Paul Barger.   Did anyone ever ask Barger for the final word on this story?  Is Barger still alive?  I can't find an obit for him, he would be well in his 90s today. - Bill Simpich

From:  https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Oswald_Legend_Epilogue.html

The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend

Epilogue

...There has been much discussion of a report by a third party that Michael Paine said to Ruth over the phone that Lee killed JFK but "we both know who is responsible." I don't think this story came from a wiretap - rather, I think that this story was entirely made up by an intelligence operative. This operative - who either was a telephone repairman or gave the story to the repairman - passed on this planted story to Irving police chief Paul Barger with the hope of linking Oswald to the Communist menace and instigating an attack on Cuba. When LBJ and his team made it clear to the Dallas district attorney Henry Wade, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and others that rumors about Communist involvement had to be squelched, efforts were made to bury Barger's report.

Ruth initially denied such a statement was made to her in her conversation on 11/22/63 with Michael in the first hour of the assassination - a conversation that is shown in her phone log, below. (A curious anomaly is that the phone log shows that she initiated the call from Michael's office, which both of them deny. It may have been a simple phone company mistake.) By the seventies, Ruth was saying that the initial conversation referred to the American right wing forces that were creating a hostile environment prior to JFK's death.

Jim Hosty in his book Assignment Oswald says that the phone call happened on the night of November 22, and was between Lyman Paine and his son Michael. They didn't take it too seriously because they assumed that Lyman, a Trotskyist, was blaming the powers that be - reminding Michael how Stalin's people killed Trotsky. Hosty offers no documentary evidence of his claim.

Call log showing 11/22 collect call from "Mrs. Michael Paine"

Irving PD chief Paul Barger said it was between Ruth's phone and Michael's work phone on 11/23/63 overheard by a "telephone repairman" - however, there is a phone log for Ruth's phone showing the 11/22 call - there is no phone call logged for 11/23 between these two numbers. A later memo shows Barger admitting that the call could have been on 11/22 as well as 11/23 - and that he believed the information came from "telephone company sources".

Both Michael and Ruth Paine told the Warren Commission, several times, that a phone call between themselves, from the same locations, occurred on November 22, 1963 at about one pm. Michael said he called Ruth immediately upon returning to the lab from lunch. Both Michael and Ruth said that no details were discussed other than that the assassination had happened, because they didn't know any details at that early point. Michael's co-worker Frank Krystinik implicitly supported this story with his testimony that he and Michael discussed Oswald's possible involvement once they heard that shots came from the book depository, but that Michael refused to take it seriously until Oswald's arrest at the theater. It makes sense that the call would have been made immediately after the shooting - making that kind of call is what most people do in a moment of crisis. They don't wait. Furthermore, even if the call was made after Oswald's identity was announced at 3 pm that day, there is no way that Michael Paine was any more "sure" that the shooter was Oswald at 3 pm than he was at 1 pm. Given Oswald's fraught relationship with the FBI, Oswald's arrest didn't give Paine any more reason to be sure about Oswald's involvement - much less for him to say that "we both know who is responsible".

Special Agent Robert Lish reports about his interview with Chief Barger, who had "received information that a male voice was overheard in a conversation," during a telephone call held on "November 23". "Captain BARGER advised that the male voice was heard to comment that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President, but did not feel OSWALD was responsible, and further stated, 'We both know who is responsible.'" Barger does not identify the source of his information.

Gemberling Report on "We both know who is responsible" call

We see this language verbatim in the FBI Gemberling Report of January 7, 1964, but instead of naming Paul Barger, the source is identified as Confidential Informant Dallas T-4...

...In a 1976 Dallas Times Herald article written to refute the allegations of a wiretap on the Paine's residential line, Hugh Aynesworth interviewed Paul Barger, then working for the Irving Independent School District. Barger claimed the source of his original report was known to him after all, and was a telephone repairman who by chance, "due to some mechanical difficulties ... he was checking out the line" and inadvertently listened in on the conversation. Barger, supposedly, did not identify the man back in 1963 over concerns of reprimand. Barger added he "did not believe the FBI had any wiretap on the Paine house, 'If they did,' he said, 'they wouldn’t have been asking me for what happened.'" (FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section A28, p. 71-72). The phone call itself, and its content, are not denied. But Barger claimed that he - himself - was T-4.

What I find fascinating is that when the FBI examined the records for Michael's office phone number CR 5-5211, it was initially described on 11/26/63 as an unpublished number for Bell Helicopter in Hurst, Texas. It's odd, because Michael worked in the Research Laboratory in Arlington, ten miles from Hurst, and was one of the few employees with a key to the lab.

On 12/10/63, a different FBI agent received a different story, describing CR 5-5211 as the number for "Bell Helicopter Plant, Great Southwest Development Center, 3006 Avenue East, Arlington, Texas. Mike Paine and George Johnson give access to the plant to telephone company employees."

To me, that indicates that "Mike Paine" had been assigned by Bell Helicopter to be its liaison to the telephone company - and that the operatives at the phone company had a personal relationship with Paine. This may have been who was supposedly listening into the phone call between "Mike Paine" and Ruth. Telephone company operatives have a close-knit relationship with intelligence operatives. I believe that the Paines told someone - maybe Mike's mother, maybe Mary Bancroft herself - that they would keep an eye on the Oswalds - and I believe they got in way over their head.

Furthermore, I think the whole story that the Paines "knew who was responsible" was made up, and was part of a plan to point the assassination on Castro's Cubans. This story was a "spare part" - linking Oswald to a larger Communist plot - that in the end was not used. Shortly after the assassination, the new Johnson Administration settled on the story that Oswald acted alone. LBJ made it clear to his friend Richard Russell on 11/29/63 that "we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that and kick us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour."

Former Irving police chief Paul Barger is still alive and in the immediate area at the age of 95. Michael Paine passed away in 2018.

I think having a pinned JFK Records Act thread would be very helpful in keeping people abreast of the lawsuit.

We should be able to self-police ourselves to keep anti-Trump/anti-Biden harangues off the thread.

Actually- in this case - Pino was a strongman inside Castro’s diplomatic corps- he was training anti-government guerrillas against Somoza.  But the notion that he was plotting against JFK was part of a years long disinformation campaign I will write about someday soon.

ZRPENNY was the activity to counter Cuban student participation at a communist-sponsored world youth festival in Helsinki in 1962.

I think it was a sardonic take on the phrase "a penny for your thoughts".  The goal was to make the Cubans and their allies look bad.

Also, are you saying that Spas Raikin - the Ukrainian who met LHO in NYC - was with the Prolog Research, Inc. - or linked to them in some way?

Hank Albarelli did a good job analyzing Raikin's background  in his book A Secret Order, pp. 210-212: http://visupview.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-jfk-assassination-strange-and.html

1951: "According to several CIA documents generated in 1957... Raikin and two other Bulgarians, on May 6, 1951, deserted their Trudovaks (Bulgarian Labor Corps) military unit 'and made their way to Plovdiv [city in Bulgaria] and into Greece.'..."A November 1957 FBI report, in response to the CIA's request to the Bureau for any information it had on Raikin, reads: 'The reason for [Raikin's] desertion was to join an alleged illegal group working in the mountains south of Plovdiv...unable to hold out any longer they enter Greece on June 19, 1951.'...Raikin (considered) himself an ordained priest in the Bulgarian church. In preparing the information [Raikin] used the nom de plume Prezviter KOSMA. The FBI field station comments that [Raikin] was brought to Athens from Salonika [a major port in Greece] on July 19 1951 to work for CIA LKB.. GSAP/10.'...GASP and GASP/10 were elite, ultra-secret CIA interrogation teams... "A CIA memorandum (11/26/51)...sent...to the CIA FDP chief provides a wider look at Spas Raikin's first encounter with the CIA in Greece, following his interrogation. Chief station Lloyd K. Desmond (note:  C/WH/3 - Mexico & Central America - John Whitten), a CIA official who played a still-unexplained role in the CIA's hasty post-assassination investigation into Lee Harvey Oswald's Mexico City phone communications, signed the document....'Desmond also noted that Raikin and the other escapees had been interrogated 'to ascertain their future possible operational use.'"

In reviewing the various references to Project REDACTED in the memo, the Project's title appears to be an eight-letter word.  

Robert, you mention that Lt. Col. Manuel Chavez is mentioned at page 10 of the memo: 

• "United States Air Force Lt. Col. Manuel "The Mexican" Chavez AKA Russell H. Sambora—CIA focal point officer at JMWAVE and cited in CIA documents as Chief of Security, AMWORLD.

"by Lt. Col. Chavez's own admission, he was the State Department USAF Air Attaché to US Vice President Richard Milhous Nixon (Chief of Cuban Staff, Operations Coordinating Board, 5412/2 Committee) during Nixon's 1958 trip to Venezuela, and personal friends with United States Army SFC David “El Indio” Sánchez Morales AKA Stanley R. Zamka, Chief of Foreign Intelligence, CIA Counterintelligence Staff, Western Hemisphere Division, Cuban Operations & JMWAVE Chief of Covert Action (apparently, Lt. Col. Chavez and SFC Morales shared a desk at JMWAVE—how cute)."

A number of us are interested in Lt. Col. Manuel Chavez, who was set up with his pseudonym Russell Sambora with the assistance of Henry Hecksher and David Phillips in late Nov-Dec. 1963 to operate in Mexico - today, here's my reason why:

March 1964: A-1 (Artime) said that (Manuel Chavez) will be leaving on Monday, 16 march, for Nicaragua to survey AMWORLD installations...AMJAVA-4/Rafael Quintero, AMWORLD-2/Sixto Mesa and "the Mexican"/Manny Chavez will leave together for Nicaragua on March 16.

What was the background of Chavez's two friends, AMJAVA-4/Rafael Quintero and AMWORLD-2/Sixto Mesa?

As Larry Hancock has reported, when AMJAVA/4/Rafael Quintero was asked who killed JFK, his response was "better that you don't know".   

On AMWORLD-2/Sixto Mesa, Artime's lieutenant?  He was a source of an early 64 wild made-up story linking Cuban diplomat Quintin Pino with Oswald, part of the continual effort to link the assassination to Castro:

Dr. Fernando Penabez (of Miami)...is currently active in preparation of radio programs broadcast over 110 stations in eleven Latin American countries. He said these programs are directed against the Castro regime...he was invited to speak at the national anti-communist leadership school, sponsored by the Christian Crusade, in Shreveport. He was speaking with Billy Jean Hargis and Edwin Walker.

He said he heard from Artime's aide Miguel de Leon Rojas that Oswald allegedly went to Cuba and returned with Quintin Pino, who supposedly crossed from Mexico to Texas to rescue Oswald after the assassination, but Oswald wasn't wearing clothes of the proper color and then got caught up in the Tippit shooting and missed being picked up by Pino.

De Leon said Pino was a strongman in the diplomatic corps, and was sent to Nicaragua in 1959 to organize anti-government guerrillas and to teach sabotage. De Leon said he learned the story about Pino and Oswald about a week after 11/22/63 at the home of Sixto Mesa. Dr. Adolfo Vilabubo took credit as the source of the story, and said it was common rumor among the Cuban exile colony in Miami.   

When Mesa was quizzed about it by the FBI, he admitted that he had no first-hand information.

Robert, great material!

Do you have any idea what Project REDACTED might have been?   The late 1965 memo you quote begins by stating:

"Project REDACTED had its inception, in 1954, following the acceptance of the idea that a closer relationship and better understanding between CIA and the military was essential to accomplishing effective coordination in the field in time of war...

"This project has offered ten annual two-week courses for officers of all services selected from the continental and overseas commands and various service colleges, plus four special two-day courses for officers drawn from the JCS and DIA..."  

Could this project include these counter-insurgency courses described in the Wheeler Papers?   They would train fifty colonels and lieutenant colonels at a time.

Hi Roger,

What I can say is that the Plaintiffs are not confined to appeal.  The Plaintiffs are considering their options.  We will reach a decision within the next month.  Thanks to everyone for their support and their critical thinking.

@Andrew Iler

Andrew, you always have good ideas.  You have my email, please send me anything that you think might be helpful.

I want everyone to know that the full outline of the lawsuit is still unresolved.  The MFF statement outlines the case as it exists today.

The judge's decision was a mixed bag, with victories and defeats for both sides.  Both sides have the option to take action to affect the shape of the lawsuit in the days to come.  This is not a hard-and-fixed situation yet.

MFF, Tink Thompson and Gary Aguilar will take the next few days to review their options.

I can't attach the entire decision, but it will be posted at Mary Ferrell Foundation's JFK site in the next day or two.

One portion of the judge's ruling worth thinking about is below.  We have created a good list of destroyed and missing documents at the Assassinations Archives and Research Center website.  As many know, AARC, Jim Lesar and Dan Alcorn are indefatigable allies in these battles for openness and transparency.  If anyone has any additions, please post them on this thread - after reviewing these two ARRC lists highlighted above?

Below is the excerpt:

Federal Records Act

Plaintiffs plead that NARA has violated the Federal Records Act by failing to request that the Attorney General take action after the ARRB identified destruction of assassination records by certain agencies. Under the Federal Records Act, if the Archivist becomes aware of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of” an agency, they are required to notify that agency’s head and assist them “in initiating action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records unlawfully removed and for other redress provided by law.” 44 U.S.C. § 2905(a). If the agency head “does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action,” the Archivist must “request the Attorney General to initiate such an action.” Id.

Plaintiffs aver that the ARRB Final Report identified intentional destruction of records by the CIA, FBI, and Secret Service, SAC ¶ 61(f), thus triggering the Archivist’s duty to ask the Attorney General to initiate an action for their recovery. Defendants argue this count should be dismissed because a referral to the Attorney General is only required under § 2905(a) for the recovery of records unlawfully removed, rather than destroyed. Defendants cite several cases interpreting an analogous provision to § 2905(a)—44 U.S.C. § 3106(a), which governs federal agencies—holding that agencies only have a duty to involve the Attorney General when records have been unlawfully removed. See, e.g., Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, No. 21-CV-00866-HSG, 2023 WL 163144, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2023); Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. S.E.C., 916 F. Supp. 2d 141, 146–148 (D.D.C. 2013).

However, Defendants fail to contend with the differences in language between § 2905(a) and § 3106(a). While § 3106(a) only requires an agency head to “initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed,” § 2905(a) requires the Archivist to assist an agency head in “initiating action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records unlawfully removed and for other redress provided by law.” 44 U.S.C. §§ 2905(a), 3106(a) (emphasis added).

Likewise, if the agency head fails to “initiate an action for such recovery or other redress” after being notified of “any such unlawful action,” the Archivist must request the Attorney General to initiate such action. 44 U.S.C. § 2905(a) (emphasis added).

In other words, as compared with § 3106(a), § 2905(a) includes an additional clause enabling the Archivist to initiate action through the Attorney General. § 2905(a) thereby seems to impose a broader referral duty on the Archivist than § 3106(a) imposes on agency heads because of its inclusion of “other redress provided by law.” Such a distinction also seems to be made within § 3106. Compare 44 U.S.C. § 3106(a) (requiring agency heads to take action for “the recovery of records . . . unlawfully removed”) with § 3106(b) (requiring the Archivist to make a referral when an agency head fails to “initiate an action for such recovery or other redress” after notification of “any such unlawful action described in subsection (a)”).

The legislative history of § 2905 and § 3106 supports this interpretation. In 1984, Congress amended § 2905 and § 3106 to require an Attorney General referral by the Archivist if an agency head failed to take action. The House committee report only discusses the provision in the context of initiating action for the “recovery of records unlawfully removed.” H.R. Rep. 98-707, at 21. By contrast, the final conference report explained the provision as requiring the Archivist to make a referral to the Attorney General if they are aware of “any such unlawful action,” where “destruction” was listed several sentences before as one action prohibited by law. H.R. Conf. Rep. 98-1124, at 27, as reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3894, 3902. The conference report then explained that Congress would be notified in such instances “because of the frequency of incidents of removal or destruction.” Id. at 28 (emphasis added).10 Because the language of § 2905(a) and § 3106(a) are markedly different, Defendants’ references to cases interpreting § 3106(a) are not persuasive. § 3106(a) seems to require the Archivist to make an Attorney General referral in more circumstances than unlawful removal of records. It instead seems to require that the Archivist make a referral to the Attorney General if the agency head has failed to act and the Archivist is aware of, among other unlawful conduct, destruction of agency records.

Plaintiffs aver that certain agencies intentionally destroyed records, these agencies’ destruction of records was reported in the ARRB final report, and both the Archivist and the agencies failed to refer the matter to the Attorney General, thereby stating a plausible claim. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count 5 is denied, except to the extent it references NARA’s failure to pursue outstanding record searches.

If you put the document you are referring to into a mirror - or just click below - you will see....

"Ask Ashcraft - OO on Oswald." (bleed-through on upper right corner of the 12/3/63 Alvarado document)  Here is a better copy.

Paul, tell me when he replies too.

Back in 1949, David Morales was with the 7821 Composite Group, European Command, in Germany, serving as a corporal.  Richard Helms wrote the Chief of the Special Security Division and requested that Morales and a handful of others receive an (emphasized) "full" security clearance and a cryptographic clearance.

During his time with the 7821 Composite Group, Morales was going back and forth to New York City, which was his mailing address and where his wife and children lived.  His employer's mailing address was "2130 E. Street, NW, Washington DC" - that was the CIA's address.

Morales describes this period from 1946-1953 as active duty with the US Army - the first two years with the 82nd Airborne, and 1948-53 as an "training and administrative advisor in Germany" before his discharge in 1953 - and on to Guatemala from there.  From 55-60, Morales describes himself as a Foreign Service officer for the Department of State, with stints as an attache in Venezuela and Cuba. 

The best way to analyze Morales' work in the early sixties was as a "trainer of trainers".  As I quoted Morales' bio in Chapter 2 of State Secret, from 1960-65 Morales served as a trainer advising "the USAF, foreign governments and their military and police personnel. This advice included the protection of personnel, installations and equipment, the use of investigative techniques, small unit tactics, and counter-guerilla activities. He also helped to set up specialized schools and training cadres. This service was performed primarily in Florida and in Washington D.C."

My colleague Doug Vaughan shared his thoughts about the 7821 Composite Group years ago:  "Maybe NATO, maybe not...

"But it’s a combined command either way, used as cover. Correct ID important for tracking personnel in/out. This 1949 doc (re: Morales, Helms in same unit) is still transitional as mil intel (formed around sigint commands) and newly reminted CIA (Helms I charge here, Morales seconded from mil) were warring over controls in the cockpits, with NSA in the middle, scooping up and peeling off assets and crossing each others trolling lines under the boat. Point is, this leads directly into tunnel operation w/ Harvey, Shackley et al but in 1952-54 many same personnel inserted in PB’s (Guatemala, culminating PBSuccess) and/or Ajax in Iran. So tracking the unit and personnel requires some specificity as to chain of command, even if only a cover."

In 1961, the Composite Operations Group had a base with the crypt of JMMOVE - in Belle Chasse near New Orleans to prepare for the Bay of Pigs.

William Royer of the US Army Element Composite Operations Group had 140-200 Cubans training there in underwater demolition:  124-10369-10029, p. 16.

The initial mission of the base was to train 30 men - that increased to 149 men during its short history. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32105594.pdf

David Phillips wrote a memo about Belle Chasse years later - Phillips said the ultimate size of the base was 300 men, with Royer as chief security officer and Gilbert Strickler as Chief of Base.

Another aspect of it was the "safe site" run by Nino Diaz/AMNORM-1 at the Algiers ammunition depot - also known as the Algiers ammo dump - also known as Belle Chasse.   This operation led to what became a feigned or abandoned second front by sea during the Bay of Pigs.  

I think it is fair to say that Emerald Robinson is a complete nut.  Everything Joe said about her jibes with what I have seen written by her own hand.

At the same time, I think Tom Lipscomb may have a good book on hand.  I provided him with some sources and I believe he is one of the good guys.  He told me some fascinating stories.  Let's see what he's got.

Here's the story on how Michel Roux was confused with Souetre, visited at least Fort Worth, Houston and Mexico City (and maybe Dallas) during the 11/22 weekend (more on Roux at the pseudonyms at MFF):

Re 11/20/63-11/24/63: 3/12/64 memo from Director FBI to Legal Attache, Paris, "Roux was in Houston November 20 last and visited (Leon Gachman, head of Gachman Metals, Post Office Box 308, Fort Worth) in Fort Worth between November 21-November 23 and returned to Houston. Through friends Gachman arranged to obtain job for Roux at unidentified Mexico City hotel until Roux could obtain proper visa..."

Also see 124-10224-10060, p. 2: Leon Gachman of Gachman Metals claimed Roux arrived at his home in Fort Worth the night of 11/21 as part of his efforts to get into the hotel business; that Roux visited his son's class at Texas Christian the morning of 11/22; that they were having lunch at a cafe when the news reported the shooting of JFK. The next day, Roux went back to Houston, where Gachman joined him the next day, from there Roux went to Mexico City.

Also see http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/S Disk/Souetre Jean with aka's/Item 11.pdf - page 10 - in an affidavit given to French authorities, Roux recounts his trip to see "Gaschman" for work in Fort Worth and Houston that never materialized, never mentions that he was in Dallas on 11/22, is vague about the time period that he was in the Fort Worth area; said that he only said the Mexicans should "reinforce security" when de Gaulle comes to visit. - page 1 - a journalist states he met Roux in Montreal in January 20-21, 1964, where Roux told him he had recently visited Dallas as well as Fort Worth, and that there was a plan to assassinate de Gaulle in Mexico City in March 1964. Also see page 14: "Legal attache in Paris advised 3/13/64 Michel Roux referred to above has been located by French in Paris and it has been determined he is not identical with Jean Souetre. Discontinue investigation."

180-10110-10054: [No Title]

Re 11/22/63-January 1964, re Souetre aka Michel Roux aka Michel Mertz: A faint 4/1/64 extract of a document released by CIA (known as FOIA document 632-796) states that "Jean Souetre aka Michel Roux aka Michel Mertz - On 5 March, the Legal Attache in Paris and also the SDECE man (French intelligence service) had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the US at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. He was in Fort Worth on 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon. The French believe that he was expelled to either Mexico or Canada. In January he received call from dentist named Alderson living at 5803 Birmingham, Houston, Texas. Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter with the French Army and an activist in the OAS. The French are concerned because of deGaulle's planned visit to Mexico. They would like to know the reason for his expulsion from the US and his destination...WH/3/Biblio; CI/SIG; CI/OPS/Evans." Discussion of this document in 1977 by FBI officials and the media can be found at 124-10224-10072, p. 6.

The killing of Oswald was what we all saw on TV at the same time - not JFK.

Oswald’s killing was the signal that the government was out of control and we would never know just what happened.  

The result?  Trauma.

Thank you, Gil, for putting this case back under our nose.

Have you noticed how little effort we have put into solving it?

The trauma continues to this day.

Bill, thanks very much for this thoughtful reply.

I wonder if Dave Perry would be willing to ask the surviving creator of this document to go public - and tell the full story - and field questions.   I'm more willing to believe the storyteller when anonymity is abandoned and there is a true dialogue.

I've admitted my bias.  My opinion at this point - again, subject to change - is that this forgery was done not just to hurt Mark Lane and Penn Jones, but all researchers who believed that more than one gunman was involved and that there was some kind of relationship between Ruby and Oswald.

It's been almost 60 years since this document was created - it would be good to have an open dialogue about it and try to engender a spirit of understanding among all of us with various points of view - rather than being reduced to pointing fingers and speculating.   

FWIW, it sounds like Perry's conversation with Hargis led to the two people communicating with Perry in some fashion.  To my knowledge, no one has challenged Mary Ferrell's tip from Al Chapman that he got the Bledsoe police report from Lt. Carl Day, who is now deceased.  Is Al's son Randy Chapman still alive?  Maybe he could tell us a little more.

Conspiracy theorizing is inevitable when the holders of secrets continue to keep their secrets for no good reason.  Keeping secrets about events like the JFK assassination is corrosive.

As I thought, the faked Bledsoe police report appears to have been designed to make JFK researchers look bad.  Dave Perry wrote in 1999 that he received a call and personally received a copy of the Bledsoe document from a member of the "group intending to mess with Mark Lane". 

Dave Perry has an active website but I don't know how to reach him - could someone let me know how to reach him -  Bill Brown, do you know how to reach him? - so we can ask him directly to publicly state who created the faked Bledsoe police report?

 From Perry's linked article:

"Here is the rest of the story."

(1) Two people were involved in the creation of the police report. It was produced sometime in 1966.

(2) They had little difficulty obtaining police report forms. Many people had access to the police department main floor, including other law enforcement representatives, average citizens, reporters and attorneys, to name but a few. The reports were NOT sequentially numbered, so none would be missed, and they consisted of a carbonized, multi-page, "snap out" set. The perpetrators of the hoax filled out the form using a manual typewriter. The keys had to be struck forcefully so the type would be legible on all copies.

(3) The people responsible were fed up with the way the Dallas Police Department and some Dallas citizenry were being portrayed and pestered by what they considered self-appointed assassination "researchers." In particular, they were disturbed by some allegations made by attorney Mark Lane.

(4) The men decided to play a trick on Lane. The planned to produce a bogus police report, send the original to Lane and wait for him to call a press conference. At the conference, they would produce their portions of the carbon set and embarrass Lane in front of the media.

(5) They ultimately mailed the "report" to Lane, but it was returned with the envelope stamped "addressee unknown."

(6) The men next discussed whom else they could "sucker" into believing the document to be genuine. They sent the report to Texas Warren Commission critic Penn Jones Jr. As far as the participants know, Jones received the report but did nothing with it.

Pat, Steve, Larry, yes to all three comments.     As Larry said, it appears to have been "faked by a very aggressive (and dismissive) LN local who knew enough to make it look plausible and then dump it into the community and expose how superficial and knee jerk the CT community was - yes to embarrass the early researchers.

When Carl Day, the head of forensics - who faked more evidence than anyone I am aware of in the JFK case- is  named by Mary Ferrell in Jerry Rose's newsletter as the man who handed it to the Rev. Al Chapman, one of the early Dallas researchers ...

it makes me want to know more about both Carl Day and the Dallas researcher community in the 1960s (which seems to have almost faded out completely) - can anyone tell me more?  

It's very well researched.  Like most of us, it's when he starts speculating that he either hits gold or goes the wrong way (i.e., I tried to stay open, but I simply don't believe that LHO was a fascist.)

One of the best books on the right wing and their military connections out there.  I would get it for that reason alone.  His focus is more on the card-carrying right-wingers than fellows like LeMay who were simple fascists through and through.