Greg Burnham

I've really missed arguing with you for the past few years, Todd! Remember the good ol' days on the JFK Forum? Alright, I lied, I haven't missed it at all. Anyway, IMO, Jack was being a little facetious about part of his analysis--the part that you took literally. I still say, either scenario is possible...and one isn't more non-sensical than the other using the same standard that you used.

Jim, As to your first point regarding the illegality of the tape: it's good to know that prosecution isn't the point, but I still suggest not emphasizing or reiterating it if that's the case. Otherwise, what's the point? As to the definition of whistleblowing, I don't think that a court would allow a broader interpretation than that which is already spelled out. Since the context in which we were talking about whistleblowing was as a possible defense, i.e., mitigating circumstances, I think that the most prudent expectation would be the narrowest definition. If one was fortunte enough to draw an extremely liberal judge maybe he or she would loosen the definition. However, yes I definitely agree that her story is HUGE. I did read your psy ops latest. The problem with Judyth's story, even assuming it is 100% accurate, is that it is peppered with credibility problems by the design of her former "handlers" or by those running the op. For those who are uninitiated about such matters, those credibility gaps equal deciept. For those who are familiar with these things the possibility exists that she's the "real deal" but it isn't necessarily so. For those, such as yourself, who have really dug into the evidence you have an advantage in perspective. For not only does it become troublesome to explain the mounting quantity of evidence as the product of deceipt, it becomes absurd to explain the existence of the many holes in the story similarly because they could not exist without being a part of a much larger body of evidence. Why would one have chosen to save many of these items from 1963 to begin with and not save others? It's my feeling that much of her information was compartmentalized within her psyche as a defense mechanism. I'm not a mental health professional and I am not intending to cast aspersions on her by that statement. But there is basis for my claim. The ability to dissociate is a gift that allows survival, and is therefore, not necessarily dysfunctional in such a case. Ask your expert about this point, please. I also have an advantage...I met her. Her claims were stated matter of factly--no hesitation, with confidence. I couldn't "trap her" -- not even close -- and I tried. If I judge solely from my "gut" ... "She's the real deal". But since I haven't done enough homework to verify or debunk enough of her claims, I can not, in good conscience, have a rational opinion about it. (Yes, I said "rational"). If I were to commit at this stage, either way, it would be irrational, and therefore I haven't. Even for me, this has caused a degree of cognitive dissonance.

Jen Hill's thoughts: "Let's see, here comes the President of the United States whom I have only this one chance to see up close--and now here comes my boyfriend who I have seen and will continue to see everday for some time to come...the President...the boyfriend...the President...the boyfriend. Hmmm, let me think. I wonder, who shall I look at right now?" See Todd, it's easy to make just about anything sound like nonsense. It's something else to prove it. Your scenario explains it, but so does Jack's. Neither is nonsense.

This is just one interpretation of what we may be seeing take place here: 1) Lifton may not want to provide physical evidence (proof) that he broke the law, if that is, in fact what he did. Sorry, if that is incorrect, David, but I'm just trying to make sense of this. So, on the one hand, by providing the tape it would allow the alleged evidence of her being less than truthful speak for itself; on the other hand, it would prove the commission of an illegal act. Jim, I also think (if the above is true) the more you bring up the legality of its status the more elusive its disposition will become. 2) I don't think that "whistleblower" applies, in this case or at this juncture. Here's why: If I'm not mistaken, an individual is protected from retaliation under the law for whistleblowing about illegal activity on the part of their employer. The law makes retaliation illegal separtely from the original charge, if there is one or not. In other words, if the employee is reporting what they believe in good faith to be illegal activity, whether or not that ends up to be true, the employee is protected from retaliation by the employer. I don't see how that applies to this situation. It's like trying to stretch a condom over a watermelon, it just won't fit! monk

Bill, I agree with everything you wrote...almost. Like you, I find it much more implausible to believe that all of Doug's conclusions are false than to believe that at least one of them is true--and one is all it takes. However, and I actually like this, you seem to have a somewhat--I dunno--old west "shoot 'em up" mentality about parts of the case. That's not a criticism--not at all! Only problem is...you seem to still be looking to hold someone accountable for the crime....or to otherwise prevent the perpetrators from "getting away with it" -- Well, guess what: THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT! Yeah, they did and it sucks--but they did. Please forgive my being so bold, but perhaps the best lesson here doesn't reside in our figuring out how to obtain justice for JFK, but rather understanding "what it means" (that we cannot) about us, about our nation, about preventing it in the future. I know that sounds somewhat fatalistic, even resigned, but it is what it is.

Doug, I don't recall having ever libeled you or anyone else for raising questions or anything else, do you?

Doug, I know I am beginning to speculate perhaps beyond the point of prudence, but if you don't mind indulging me for a moment more... This goes to a possible defense...in terms of mitigating circumstances. Is it reasonably conceivable that a judge might grant the defense a relatively wider latitude, when introducing evidence supporting a theory of mitigating circumstances, than would normally be expected due to the extraordinary nature of the case? Keep in mind, the DA wasn't "compelled" to prosecute this case as a result of it being a "hot homicide" garnering a lot of media coverage, nor was it a case that at one time drew tremendous attention to itself and would now still be considered "high profile" albeit in the "cold case" file. In other words, would any consideration be given to the fact that the main, if not sole, reason the DA pursued prosecution was due to the SUSPECT volunteering the information so that a broader justice might be done -- or a broader injustice might be averted? Thanks. Monk: My simple answer is no. Of course any judge is subject to their own idiosyncratic nature, and can admit what they want to but if things are, as she stated in TMWKK, I do not see any mitigating circumstanes. It would be admitted only over vehement objection. Doug, I think I see what you mean...but, TMWKK was a commercial television production that was subject to editing, etc. -- It is not tantamount to a confession, IMO--of course, I most certainly could be wrong. But, in any event, this story sure seems to be extremely challenging. I mean, wow--if we put ourselves in Jim's shoes! What a long haul this has been for him, so far, only to find out that--even if she is "the real deal" it won't matter because her testimony is tainted as a witness, and even if she's a murderer who went to trial she can't tell the truth about the circumstances that led up to it even there because no one would want to know! Moreover, even though she isn't "wanted" for anything now--if she turned herself in for KNOWLEDGE of a crime that nobody was even persuing--she could be in big trouble irrespective of the broader truth. The deaths probably weren't ruled homicides anyway--so it's all a moot point. Thanks for the feedback, Doug.

Doug, I know I am beginning to speculate perhaps beyond the point of prudence, but if you don't mind indulging me for a moment more... This goes to a possible defense...in terms of mitigating circumstances. Is it reasonably conceivable that a judge might grant the defense a relatively wider latitude, when introducing evidence supporting a theory of mitigating circumstances, than would normally be expected due to the extraordinary nature of the case? Keep in mind, the DA wasn't "compelled" to prosecute this case as a result of it being a "hot homicide" garnering a lot of media coverage, nor was it a case that at one time drew tremendous attention to itself and would now still be considered "high profile" albeit in the "cold case" file. In other words, would any consideration be given to the fact that the main, if not sole, reason the DA pursued prosecution was due to the SUSPECT volunteering the information so that a broader justice might be done -- or a broader injustice might be averted? Thanks.

[emphasis added] Pamela, My thoughts exactly!

Doug, would it be fair to say this: In your opinion, even if Judyth is the "real deal" it may not matter even in the best of circumstances because nothing could ever come of it, particularly in a court of law, because her having conducted extensive research would necessarily taint her witness testimony beyond repair, rendering it useless? Monk: Yes, absolutely. I thought that was what I wrote though perhaps not so eloquently. Best, Doug Would it also be accurate to say that the same "handicap" would NOT exist if she were a defendant (as opposed to being a witness)? Please answer freely, counselor, as you do not represent her, nor are you offering her or us legal advice--just an opinion.

Doug, would it be fair to say this: In your opinion, even if Judyth is the "real deal" it may not matter even in the best of circumstances because nothing could ever come of it, particularly in a court of law, because her having conducted extensive research would necessarily taint her witness testimony beyond repair, rendering it useless?

Yes Doug, I suppose that if you were representing her you would tell her to shut up because you would have a fiduciary to do just that, but you ARE NOT representing Judyth! You have no obligation to protect her. In fact, you don't think she is telling the truth to begin with. Why does she need your advice (to remain silent) if she is fabricating her story and therefore has nothing to fear? Did something about her presentation on TMWKK strike you as possibly true? I'm confused.

Doug & Jim, For the sake of conversation, and perhaps more, I find this topic fascinating. Here's why: If Judyth is telling the truth, and if she believes that revealing the truth supercedes her own individual best interests, there might be an angle worth pursuing. From what I know of her--and from what Jim has presented--she certainly seems to place the importance of "sharing the truth" above her own best interests, as demonstrated by the many "trials and tribulations" she has willingly endured that she attributes to her having attempted to tell her story. If this claim is, in fact, true--it is quite admirable. So, assuming her story really is true, she definitely seems to display characteristics consistent with being the "real deal" -- However, many have doubted that the "substance of her revelations" are real and have challenged, not the existence of her plight, but rather have challenged the assertion that her "trials and tribulations" are, in fact, further PROOF that her story is true and somehow a threat to those who may have something to lose if her story is believed. Based on that, I have an idea. Jim, I ask you to not act as her defense counsel because you are not qualified to act in that capacity, and second, because it is unnecessary at this juncture. Third, we'll need you in a different capacity. Also, I am not attacking her or suggesting she should be punished. I am thinking of something else. Theoretically, if she were to reveal the name or names of the individuals who were victims of this program it would establish her credibility--without doubt--if same could be independently verified from public, medical, and/or law enforcement records. Moreover, if, based on this information, a DA chose to pursue charges against her, this would require a trial in which the power to subpoena relevant documents and witnesses, etc. would exist for both the DA and the Defense...including the documents in the possession of the federal, state, and/or local government. This would be stronger than any FOIA request could ever be. Now, Jim--if it turns out you are correct--that there is insufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonble doubt she goes free, but we still have the truth...or at least more truth than we have now--and that's what Judyth says she wants as well. Since you believe that there is no case--or at least an un-winnable case for the prosecution--in the end, her story is out in the open, it is irrefutable as it has been as fully vetted as possible in a public forum, and we have the information [TRUTH].

Fortunately for us all, there are people like you who are willing to do the wading in order to uncover the gems. Sometimes no matter how much attention to detail we employ, we still find "germs" disguised as "gems" -- No worries. Good work.

Hi Bernice, There's nothing like getting the facts straight from someone, like Prouty, who was there.

Hunt did not run that division. He worked in it. As I recall, he worked under Tracy Barnes. Of course Hunt could have lied and told the NYT that he ran the division. But even then Revel should know Hunt was lying. Ron, According to the article: "He [HUNT] told them [senate Watergate Committee] that he had served as the first Chief of Covert Action for the Domestic Operations Division of the Central Intelligence Agency." So perhaps Revel was ambiguous in his usage of the word "Division" -- Apparently he was referring to the Covert Action Section of the Domestic Operations Division. I'll modify my post to reflect the correction.

Hunt did not run that division. He worked in it. As I recall, he worked under Tracy Barnes. Of course Hunt could have lied and told the NYT that he ran the division. But even then Revel should know Hunt was lying. There are several "less than accurate" items in this piece. What is worse, not only does Revel quote dis or mis-information provided from Hunt, he provides some of his own!

Gary Revel: "He [HUNT] told them [senate Watergate Committee] that he had served as the first Chief of Covert Action for the Domestic Operations Division of the Central Intelligence Agency." "Hunt opened up again in a 1974 interview with the New York Times explaining how he ran that division for four years beginning in 1962, shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco. “many men connected with that failure were shunted into the new domestic unit.” Hunt had admitted. He confessed to using the division to subsidize and manipulate news and publishing organizations for the entire 4 years. "What he didn’t go into detail about was how these same men were some that had been hurt badly by President John Kennedy backing out of his promise to provide air support for the operation. This seemingly cowardly act had caused the failure of the entire Bay of Pigs Operation. It also caused the deaths of many of the CIA’s assets and valuable soldiers that were intending to free Cuba from Communism and Castro." Oops. Somebody didn't do his homework before writing this drivel. IMO, a lot of what he says has merit. However, the above statement that Kennedy "backed out" of promised air support at the Bay of Pigs is totally bogus. Moreover, the immediate cause of the operational failure could therefore not be due to any fictional "backing out" of a non-existent promise. And Revel should know better. The author could have advanced the case that he is trying to make much further had he known and/or reported the true history. He is ironically relying on a false cover story fabricated by the CIA themselves (to shift blame for the failure from them to JFK). The problem is...although the CIA cover story might have had some credibility back in the 60's, 70's, and even 80's--it was because much of the documentation thoroughly debunking such a notion had yet to be declassified. He is relying on several decades old "agency myth" in his opinion. Unfortunately, such dependence damages his own credibility, lessens the importance of his paper, and, ironically--the truth would have better served his purposes. Most disappointing, erroneous facts (cited as premises) are often placed within a larger context to support the main point. This has the effect of causing the premises to be assumed as fact by the uninitiated reader, wherein the overall point might be questioned and weighed, but not the premises presented as fact. As such, these blunders only serve to continue to muddy the waters. A pity.

What? Did I read you right? Are you anti-free speech on the internet? If not, why would one "consider" such an idea? Perhaps it is a different usage of certain words in the language that confuses me? I know there are subtle and not so subtle changes in meaning from American English to Australian English and vice versa. No, there's no mistaking your meaning this time! You really believe that Fascism is the "last gasp" of Capitalism? Oh my! How are you personally defining Capitalism?

I call this another case of IMplausible Deniability, wherein the Agency and the Administration attempt to blame each other when the proverbial **** hits the fan. Except nobody outside the inner loop knows which side to believe and ends up trusting neither. Have you read the article? This is the opening two paragraphs: "Slam dunk.” George Tenet, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, later admitted that those were “the two dumbest words I ever said” when he had assured President George W. Bush in December 2002 that the CIA held solid proof of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. This monumental error led directly to the American decision to invade Iraq. While the CIA's mistake on Iraq was arguably the most consequential in its history, it was certainly not the first. As Tim Weiner's compelling book, “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA,” makes clear, the U.S. has suffered serious intelligence failures from the CIA's earliest days. It is clear that Bush and Blair selected the CIA and MI6 intelligence that encouraged the belief that Iraq had WMD. However, it is also clear that the CIA and MI6 went along with providing the information that the politicians were looking for.

Interesting email, John--and an interesting thread. Since I wasn't here when this topic started I didn't see the photos posted here (I don't think) either. That would be worthwhile.

Barb, Sheesh--this is getting tedious, no? Going in circles isn't useful at all, except to get dizzy--and that's no fun. So, no that's not my purpose. However, sometimes folks "talk at each other" and don't make a connection for whatever reason. That doesn't necessarily mean that either side (of the debate) is disingenuous, cognitively impaired, ill informed, stupid... etc. Sometimes they just aren't "on the same page" so to speak. I'm trying to find out which "pages" everyone agrees to and which ones seem at odds--and go from there. So far, just finding that out is like pulling teeth! Try not to speak, my friend--it's not ridiculous--not yet. I'm still questioning this "witness" -- I would prefer to hear the witness answer the question. Barb seems to reject any evidence that you or Judyth provide. So that won't work by itself. But, perhaps she has an answer consistent with the evidence that she herself has discovered? But, now that Jim has "opened the door" to this subject... Barb, do you reject the authenticity of the documents Jim referenced above? If so, why? Greg, I am not a "witness." But then you know that. I just replied to Fetzer's comment in his reply to you a few minutes ago. I commented on the time cards there. I don't know what he means by "work records" ... the credit report, perhaps? The time cards and the credit report are authentic documents ... easily found in the volumes. It is not their authenticity that anyone has questioned, as far as I know. I reject "evidence" that is really not evidence at all. Posting cyber reams of the claimant's excuses, explanations and additional claims does not substantiate the claim it's all being offered up for as "evidence" in the first place. But then I expect you realize that as well. :-) But it does look like perhaps you enjoy going in circles. Barb :-)

Well, what I am trying to determine is what value such evidence would really have for a skeptic? Jim asked you if you would concede that she was "the real deal" if the analysis panned out. And you, rightly IMO, replied that such confirmation would not make a believer out of you. So, my question is not directed at why Judyth (and/or Jim) should agree to this study, but why you have found it so important to suggest? It really seems, by your own admission, to have little value beyond supporting the least important of her claims! IOW: If all Judyth ever claimed was to have "known him" and even "had a fling" with him--would you even care? I wouldn't. I wouldn't even need proof. I would believe it or not--but who cares? It is her other claims that are potentially important. However, you have already stated that the confirmation would not satisfy your burden of proof of those items. So, I don't think there is a point to it...at least not for your purposes. Unless you're trying to help Jim prove Judyth's case, I don't see your point--especially since, according to you, even a confirmation would prove very little, if anything. Now, maybe you believe it would help prove her "wrong" or a xxxx if it did not pan out. Is that the point? Thanks Barb, You employed a double negative. So for clarity sake then, you think it IS likely that their paths crossed. Since that is the most you would concede even if the handwriting analysis panned out, its hardly worth the effort. Yeah, little weird construct there ... sorry. On your clarification .... no, that is not what I meant. I have no way of knowing whether it would have been "likely" .... but there is no reason it would have been unlikely (or unusual), given that they worked in the same place. You keep asserting things I have not said. :-) If the handwriting is certified by a qualified professional to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald, then I think that would establish that she did know him. To what degree .... that won't tell us. But if the writing is his, then they obviously had more than a nodding courtesy fellow employee in passing knowledge of one another. One could get the idea that you are trying to create a preemptive excuse for not having the analysis done.:-) I can't think of one valid reason a claimant, with an item in hand that could establish part of their claim ... and an important part ... would not be begging to have it analyzed. Can you? Bests, Barb :-)

This is an interesting study, Chris. Good work! Perhaps Jack will weigh in on it and offer an opinion.

Yes, the Ralph Geb I researched died in 1989 at the age of 70. The reason I think that its the same guy is because J Harrison asked me to look him up as he thought Geb still lived in San Diego. This Geb did live in San Diego--but he was long dead before I even knew about him.