Bill Simpich
-
Posts
424 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bill Simpich
-
-
Jim - congratulations to you, Oliver, and everyone who is getting these two films out.
I translated this story and the succeeding story in a matter of minutes. Google Translate is a great tool - even if it is made by Google!
Oliver Stone: "It was the CIA that shot Kennedy"
Paris Match | Posted on 07/31/2021 at 5:25 a.m. | Updated 07/31/2021 at 7:08 p.m.
From our correspondent in New York Olivier O'Mahony
In 1991, in "JFK", director Oliver Stone tackled the Dallas conundrum. Today, he relies on declassified documents to revive the thesis of the CIA-led operation. For “JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass", which he just presented at Cannes, he couldn't find funding in America. He tells Paris Match about his fight to transmit this appetite for truth to young people.
Paris Match. Why go back to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, almost thirty years after the release, in January 1992, of your film "JFK"?
Oliver Stone. Because what happened in November 1963 was a monstrosity that changed America forever. It wasn't until the late 1980s, reading the book by Jim Garrison, the prosecutor who inspired my film, that I got involved in this investigation. The immense success of "JFK" subsequently led to the declassification of a number of documents. With this new documentary, I do not pretend to achieve the same result, but I hope to inspire the younger generation - to which it is dedicated - to take up the torch.
What more do we learn from this new documentary?
I rely on documents declassified after the release of "JFK", and on interviews with members of the latest Commission of Inquiry [Assassination Records Review Board, ARRB] charged with revisiting the tragedy. Forty people are reported to have seen JFK's corpse at Parkland Hospital immediately after the assassination that the official photos shown do not match him, which means they have been tampered with. Forty people! All claim to have seen a gaping wound in the back of the skull, caused by a bullet coming from the front and not from the back. This calls into question the thesis of the lone killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, posted on top of a book depot behind the president's car ...
You say Lee Harvey Oswald may not even have fired a bullet ...
Yes. According to the official thesis, he used a sniper rifle he had just bought at the Klein's store. Except that the one found on the spot, in the deposit of school books, does not correspond to the model in question. Oswald's footprints should have been found there as well, but there were none.
What was Oswald’s role in this case?
The documentary sheds light on his personality and behavior on November 22. Lee Harvey Oswald was actually a patriot and admirer of John F. Kennedy. He made contact with pro and anti-Castro circles; he was both on the side of the Communists and on the side of troubled far-right figures like Guy Banister, a CIA agent.
A double agent?
Rather a provocateur, whom the CIA hired in the demonstrations to distribute leaflets ...
According to the official thesis, he fled immediately after the assassination.
Except that we found witnesses who said the opposite. Three of his female colleagues, who feature in the documentary, say they were on the stairs right after the drama. However, they did not meet him there. And Oswald always claimed he was on the second floor, not the sixth. Before being killed by Jack Ruby, two days after the assassination, Oswald denied everything. He pretended to be the gogo of the case, the one who was going to be blamed.Do you believe in this version?
Yes. He was not alone. There were several “Oswalds” scattered all over the United States. We tell that, before Dallas, John F. Kennedy was targeted by at least two failed assassination attempts [one in Chicago, the other in Tampa, Florida] and quite similar from an “operative” point of view, each time with a galore with a profile strangely resembling that of Oswald. In the case of the Chicago attempt, the person in question was Thomas Arthur Vallee. In Tampa, it was a Cuban exile, Gilberto Policarpo Lopez.
There is also the infamous "magic bullet" which is said to have first hit JFK before hitting John Connally, the governor of Texas, who was also in the limo. Are you questioning this assumption?
This bullet is in direct contradiction with the results of the autopsy, which show that JFK was hit in the third vertebra from the neck. In the Warren Commission report, that same bullet suddenly "shot up" at the back of the neck to match the path you want it to take, through the throat. At the autopsy, it is mentioned that Kennedy was hit at this point by a "sticking" bullet. In reality, it was an “in” ball, coming from the front. The Warren report holds that three bullets were fired. I think there were at least five, some coming from the front.
You maintain that JFK's doctors were asked to be silent after his death...
Yes. I found the testimony of JFK's personal physician, Dr. George Burkley, who said he was ready to testify, before retracting ...
How did you come across him?
After investigating the autopsy. It was the members of the ARRB commission who raised the hare, in particular one of them, Douglas Horne, who testifies with exemplary precision in the documentary. He explains that the autopsy was "made up" and that John Stringer, the official photographer, supposed to have taken the photos of JFK's brain which are in the file, did not recognize the images that were shown to him, nor even the type of film used ... From there, the investigators, intrigued, sought to approach Doctor Burkley, who had seen it all and signed the death certificate. He agreed to cooperate at first, before changing his mind. After his death, his daughter did exactly the same. And this doctor is not the only one. We also bring to mind Dr Perry, who years after the tragedy told a friend of his that he was “absolutely convinced” that the wound in his throat was from a bullet coming in, and therefore coming from the front. He began by testifying in this sense before saying the opposite ...
JFK's nephew Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom you interview, doesn't believe in the lone killer thesis either.
Yes, just like his father, JFK's justice minister who lost all power in the aftermath of the assassination. The first thing Lyndon Baines Johnson, the new president, does is appoint the Warren Commission to investigate the assassination. Among its members, Allen Dulles, ex-director of the CIA. Fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he had every reason to hate him. Remember that John F. Kennedy, after the Bay of Pigs disaster, decided to bring the CIA to heel.
In your opinion, Gerald Ford, a member of the Warren Commission before becoming President of the United States, also did not believe in the Oswald trail.
Indeed, he opened up to Valéry Giscard d´Estaing, which was revealed in 2013. “We were sure it was a set-up,” he said. But we didn’t find out who rode him. ”
You're clearly pointing the finger at the CIA. On what basis?
It should be remembered that John F. Kennedy, after the disaster at the Bay of Pigs, had decided to bring the CIA in line with, in particular, frank cuts in its budget. All of his foreign policy was against the interests of the CIA.
What do you mean?
JFK was a man of peace. He is the last American president to have sincerely acted in this direction. In this case, we are focusing too much on one question: how could all this be possible? My documentary reveals why it happened. JFK, this veteran, decorated for his acts of bravery during the Second World War, was going to change the world. He had seen the horrors of war, the disastrous role of the CIA in action at the Bay of Pigs, and then that of the US military during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was not impressed by the generals who advised him to attack the Soviet Union or Laos in 1961 or Cuba in October 1962. Not only did he resist their wartime spirit, but he signed, in 1963, an unprecedented agreement with the Soviets. John F. Kennedy did not want a "pax americana" imposed on the rest of the world. He wanted genuine peace. A bit like General de Gaulle who preferred to see France leave Algeria rather than endless conflict, which earned him an assassination attempt by the OAS, possibly supported by the CIA ...
Everyone claims that JFK started the war in Vietnam; This is not true, he wanted to repatriate the "military advisers".
You give the CIA a lot of influence!
I note that Lyndon Johnson did the opposite of JFK. He bolstered the CIA and increased American engagement in Vietnam. He did nothing to fight colonialism, which Kennedy opposed. It is also this truth that I wanted to reestablish: everyone claims that JFK started the war in Vietnam; This is not true, he wanted to repatriate the "military advisers".
How do you explain that your documentary was refused by Netflix?
The country has become very conservative. I had to look for funding abroad, in Great Britain. Already, my film about Edward Snowden, a hero in my opinion, could only be made with money from France and Germany. So I came to the Cannes Film Festival to promote this documentary in a Europe more open to such projects. But I am convinced that I will eventually find an independent platform that will allow me to broadcast it in the United States.
Is this lack of interest due to weariness over an over-rehashed subject or, rather, a truth America does not want to see?
There is no weariness. Simply put, America is a country on the decline and on the defensive. George W. Bush was probably our worst president. Obama was just a transitional president: he did nothing to turn the tide, and Joe Biden is in his wake. Censorship has imposed itself. I'm shocked by the way that social media has silenced Trump. Kennedy was killed by forces which exceeded him and which, since, frightens all his successors.
You have been accused of pro-Russian sympathies for asking soothing questions of Putin in one of your films. Your answer?
I don't need to hate anyone: I'm a director, I have my own signature. No one scares me. Neither Putin, nor Castro, nor Chavez. In my films, I transcribe what they feel and think. I had no reason to tell Putin, who confided in me his views on Syria, Bush or Iran, among others, that he was wrong. Especially since nothing was wrong ...
Do you think the truth about the JFK assassination will ever be known?
But we already know the truth! It was a conspiracy. He was killed by forces which exceeded him and which, since, frightens all his successors. The culprit was a Communist, a typical scenario of a "black op" set up from scratch by the CIA.
Trump had promised to declassify the archives but did not. Are you going to ask Biden to do it?
I should, but it's a waste of time. If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. writes the letter for me, it might have more impact. What is certain is that there is nothing more that can be done for the people who still believe in Oswald's One-Killer Thesis. They live in Disneyland! -
Greg Parker has put forth the idea that Oswald was tailing Joe Molina (who worked at the Book Depository), after Dallas Communist Party chief Bill Lowery - who had been keeping an eye on Molina for eight years and reporting to Jim Hosty and his colleagues for $200 a month - came out as an FBI informant in September 1963.
Oswald was lurking around the first floor that last hour - it was like he was waiting for a phone to ring. Molina's office was on the second floor, and was out on the steps at the time of the motorcade.
Gannaway and the Red Squad crowd came to Molina's home that night with a search warrant. Molina gave them permission to search, he talked to them that night and the next day - he was "detained" but they never arrested him.
It is food for thought - David, do you have any thoughts on that?
-
Page 18 - the UPI wire reports that "the President was shot once in the head, the right temple."
On "Hydell" - the counterintelligence officer got it wrong because the newswire story misspelled it as "Hydell" - it took the whole first week for the Hidell story about the rifle to take hold and sink into the mass consciousness. I believe the Hidell story was fundamental in convincing 30-40% of the population that the government captured the right man. The rest of the country wasn't buying it.
-
A few more:
5. William Gannaway, the head of the Special Services Bureau (home of the Red Squad, intelligence, and vice) was picked up by UPI as saying on 11/22: "Gannaway said the suspect had visited Russia and was married to a Russian...the suspect was the same man who had shot and killed a city policeman..."
At the same time, note that there is only one page of "Leads" - which begins with the questioning of Joseph Rodriguez Molina, which was conducted by Gannaway and his colleagues by visiting Molina's home the night of the assassination and again the next day before deciding not to book him. Greg Parker and others have suggested that Oswald's real role on 11/22 was to surveil Molina, who was standing on the front steps of the book depository watching the motorcade.
6. The Cuban press published a devastating article on the assassination, noting the links between LHO and the FBI and that Europe's champion shot needed 11 seconds to duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting of the motorcade. The State Dept also picked up on the same article - which I don't think Americans have ever seen.
7. The clippings also include a two-page article in the left-wing National Guardian that lays out all the evidence planted into the case by DA William Alexander and his friends supposedly proving that LHO was an FBI informant. All this evidence was exposed as phony by the end of January - which succeeded in obscuring all the evidence showing that LHO was an FBI source - such as when Oswald assured Fain he would report on any Soviet efforts to recruit him, and when Oswald asked for an FBI man to interview him while he was in jail in New Orleans in August 1963.
-
The entire 184-page file can be found here.
The importance of the file is that it offers a vantage point into the thinking of the CIRA branch (CI Research & Analysis), and a birds-eye view into the information and disinformation being released during the initial post-assassination period.
A few preliminary observations:
1. Note how initial reports on 11/22 described the point of entry of JFK's head wound as the "right temple".
That "right temple" description has been hidden for the past 58 years.
The HSCA Forensic Pathology panel made a point of finding the entry point for the head wound as solely "the back of the head", confirming the Warren Commission finding of a "small wound of entry at the rear of the President's skull".
As Josiah Thompson states in his new book Last Second in Dallas, he found two points of entry - the right temple and the back of the head.
2. The UPI wire reported that the police believed the man was "about 30, of slender build, weighing 165 pounds, and standing 5 foot 10 inches tall." When combined with the sighting of a 30-30 rifle, it is clear this is the tip allegedly given by an unidentified man to Detective Herbert Sawyer - and a tip that matches the wholly inaccurate descriptions of Oswald planted into the FBI and CIA files in previous years.
3. It is bizarre that the initial reports stated that a policeman was killed inside the Texas Theatre by Oswald, and that later reports amplified this by claiming Tippit was shot in the theater.
4. There is a one page section on "The Russian Speaking Woman" - Ruth Paine. Note how the New York Times found out that Ruth and Michael had moved to Irving "four years ago". It was in Sept. 1959, the very week that LHO returned to supposedly take care of his mother Marguerite in Irving not far from where the Paines had moved in - but the CIA and FBI were curiously disinterested about this very point.
-
-
Good discussion, with good points made on all points of the compass.
I have to say that the more I study the wallet evidence, the less I trust most of it.
I no longer believe any of the witnesses: Croy, Barrett, or Jez. Over the years, Barrett has given different names other than Hidell (such as O. H. Lee) - and has even said that he got the info from Westphal rather than Westbrook. He knew Westbrook. As the man who touted Barrett as the honest cop in the past - I now think he is a con artist. Seth Kantor writes in his book that Burt Griffin of the WC wrote disparagingly about Croy to J. Lee Rankin on 4/2/64, a week after Croy's 3/26/64 WC testimony.
I don't believe the wallet was found on the ground near the police car at the Tippit shooting. All the witnesses said there was no wallet found at the shooting scene. (But Croy, Barrett and Jez say that it appeared in the minutes after the fact, and the video is the best evidence we have)
I don't believe it's Callaway's wallet, either. That is pure conjecture.
There are two points left for me - points I do believe.
One is that the wallet in the video and the wallet in evidence have many similar characteristics, but I think they are two different wallets:
1. Both wallets have a leather flap that snaps over a photo section,
2. Both wallets have a metal band fixed to its leading edge. (Dale Myers, With Malice, p. 298)
3. Both wallets also have a zipper over the cash compartment.
Take a look at this video for 30 seconds, starting at 16:45
The other is that Croy could not produce his witness who found the wallet at the crime scene., while Croy, Barrett and Jez all claim that they saw Oswald's wallet at the Tippit death scene. Whether their claims are true or false - and at this point, I am leaning towards false - why are they making such a big statement that flies in the face of the record?
Barrett called Bentley's claim that he found the Oswald wallet while searching him on the way to the station "hogwash". How often does an FBI agent call a polygraph examiner like Bentley a xxxx?
Again, I think it is to protect a blunder that occurred - the Oswald look-alike wallet at the Tippit death scene was captured on video - that was a big deal - it caused conversation and confusion, and these law enforcement officers are trying to deal with it in a variety of ways to make sure the story goes back to bed.
This is the same strategy Barrett used in both admitting and denying that he was at Dealey Plaza with Buddy Walthers at 12:39 pm on 11/22. See Mark Oakes video about Barrett on youtube, attached earlier in this thread.
-
The FBI found 10,000 pages in the three metal file boxes - and apparently kept no copies. They said they would turn it all over to the WC and let them decide - even of her diary. They provide a list based on "quick perusal".
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57758#relPageId=132&search="metal_boxes"
To be scrupulously fair, Ruth argued that she did not give consent for them to remove her personal documents from her bedroom closet, and that many of the documents were personal and/or referred to marital discord of her parents.
But Ruth told them to return only what was "pertinent" - apparently the FBI returned everything - but I want to see the proof of return. Looking for that.
The FBI did have in their files - by whatever means - four letters from Ruth to Marina, one in May, two in July, one in August - we can assume those were in Marina's possession. I do believe the WC published these.
On another date, I'll let you know what the WC did with Ruth's material, including the three metal boxes and the diary - I've wondered about this for awhile.
-
Yuri Moskalev was believed by the CIA to be the probable "mystery man" that Win Scott ID'd on 11/22/63 as Lee Harvey Oswald.
-
I saw this thread - just wanted to add the comment that Moskalev is described as "a dark blond" - also here, which adds the enticing detail that Moskalev's wife was Vera Nikolayevna - the same patronym as Marina Oswald - is there some spycraft going on here?
-
i believe he lived in Marin County - I will ask Gary Aguilar. any other ideas?
-
I remember researching Tyree many years ago, and I shouldn't be taken as an expert, I just found it not well documented.
-
My mistake - Marguerite was in Fort Worth, not Irving.
If anything, I think it's more likely that they were unwittingly moved to Irving as the ideal people to move into the Oswald orbit, as he was motivated by all things Russian - and so was Ruth.
The Paines moved to 2515 W. 5th in Irving in the second weekend of September (not October, as stated above) and went on to buy the house there.
Marguerite was living at 3124 W. 5th. in Fort Worth, several miles away. By October, she was living elsewhere in Fort Worth.
It's a weird coincidence they lived on the same named street during September - although the Paines were in Irving and Marguerite was in Fort Worth - was it an accident?
Oswald came back for a three day weekend during the second week of September, and then departed to the USSR in what turned out to be three years.
-
I believe I have found the origin document to this story - it is 124-10130-10284 (unredacted version). Also see Commission Document 212 (redacted version).
It is a 12/17/63 memo by SA John Wineberg, stating that a confidential informant informed his partner William Betts that an Edward Cronk allegedly said that LHO and his wife got in touch with Ruth through the pen pal program of the Young Friends Movement.
Specifically, it states that "on December 16, 1963, PH T-1 (whose name is redacted) advised SA William S. Betts, Edward Cronk, Executive Secretary of the Young Friends Movement of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, 1515 Cherry Street, Philadelphia, PA, said he met Ruth Paine in Indiana in 1955...She and Cronk are both members of the Young Friends Movement...
"According to Cronk...he said Lee Oswald and his wife got in touch with Paine through the pen pal program of the Young Friends Movement. He said Lee Oswald had never been to Philadelphia.
"Cronk said although he was personally acquainted with Ruth Paine, he did not know Oswald, nor the situation in Dallas relative to the Oswald family and Mrs. Paine."
The follow-up that I see is an 12/22/63 memo from Dallas saying to re-interview Cronk in light of a 12/11/63 Hosty memo, pages 11-12. That Hosty document says (on actual page 11 but written page 8) that the Paines met the Oswalds at Everett Glover's Dallas home in the spring of 1963.
Then I see an urgent memo from SAC, Philadelphia to Director, 12/24/63, discussing among many other things an interview directly with Cronk by two other agents. Cronk told the agents that he had "no information that Ruth Paine corresponded with Oswalds while they were in Russia."
The direct interview with Cronk reflects this report, and adds that Cronk said that Paine was not active with the pen pal group after 1957.
Cronk seemingly disappears from the record at this point - no further follow up.
It looks like either PH T-1 made it up, or Cronk lied in his re-interview.
It is at least possible that this story was disinformation designed to confuse the record.
To me, what remains the strangest link to LHO pre-1963 is the Paines' decision to move to Marguerite Oswald's neighborhood in Irving right before Oswald's departure from the military and return to Irving supposedly to take care of his mother. Michael first assumed responsibility for the new home in June 1959, and they moved in during October 1959, during the same time that Oswald returned home to see his mother...before he abruptly left after 3 days and boarded a freighter in New Orleans, with his journey winding up in Moscow.
-
- why are officers looking at that wallet? (though I do not know where you get "10-20 minutes" time looking.)
Officers are looking at that wallet because it was "found" by someone. Who gave it to Owens? I still think Croy planted it - Owens was his chief.
Why are Barrett and Jez backing up Croy's story? Why are all three of them making it up, IMHO? I think to cover up a blunder - other people at the Tippit crime scene may remember that there was an unexplained wallet there, and this is being played out to convince them there is an explanation and there is no need to go public.
I believe Callaway turned over the revolver no later than 1:30 - and that the wallet was reviewed on camera at 1:40 or later.
- you note from your experience as an attorney that when officers ask citizens for identification today the usual practice is not to ask for or want to hold a wallet, which may have been the same practice or sensitivity then, so what explanation accounts for departure from usual procedure in examining someone's identification, seen in the WFAA-TV video?
Again, because the wallet was "found", not provided by Callaway or any other wallet owner.
- whose identification was in the wallet and what happened to that wallet?
Croy said it wasn't Oswald - but couldn't remember the name. More phoniness from him.
Croy says there was no Oswald ID -- so why does he say the wallet belonged to Oswald?
Again, why are Croy, Barrett and Jez making up this story about Oswald's wallet being at the Tippit death scene?
- what is the connection of that wallet with officer Tippit's pistol with which it was both seen and reported to have been in association?
No one says there is a connection except for you - because you see both the wallet and the revolver in the same hand in the video - can you post the clip that shows that, and the Ken Holmes interview you have been raising? Thanks for whatever you can do.
- and above all, the $64,000 question, why is there no report or record made of that wallet in any of the contemporary police officer reports?
That is the big question - I think it is because the wallet in the video and the wallet in evidence have many similar characteristics:
1. Both wallets have a leather flap that snaps over a photo section,
2. Both wallets have a metal band fixed to its leading edge. (Dale Myers, With Malice, p. 298)
3. Both wallets also have a zipper over the cash compartment.
And also...Croy could not produce his witness...so if it's true that he reported it at the time - that would have caused an enormous scandal.
And, again, ...three law enforcement officers claim that they saw Oswald's wallet at the Tippit death scene. Whether their claim is true or false - and at this point, I am leaning towards false - why are they making such a big statement that flies in the face of the record?
Again, I think it is to protect a blunder that occurred - I think there was an Oswald look-alike wallet at the Tippit death scene that caused some conversation and confusion, and they are trying to deal with it in a variety of ways to make sure the story goes back to bed.
This is the same strategy Barrett used in both admitting and denying that he was at Dealey Plaza with Buddy Walthers at 12:39 pm on 11/22. See Mark Oakes video about Barrett on youtube:
Barrett was one of those higher-ups, and he has spread confusion ever since - in the 80s he said it happened, but mistook Westbrook for Westphal and O.H. Lee for Alek Hidell - how is that possible on the most important day of his life?
-
Greg,On what basis are you asking me this question about "holding on to the story" of the Oswald wallet?I wrote it in the first two sentences of my post: "There were two similar-looking wallets. Both wallets have a leather flap that snaps over the photo section, with a metal band fixed to its leading edge. (Dale Myers, With Malice, p. 298) Both wallets also have a zipper over the cash compartment."That is not an accident.I also added that I believe Kenneth Croy may have brought the first wallet with him to the scene, and pretended that he was given it by a witness. Croy's story was that the witness told him he found it in the shrubs, which is pure malarkey.Croy was no good. The Warren Commission thought he played the role of a fullback to conceal the presence of Jack Ruby until the very last minute. Their concern was valid. Croy knew Ruby. I think Croy was in on the killing of Oswald.I will grant that Croy could have cooked up the entire wallet story years later just to be in the history books - but the two very similar wallets remain a big problem.Let me flip the script - on what basis do you think the wallet belonged to Callaway?Why would four policeman be passing around this Callaway's wallet for 10-20 minutes: Croy, Owens, Doughty and Westbrook.As an attorney, I have done a lot of criminal law. Cops do not want to handle your wallet. It violates the laws of search and seizure, unless you have been arrested. Even more importantly, they don't want to be accused of stealing money.Cops ask for the ID. Not the wallet. These four attorneys were asked this question - and they all said the same thing - the cop should not ask for the wallet.I don't know Ken Holmes - and he didn't claim receiving the wallet - and for all I know he could have made up his story just to be in the history books.
-
After years of studying Tippit, I concluded a few years ago that there were two similar-looking wallets. Both wallets have a leather flap that snaps over the photo section, with a metal band fixed to its leading edge. (Dale Myers, With Malice, p. 298) Both wallets also have a zipper over the cash compartment.One wallet was "found" on the scene by Kenneth Croy, the first officer on the scene, who received it upon arrival from an alleged "unknown witness". I think Croy brought it with him. He handed it to his chief Bud Owens, who showed it to ID section chief George Doughty and then to the ranking officer on the scene Pinky Westbrook,. All this was captured on video, which got broader circulation in the 80s and 90s.The other wallet was found by polygraph chief Paul Bentley while riding with Oswald from the Texas Theatre to the police station.For years, I touted Bob Barrett as a truth-teller. Barrett "revealed" that Westbrook asked him while looking at the wallet if he had ever heard of Lee Oswald or Alek Hidell, whose cards were allegedly in the wallet. I called him numerous times in the year before he died in 2017. No return call.
Now, I don't believe Barrett. I think he is the worst kind of xxxx - on the Tippit wallet and many other things.
I don't believe the Callaway story, either. There is no evidence to support it, only conjecture. Callaway told Myers there was no billfold at the crime scene. It is plain that he was denying any knowledge of seeing or hearing about any wallet at the scene. (Myers, p. 300) It takes further unwarranted conjecture to conclude that Callaway was too embarrassed to admit that his wallet was taken away from him.
I'll admit this, I am embarrassed that I ever believed Barrett. Look at his track record - here's ten bullet points:
1. Barrett's November 22, 1963 report says nothing about the wallet being found at the scene. There's no way to get around the wallet captured in the video - but it goes unmentioned in every law enforcement report.2. The same Barrett report also claims there was an indentation on the primer of Oswald's revolver. FBI firerams expert Cortlandt Cunningham testified there was no such dent, busting Barrett and Jerry Hill's false narrative about LHO trying to shoot his revolver in the Texas Theatre and that there was such a marking on the primer. (see item 8 in my article, linked here).3. Also in the report - Barrett says someone else grabbed the revolver and gave it to Bob Carroll - then he says (fourth paragraph from the end of the attached 1983 Montgomery Advertiser story) that he grabbed it himself and pulled it from Oswald's grip.At this point, I am tempted to write off everything Barrett says as "stolen valor" - like claiming credit so you can get a combat medal - but it's even worse than that.4. See pp. 27-38 (a series of FBI memos of 1967). It sure looks like Barrett took custody of the Paschall film and made a duplicate of it? That's what Paschall's lawyer thought. This film was important evidence of Dealey Plaza on 11/22. Now Paschall only has a duplicate, and no longer has the original of the film. Why?Barrett admits having possession of the film - he kind of had to, because Paschall and her lawyer knew his name. But there is no record of any FBI agent taking possession! FBI agents are not allowed to take custody of evidence without a paper trail - especially someone's film. Barrett and another agent followed many leads to obtain and review such film.Barrett claimed that he was in the film - actually...no one has yet been able to find him in the film.5. In the attached 1984 article, Barrett states he was "one of the last cars to arrive at the Tippit scene" - but he also claims that he saw Tippit's body being removed!!! This is another whopper. Barrett's 11/22/63 report states that he got the news about the Tippit shooting at 1:25. He was in Dealey Plaza at that time. There is no way that he got to the Tippit crime scene before 1:30 - ten minutes after Tippit's body was taken away by ambulance.The argument has been whether Tippit was shot at 1:07 (multiple gunmen version) or 1:15 (lone gunman version).Assuming the radio log accurately indicates the call for his rescue was as late as 1:17 pm, Tippit's body was picked up in two minutes and removed by 1:20.Croy claims to the Warren Commission to have been the first cop on the scene, and saw his body removed.Researcher William Weston says that Croy was immediately followed by H W Summers and Roy Walker. Dale Myers agrees, and puts the time of their arrival at 1:21. (Id., p. 112) They learned "a cab driver" (Callaway was with a cab driver) had picked up Tippit's gun and left the scene.Weston adds that Hill, Owens and Alexander all arrived at 1:22, after the ambulance had left.6. I believe the police have consistently told a story that changes the sequence of events at the plaza by 8-15 minutes - the goal to push back the Tippit shooting to as late a time as possible (1:16 instead of 1:07, I think the true time), in order to give Oswald enough time to get to the Tippit scene. I remain unconvinced that Oswald was at the Tippit scene. Barrett even walked the route from the Tippit scene to the Texas Theater and wrote a report on it.7. Much of this may have been done to hide the truth, indicated in the Oakes video - (and determined by researcher Richard E. Sprague in a study to have been taken at 12:39 pm)...that Barrett actually was the officer photographed with Buddy Walthers in Dealey Plaza that day - and Barrett actually did pick up a bullet or a fragment from a bullet from the scene in the minutes after the assassination.Walthers' wife said Buddy told her that "the man" picked up a bullet. (Oakes, at 5:35) Wathers' partner, Al Maddox said "an FBI man" picked up a bullet. (Oakes, at 6:00)Walthers died in a 1969 shooting with a notorious criminal named Bob Cherry while on duty with Al Maddox - was Walthers' killing some kind of set up?Both Barrett himself and his boss Robert Gemberling identified the man in the Dealey Plaza photo with Walthers as Barrett - only to deny it later (also in Oakes' video).Barrett went so far as to write Oakes a note when the photo was mailed to him - "that's me in the photo, sorry." Odd phrasing.Oakes calls Barrett to thank him. Barrett says, "my mistake, I meant to write 'that's not me in the photo, sorry.'"Barrett is a disinformation artist.Patrolman J. W. Foster told the WC he saw a bullet strike the turf right alongside the concrete by a manhole cover - there is supposed to be an arrow pointing to the mark, according to the transcript. (Can you see any mark - I can't?)Also see Mark Oakes' video, start it at 2:00 with Patrolman Foster's statement, and the location as reported in the 11/23/63 Fort Worth Star-Telegram at 4:35 (also see Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 315) - but the Warren Commission refused to believe it.On 11/22/63, while serving on jury duty, Edna Hartman and her husband Wallace saw two parallel holes while standing near a manhole cover. She and her husband went back on Sunday the 24th, but the grass was trampled over and they could not find the holes again. Her report was taken months later, 8/10/64, by two FBI officers - one was Robert Barrett! The Hartmans had been downtown for jury duty, and responded late in response to a public appeal.Edna Hartman told Jim Marrs that a policeman on the scene told her the shots came from the grassy knoll. She asked the cop if the two parallel marks she was looking at were gopher holes, and the policeman said, "no ma'am, that's where the bullets struck the ground." (Marrs, Crossfire, pp. 315-316).Cameraman Harry Cabluck photographed the scene and saw more than one gouge on the ground. He was told the gouges were formed by a bullet (or bullets?). He took his photos hours later and never saw a slug. (Marrs, at 315; also see Sprague who documents the Cabluck photos) Cabluck is still alive. Robert Groden never got access to the early generation Cabluck photos.But Barrett's report quotes them as saying the shots came from the TSBD, not the grassy knoll, and that a "bystander" - not a policeman - supported that view.8. In Barrett's report, Barrett claims he was in Richardson, Texas until noon and got to Dealey Plaza by 1 pm. This is well after Walthers claims that he was out in the plaza with the FBI agent looking in the grass for a bullet.9. Barrett confuses things still more in the 1984 article by claiming that he studied all the angles of the shooting, and that his trajectory study shows that Oswald was shooting at Connally!This theory was picked up by the son of famed NYT journalist James Reston - JR Jr. wrote a whole book on this - claiming LHO was trying to get even for then-Secretary of the Navy Connally deciding not to upgrade Oswald's discharge, which resulted in Oswald's loss of his GI benefits - which would be a useful motive for shooting that day.More confusion, cooked up by Barrett. That Connally-killed-Oswald's-benefits story may have been one of the original reasons the planners chose LHO as the patsy, discarding the theory when they realized they didn't need it.10. In the 1984 article, Barrett tells the story about the wallet - but this time, instead of citing Oswald and Hidell - he says the cards are for Oswald and O. H. Lee (the resident at 1026 Beckley). Was this done to prove Oswald was O. H. Lee? This is the most important day of Barrett's life - why is he getting all the facts wrong?Why did the story of the ID of O. H. Lee change to the ID of Hidell? O. H. Lee would not tie him to the rifle purchase - Hidell would. How did Barrett get it wrong in 1984? Why should we believe his more recent version?The Tippit evidence - and the Walthers & Paschall evidence - should be reviewed over and over again until we get it right. There is nothing simple in the JFK case - not when key investigators tell lies over and over again. -
I used Doug Thompson's fascinating article as part of the new epilogue to my revised series of essays The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend - let me know what you think.
Connally didn't believe Oswald was the shooter
Doug Thompson, the webmaster at Capitol Hill Blue, had dinner with John Connally in 1982. Connally told him "you know I was one of the ones who advised Kennedy to stay away from Texas. Lyndon was being a real asshole about the whole thing and insisted." Thompson asked Connally if he thought Oswald was the shooter. "Absolutely not. I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission." Why didn't Connally speak out? "Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."
Connally's actions are why Oswald was stuck without GI Bill benefits - something Oswald needed to fix
Nellie Connally wrote in her book From Love Field that John Connally personally signed the documents that gave Oswald an undesirable discharge.
Oswald hand-wrote a memo shortly before 11/22/63 describing his experience with "street agitation" - citing his recent arrest in New Orleans. He may have written this for his still-unknown contacts in Dallas.
In my opinion, Lee Oswald's note to Hosty and letter to the Soviets was motivated to be seen as a player in the world of espionage - this was his best shot to get his GI Bill benefits ASAP. When Oswald's room on Beckley was searched, all three of his key undesirable discharge rulings from 1960-1963 were found together among his few possessions in that tiny room.
I don't think that taking a pot shot at ex-Navy secretary John Connally or JFK from the highly insecure sixth floor of the book depository was a good way to make that happen. The way for Oswald to get his benefits was to make himself seen as an important player in the world of espionage - if he could figure out his place in the scheme of things.
I think Oswald's 11/9/63 letter and his letter to Hosty at about the same time were two halting steps in that direction. I also think that Oswald was involved in doing some favors for someone in the tense behind-the-scenes atmosphere of 11/22. Why else would he head to the Texas Theatre, except to look for a contact? And why in the world would he not bring his handgun to work if he was planning to shoot the President? Only a crazy person would fail to bring his protection along with him if he wanted to get away. Anyone conducting a long-distance ambush is trying to get away. Oswald was not crazy.
Meanwhile, it's a sure thing that the planners of the Kennedy assassination had access to the Oswald file. One glance at it would provide convincing evidence that Connally took away Oswald's military benefits - and, in turn, provide a factual foundation for the cover story. The Connally part of the cover story was a "spare part" that was never used - but it was available, if needed.
Navy counsel Andy Kerr's memoir A Journey Among the Good and the Great also backs up Kerr's account of Connally's involvement in Oswald's loss of his GI Bill benefits. Kerr wrote that he advised Connally:
"In Oswald's case, my conclusions were that his complaint had no legal basis, his request was without merit, and that Connally should not involve himself in any way.
This routing slip supports the story about how
Connally deep-sixed Oswald's attempt to obtain
an upgraded discharge by directing
"appropriate action"."I recommended that he refer the letter to the commandant of the Marine Corps for 'appropriate action'." (Emphasis added.) This phrase meant, in clear officialese, that the secretary was washing his hands of the case. The commandant could do with it as he wished. No one could doubt that the result would be. It was a kiss-off.
"A day or two later, Connally called me into his office. He had obviously read the entire file and was intrigued. We discussed the case for half an hour or so, and at the end he said, "I agree with you, Andy--this is the way we should handle it." He then signed that second piece of paper that sent Oswald's letter on its way, we thought, to oblivion."
And, in fact, that's precisely what happened. The Warren Commission has a memo dated 2/26/62 - three days after the purported cc from Connally to Fred Korth, at a time when Connally was clearing his desk as Secretary of the Navy to pass the reins to Korth - stating that the Oswald matter was being "routed to CMC (Commandant, Marine Corps) for 'appropriate action'." (Emphasis added.)
There's no sign that Fred Korth saw this memo. There's an initial "C" on the bottom - that may be from Connally. Connally's signature looks similar.
Instead, a week later, Oswald was sent a "kiss-off letter" from Brigadier General R. Tompkins of the Marine Corps, saying that your letter "was referred to me for reply".
Kerr's colleague Hank Searles also corroborates Kerr's account. Searles recalled the morning that Kerr opened the Oswald letter, read it, and advised Connally to reject it. Are there any indications that Fred Korth ever saw any of Oswald's requests for a discharge upgrade?
-
I have reported on the Gannaway relationship with convicted wiretapper Robert Denson in 1963, reprinted below.
Denson, head of the Tri-State Private Detective Agency, was hired to work on Jack Ruby's trial defense. Denson was working on protesters appearing with placards supporting Ruby.
This late 1964 FBI memo by Robert Barrett indicates that the Gannaway-Denson relationship was being monitored by none other than Criminal Intelligence detective Don Stringfellow (identified as DL T-23)
Stringfellow is infamous for passing a phony report to the military during the afternoon of November 22 - so seeing Stringfellow snitching on his boss Gannaway indicates a big lack of harmony within the Special Services Bureau - because Revill was snitching on Gannaway too. Maybe Stringfellow and Revill just wanted to get Gannaway fired - or was it more than that?
The same memo goes after assistant DA William Alexander for having custody of the Oswald diary that was leaked to LIfe Magazine - which is more understandable - it mentions how Alexander hated the FBI and was referred to by people who knew him as "a vicious nut". Why did Jack Ruby love Alexander so much - even though he was his prosecutor? Why did Alexander leak info about Oswald having Hosty's "home phone, office phone and car license number", and plant phony info that Oswald was an FBI informant?
I should mention that "police department number" is provided for many suspects - we should conduct a public records act request in Texas using these numbers!!
Here is an interesting FBI memo written by Robert Barrett from 3/15/63, entitled Crime Conditions in the Dallas Division. It names Jack Revill as FBI T-1, who wants his identity confidential.
Revill reported to Barrett that a close relationship continued between Gannaway and private detective Robert B. Denson - even though Denson had recently been convicted in the Tyler federal court for wiretapping.
The word was that Gannaway was going to retire soon and go into the private detective business with Denson. Denson ran the Tri-State Detective Agency.
Denson was later hired by the Ruby defense team. He would shoulder reporters aside and ask them not to photo him - but both he and Belli denied that he was Belli's bodyguard.
When Karen Lynn Bennett testified on 12/23/63 at a Ruby bail hearing, she was followed out the door by defense attorney Tom Howard and Denson.
-
On Guillermo Ruiz and Antonio Garcia Lara as witnesses who saw the Oswald character as being the actual "LHO" - see Escalante's JFK: The Cuba Files, pp. 130-132.
On the other hand, I have to say...
As someone who does cautiously use Escalante as a source - because of his stature within Cuban intelligence, his willingness to write books on the subject and engage with researchers - and because he was shut down by the Cuban government, indicating that after a long period of openness a period of silence was necessary - I find it very troubling that all of us don't vet his work more seriously.
After all, Escalante named five shooters in Dealey Plaza. Why has there been no follow-up?
Why has no one (I can't read Spanish well at all) gone to Havana and reviewed the sources that Escalante does cite in his books as located in the government library?
Does anyone know if Escalante is able or willing to discuss the JFK case at this time?
-
After a number of years, I finally got this epilogue written wrapping up the Oswald Legend series.
The great thing about it for me is that I learned new things writing the revision - the biggest one may have been about Oswald's push to obtain his GI benefits and how that affected everything.
The process really drove home to me how much disinformation was embedded in this case before 11/22 - immediately afterwards, and in the following months and years. All comments welcomed.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Oswald_Legend_Epilogue.html
-
Hi David,
Thanks for reaching out to me personally telling me that you wrote this response. I am only occasionally on this site and I don't know the traffic patterns or when I have been asked a question directly.
I should begin by saying it would really really help David if you offered a RIF number whenever you post an excerpt. I have to learn what you do - it's very helpful - but it becomes a serious problem when the person who receives it can't review it in context.
Let me check to see if my understanding is right on your position...
On my point about evaluating Escalante's evidence - as near as I can tell you, you simply don't believe Escalante and believe Veciana, do I have that right?
I am not sure about Escalante, but I feel sure Veciana cannot be trusted on any level.
Are you saying Veciana named the shooters in Dealey Plaza?
For all the reasons Newman spelled out in his books, I don't believe Veciana. He has no crediblity for me.
On your statement that "The overwhelming evidence is that Harvey Oswald was in Texas for that period working for the FBI (possibly on assignment from CIA to get info on what the FBI was doing)."
I don't believe in "Harvey Oswald" as a separate individual from Lee Oswald.
I think Oswald was a frenemy of the FBI - an off-and-on source who got mad at Hosty.
I think Guillermo Ruiz was a double agent that Veciana tried to bring into the game from time to time - and that Ruiz's real affinity remained with Cuba.
I love the "fudge" document you found on Slawson. I think that is the kind of document that deserves much more analysis - did you ever find the missing pages?
Bill
-
Oswald typed a letter to the CIA-friendly International Rescue Committee (IRC) in 1962 -- and the Committee commented that Oswald's letter matched the typeface of a related letter from the State Department!)
-
David,
One request:
I don't know how you do all those photo screenshots - it's a very great technique.
The problem is that none of us know where you find them - can you leave RIF numbers behind at the bottom when you do it?
Otherwise, I can't evaluate your valuable finds.
One question:
One of the reasons I am an agnostic about LHO in Mexico City -
Have you read JFK: The Cuba Files, by ex-Cuban intelligence chief Fabian Escalante? See pp. 114-132
Fabian Escalante has been consistent in saying that Guillermo Ruiz (Veciana's cousin-in-law) and Antonio Garcia Lara (like Ruiz, in the commercial office of the Cuban embassy) both saw LHO and it was the one shot in Dallas. They were backed up by ex-consul Alfedo Mirabal and Silvia Duran - whose descriptions of his physicality are not perfect. We all know that Azcue said it was not LHO. If you read Fidel Castro's testimony, he backs Azcue but suggests that he is mistaken.
Again, I am agnostic. You are not. How do you do address the Escalante evidence?
We made the Cover of Paris Match!
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Here's a Paris Match follow-up to the Stone interview.
The Kennedys' fate was sealed by a community of interest between the Mafia and the CIA
By Marc Dugain
The author of "They will kill Robert Kennedy" delivers his analysis on the assassination of JFK.
The great dramas of history have their genealogy. The story of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and then of his brother, Robert, has its roots in the poor Ireland of the 19th century. Colonized by the Protestant English, the island emptied in waves of successive immigration. Boston is a favorite destination for families driven by the Great Mid-Century Famine.
The man who turns emigration defeat into a stunning victory is Joe Kennedy. He has anchored in him the spirit of the Irish Catholics' revenge and his horizon is nothing less than the presidency of the United States. He first got immeasurably rich during Prohibition where he fought to the point of spilling blood against the Jewish and Italian mafias, suggesting that he himself was the boss of the Irish mafia. Then, he becomes a master at laundering that dirty money into respectable fortune, until he owns the largest studio in Hollywood.
As everything progresses perfectly, a character stands in the way of his wildest dream: Roosevelt blocks his way to the presidential election. Pacifist, pro-poopoo, anti-Semite, Kennedy made the wrong ideological choices and only gets political jump seats. Now he has just one thing in mind, to place his eldest son, Joseph, in the White House. But he died in action in Europe. When the Second World War ended, Joe's hopes were focused on the second of the siblings, John. To get him elected, he was prepared to do anything, including buying votes in key states in the 1960 presidential election. He did so through the Italian mafia, with considerable sums of money. But Sam Giancana, the boss, expected John to get rid of Fidel Castro, once in the White House, whose revolution has wiped out Mafia interests in Cuba. Elected, JFK is reluctant to act directly and leaves paramilitary troops stationed in Guatemala to prepare the invasion of the island. The Bay of Pigs landing would not have been such a fiasco if Kennedy had provided US air force support. He lets the illegals sink into a failure that produced victims, and a grudge steeped in hatred.
The conspiracy was organized among all those who would rather see JFK die than serve a second term
With one year left before his re-election - polls credit him with 65% of the intended voters - the conspiracy is organized among those who would rather see him die than serve a second term. By killing him, they also hope to neutralize his brother, more royalist than the king and who refused their father's inheritance. The idea and preparation of the plot emerge in conversations overheard by the FBI. But J. Edgar Hoover, its very anti-Communist director, hates the Kennedys. Bob, who is his direct boss, insults him with his arrogance and appears to him as a leftist, who supports black people in the fight for civil rights.
Members of the Warren Commission, charged with investigating the circumstances of JFK's assassination, in September 1964. Its 888-page report identifies Oswald as the sole culprit. Members of the Warren Commission, charged with investigating the circumstances of JFK's assassination in September 1964. His 888-page report identifies Oswald as the sole culprit.
Hoover does not give the alert. Behind the scenes, a decoy is being prepared: Lee Harvey Oswald, who could play the role of the pro-Soviet lunatic at the appropriate time by killing the president. In Dallas, although he ordered a rifle that was delivered to him in the mail (as if he wasn't afraid to leave marks), Oswald is quietly at the movies when JFK is shot. The procession is targeted from a depository of books and a fence where shooters were posted. The CIA's black operations department and the Mafia, making common cause, provided men disguised as tramps. The shots will eventually hit Kennedy in the head.
How could Oswald, considered a poor army marksman, have executed so many shots in such a short period of time with such a bad rifle?
Nothing holds, but everything fits together wonderfully because everyone has an interest in it. If you have to unbox it, no one will get over it. No more American democracy than Kennedy's detractors, accused of having assassinated him, nor his unconditional supporters who would be sullied by the unveiling of the reality of a myth built on fraudulent arrangements. Everyone has something to lose. Even the brother of the late president, who later sought his succession; Perfectly aware of the plot and its protagonists, he would rather keep the image of the handsome kid struck down in full glory rather than that of the somewhat nonchalant thug's son who gave in to his father's ambitions by accepting his corruption. These Kennedys, some do not want it anymore and, coincidentally, they are the most determined. When Robert, five years later, is on his way to winning the Democratic primaries, he in turn is assassinated by another decoy, an American Palestinian.
For some, denying the plot against JFK is like claiming that no Jews died at Auschwitz. For others, it is a conspiratorial thesis, one of those delusions fueled by paranoiacs whose numbers have been measured since they have emerged en masse on social media. Experts are still battling the trajectory of the bullets to determine if a single killer was present on November 22, 1963. But how could Oswald, considered a poor army shooter, have been able to execute so many shots in such a short period of time with such a bad gun, on the best protected man on the planet?
The first statesman to doubt the lone killer theory and to express it in a small circle was General de Gaulle