Paul Trejo

Well, Ernie, because of your bias against me (and Harry Dean) you completely missed my point (yet again). My statement was a focus was on American culture as reflected in the American mass media. This media gives the impression of loyalty to the Warren Commission, so that it "seems" (which is the word I used) that the American people still believe in the Warren Commission's "Lone Shooter" doctrine. It's the media message that affects us. Add to this the startling popularity of books like Posner's, Case Closed (1993), or Bugliosi's Reclaiming History (2007), and their tacit claim to be loyal and conservative Americans (in spite of the HSCA findings of 1979). The Amercian mass media remains biased to this very day. For only one example, a current cable TV serial, named, Covert Affairs, about a female CIA Agent. In the first season portrayed a kook off the street who walks into CIA offices to report that he knows who killed Kennedy. Our CIA Agent sighs and says, "It's well documented that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy." It was supposed to be humorous, to poke fun at JFK researchers and show what nonsense the modern CIA still has to endure from the public. For another example, last year Oliver Stone was interviewed about the JFK assassination and was taken to task over his "hostile" attitude toward the allegedly official "Lone Shooter" position. The journalist in that interview was unaware of the official HSCA position, and put Oliver Stone on the defensive over this obsolete point. It's the mass media. Journalists continue to milk the "Lone Shooter" nonsense as though it still has traction. Then there's the very recent book by Ed Bauer, The Final Truth: Solving the Mystery of the JFK Assassination (2012), which again repeats the "Lone Shooter" theme as though it remains authoritative to this very day. The American mass media continues to represent the JFK Research Community like Keystone Kops. Yet the essence of our position -- that the Warren Commission, based as it was on J. Edgar Hoover's "Lone Shooter" strategy, was totally backward -- remains stable, logical and sound, and anyway it is actually confirmed by the official US Government position as stated by the HSCA in 1979. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

1. Some FBI Agents were friendly to Harry Dean, here and there. This encouraged Harry to contribute more to them. Harry was blind-sighted and dismayed when he was first told near the middle of 1961 by the Chicago FBI that his information was "no longer needed." It came as a suprise to Harry. From 1960 until that point, somebody at the FBI was accepting Harry's unsolicited information for weeks and months. So, it's still plausible that Harry was misled -- or led on -- by the FBI. 2. A negative FBI attitude toward Harry showed up in 1961, but it was also ambivalent. During 1962, in Southern California, Harry again began furnishing (unsolicited) information to the FBI. There are ample FBI records confirming this. 3. Just because J. Edgar Hoover didn't know who Harry Dean was in November 1963 -- that's irrelevant. There were many FBI Agents in Chicago and in Southern California who clearly did know who Harry Dean was, from 1960-1963. 4. It doesn't matter if Harry's personal opinions were of any consequence to the FBI -- as I said. What matters is that Harry Dean told us the TRUTH when he claimed that he took all the information he had to the FBI and gave it to them. It makes no difference if they just laughed at Harry behind his back after he left their offices. That is utterly irrelevant. Harry Dean did his DUTY -- he gave his information to the FBI. What the FBI did (or didn't do) with it after that point must be their own responsibility, for which history will be their judge. 5. The truth is that the FBI immediately began smashing any and all information which might demonstrate the existence of more than one, solitary "Lone Shooter." This activity began before the sun went down on the day that JFK was murdered. This is an elementary knowledge based on objective readings of the JFK Research literature from the past 50 years. The Cover-up of the Conspiracy to murder JFK began one hour after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested. All evidence of more than one shooter was meddled with IMMEDIATELY. The originator of the "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK murder was J. Edgar Hoover himself. That's a historical fact. The FBI had control of all the evidence of the JFK murder, and the Warren Commission did no investigation on their own, but received all its information from the FBI. That's also a historical fact. Whoever is ignorant of those facts with regard to the JFK assassination is ignorant of the basics. 6. I have seen no proof that Harry Dean himself claimed to be an FBI Agent, or an official, paid informant of the FBI. Harry Dean informally "reported" his knowledge to the FBI. They wrote it down and put it in an official file. That's all that Harry knew. We have reports from TV and newspaper staff who CLAIM that Harry Dean said he was an FBI Agent or other nonsense. But that could easily have been their misunderstanding. The FBI quickly told the station manager for the Joe Pyne Show, for example, that Harry Dean was never an FBI Agent, and they advised that media station to remove Harry Dean from their program. We have the FBI documents showing this. However, the Joe Pyne Show did actually have Harry Dean appear on TV (just as the Valley Journal newspaper printed its story) -- so evidently the FBI missed its mark. At no time on the Joe Pyne Show was Harry Dean referred to as an FBI Agent or an FBI Informant. It wasn't important to the show's content. The FBI was confused about that. The Valley Journal made some wild statements about Harry Dean -- but there is no proof that these wild remarks came from Harry Dean himself. In fact, it is more likely they had a source like W.R. Morris, who misrepresented Harry Dean thoroughly. 7. If anybody has evidence that Harry Dean was presenting his information about the JFK murder as early as January 1964, then they must recognize that they are confirming my theory, and not disputing it. In that case, the facts go back even farther than my records indicated. 8. In fact, in 1965 the FBI spoke out against Harry Dean. One might claim that the FBI was "only telling the truth," but that is a matter of political opinion. Harry Dean was not claiming that he was an FBI Agent -- Harry Dean was claiming that JFK was murdered as the result of a Conspiracy. The FBI did whatever they could to discredit Harry Dean in the eyes of the media. Nor was this mere "publicity seeking." Harry Dean had a moral DUTY to tell the TRUTH about the JFK murder to the American People. He was suppressed on all sides, and he paid a terrible price for his honesty and courage. Harry Dean is a GREAT AMERICAN, and I salute him today. 9. Whoever keeps repeating the myth that Harry Dean claimed to be an FBI Agent is simply repeating the myths laid by W.R. Morris, the great fiction writer. The myths were also fed by the FBI. In fact, the FBI is a major source of that myth. 10. Clearly the FBI patronized Harry Dean by building up dozens of FBI files about his unsolicited information. Harry's contacts with the FBI were many, and their kicks at Harry were few and far between. Only with Harry's going public in 1965 did their break become final. Further, it is unkind to refer to Harry Dean's unsolicited reports to the FBI as a "DELUSION." Unkind? More than that, it's personally insulting and should be reviewed by a Moderator here. 11. Former FBI Agents Don Adams and Wes Swearingen both claim that the FBI harsly suppressed their claims, their stories and their writings. I've read their works, and it's clear from start to finish. The only thing that these men asserted was that they saw evidence while working for the FBI that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT ALONE in the murder of JFK. 12. The FBI can stomp on its own Agents, and on individual US citizens, but it could not stomp on the US Congress, the US Sentate or the HSCA. Besides, by 1977, when the HSCA opened its doors, J. Edgar Hoover had already died. At that point, the harsh motivation for defending Hoover's ridiculous "Lone Shooter" doctrine was gone. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

No, Ernie, I disagree with this. While Harry Dean might have been misled by the FBI to believe that they were taking him seriously (and I take that to be the case) we can see clearly from the FBI records that we have seen so far that the FBI was barely tolerating Harry Dean after the murder of JFK. The reason why should be obvious: Harry Dean was contradicting the FBI Director's own doctrine that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "Lone Shooter" and "had no accomplices." Therefore, given that FBI Agents would never cross the FBI Director (or they would be fired and thus no longer be FBI Agents), it was utterly and absolutely impossible for the FBI, at any time after J. Edgar Hoover announced the "Lone Shooter" doctrine, to take Harry Dean seriously. According to History Professor David R. Wrone of Wisconsin University, the hour at which J. Edgar Hoover announced his "Lone Shooter" theory was within an hour after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald was booked by the DPD at about 2pm CST on 11/22/1963, so by 3pm CST on 11/22/1963, the FBI had its tacit orders to SMASH any claims that Lee Harvey Oswald had associates, i.e. co-conspirators. As it turns out, Harry Dean was one of the many people in the next five years to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald had associates, i.e. co-conspirators. In 1965, Harry Dean came forward on the Joe Pyne Show -- against the wishes of the FBI -- and named various people in connection with the JFK murder, including Loran Hall, a mercenary closely related to radical Cuban Exiles in New Orleans. Three years later, in 1968, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison would interrogate Loran Hall to ascertain his possible role in the murder of JFK. In the next decade, Gaeton Fonzi would claim that not enough attention had been paid to Loran Hall in connection with the murder of JFK. In the 21st century, Joan Mellen has also named Loran Hall as one of her many suspects, connected with the Cuban Exile and radical rightist community in New Orleans. Current writers like Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich resonate with her findings. It all goes back to Harry Dean in 1965. But in 1965 the FBI spoke out against Harry Dean. In 1968 the FBI also spoke out against Jim Garrison. (The story goes even deeper than this -- yet I feel sure that I've covered this ground so much in the past year that every reader here knows all the details I've presented.) To get back to the point -- the FBI did not take Harry Dean's story seriously. Yet they most likely "patronized" Harry Dean, and this gave Harry Dean false hopes that his ideas were being heard. Harry knew they were true, and he continued to have faith in our US Government and in the FBI in particular. But the FBI failed Harry Dean, just as they failed the American People, when it came to the topic of TRUTH about the JFK murder. J. Edgar Hoover pronounced the doctrine -- Oswald was the "Lone Shooter" and the FBI stomped on anything that contradicted Hoover. We have further confirmation of this in the past year from two former FBI Agents -- Don Adams and Wesley Swearingen. Even though they were FBI Agents themselves, they were also stomped on -- hard -- because they proposed that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. The truth is coming out. In fact, it really came out in 1977 when the US Government re-opened the JFK murder case under the auspices of the House Select Committee on Assassination (HSCA) who published in 1979 that "President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy." In fact, 1979 was the end of the "Lone Shooter" theory. But by that time, very few people paid attention. Even today, most Americans seem to think that the Warren Report still has the last word. In fact, it seems that most FBI Agents still think that the Warren Report still has the last word. How out of touch can people be? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Ernie, let's take a step back and examine this claim critically, please. It actually makes no difference at all to my case if the FBI took Harry Dean seriously or not. It actually makes no difference at all to my case if the FBI thought of Harry as a "mental case." What is critical for my case is that Harry Dean actually did associate with the people that he claimed, and that he really did contact the FBI and provide them with information about his associates -- even if unsolicited. What the FBI did with that information is secondary, or even tertiary to my case. What your research so far has shown, in my interpretation, is that the FBI really and truly did keep files about Harry Dean's phone calls and visits, and really did record information from Harry about the FPCC in Chicago, and the radical right-wing in Southern California from 1961-1963. That little bit is already confirmation that Harry Dean is telling the truth today, and has been telling this same truth since 1965, when he first came out publicly with his story. The evidence we've seen so far (and we both agree that some FBI evidence has still not been made public) does tend to suggest that the FBI failed to take Harry Dean seriously. Some of the FBI Agents made insulting remarks about Harry Dean. But more importantly, according to my theory, all FBI Agents after 11/22/1963 were under orders to promote the Lone Nut theory of the JFK murder as proposed by J. Edgar Hoover, and to smash all theories that Lee Harvey Oswald had accomplices. To this end, nearly everybody who contradicted J. Edgar Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory since 11/22/1963 has been labeled a "mental case" by the FBI. I include here Silva Odio, Harry Dean and later, Jim Garrison and his information sources. So, in my theory, the jury is still out. We still haven't seen all the FBI files related to the case of Harry Dean. Yet I repeat -- even if the FBI never created a non-administrative file on Harry Dean with an informant/confidential source classification code -- that still doesn't invalidate my theory. If the FBI failed to accept the word of an eye-witness to the JFK murder plot, that's their own failing. Harry Dean did his duty -- he gave it his best shot -- much like Jim Garrison. The fuller truth will emerge about Harry Dean's story, especially as it relates to the resigned Major General Edwin Walker (the only US General to resign in the 20th century), and I expect to read more and more about Edwin Walker as we approach the new JFK Information Act deadline of 2017. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Ernie, despite your negative position on the claims of Harry Dean, I still salute your efforts to obtain all these FBI resources with regard to Harry Dean's case. Of course, interpretation of the results will be essential -- still -- without the raw materials there's no question of interpretation in the first place, so I publicly acknowledge your progress and public sharing. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo

First, Steven, nobody worth listening to promotes the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Nut shooter, anymore. That fiction was Hoover's 1963 strategy to avoid a National Security disaster. The HSCA officially retired the Lone Nut strategy in 1979. Secondly, just because Phillips bought into Hoover's strategy (as did the entire US Government) that is no reason to suspect Phillips of being on the JFK Kill Team. As I'm trying to demonstrate -- the JFK Kill Team was utterly separate from the JFK Cover-up Team. We can easily prove that David Atlee Phillips was on the JFK Cover-up Team -- but so what? So was the entire US Government in 1963-1964. The Lone Nut theory was literally a dogma in the USA in 1963-1964. To accuse David Atlee Phillips of the JFK murder you'll need far more evidence than the Lone Nut theory. Well, Steven, I also find Phillips to be very suspicious, and I'd like to find more evidence about him. He MIGHT be involved with the JFK murder deeper than our evidence shows today. However, this evidence by Antonio Veciana of Alpha 66, while credible, is still too weak. What Antonio Veciana proves is that David Atlee Phillips knew about (and to some extent befriended) Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. But the context of Phillips' meeting with Oswald and Veciana in Dallas in the summer of 1963 was the murder of Fidel Castro, not JFK. This corresponds to much of what we know about David Atlee Phillips and Antonio Veciana. History tells us that they were definitely involved for years in efforts to murder Fidel Castro. This also corresponds to my theory, that the method used by Guy Banister to motivate Lee Harvey Oswald to behave like a Patsy by portraying himself as a fake Officer of a fake FPCC in New Orleans, was the method of fooling Oswald to believe that he was involved in a plot to murder Fidel Castro. Now -- we can interpret the Veciana meeting in two ways. First, we can say that David Atlee Phillips was working with Guy Banister to keep Lee Harvey Oswald good and fooled about his role. Secondly, however, we can say that Phillips himself was fooled by Guy Banister, and that Phillips truly believed that Lee Harvey Oswald was being groomed as an asset in a CIA plot to murder Fidel Castro. The second interpretation has more weight, moreover, because it is so close to what Phillips himself said in his quasi-autobiography, The Night Watch (1987). Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Yes, Tommy, and notice that I don't include James Files in my line-up. I personally doubt major parts of his story. Notice, too, that the people that I name in my list of "Confessors" are either mentioned by the Warren Commission, or by Jim Garrison. That ensures that the trail was still warm when their names surfaced. The trouble with James Files, as I see it, is that his story appears too many years later, and after too many JFK Conspiracy books were already published. I do, however, accept James Files' association to the Mafia figure, Charles Nicoletti, who was associated with Johnny Roselli. Yet the theory that the Mafia killed JFK on their own was already debunked by Jim Garrison in 1968. The fact that some Mafia figures worked for CIA officers (including David Morales) to try to kill Fidel Castro, clearly makes Johnny Roselli a prime suspect, and in fact Johnny Roselli is a CONFESSOR. IMHO, the story by James Files, chauffeur of Charles Nicoletti, is too late and too predictable. Roselli was involved. Nicoletti knew Roselli. Files knew Nicoletti. The seeds for the fantasy are there. But it's a fantasy, fueled by JFK literature. That's my opinion on James Files today. Who was behind the Grassy Knoll picket fence? My guess today is that Roscoe White and J.D. Tippit were among the many DPD officers behind the picket fence at noon on the day JFK was murdered. (As part of my evidence I'll cite the book, A Deeper, Darker Truth (2009) by Phillips & Wilson.) Regards, --Paul Trejo

You open a great question, David. Can anybody access the Paine's today? I ask because after reviewing the literature, I find that NOBODY since the Warren Commission asked the Paines DIRECTLY about resigned Major General Edwin Walker. It might be that they have only been waiting a half-century for somebody to ask them DIRECTLY about Walker. I realize that the Warren Commission did ask -- and we did get some replies -- but there was no Cross-Examination, nor were there any PENETRATING questions asked on the topic, as I read it. In fact when the topic comes to Edwin Walker, the Warren Commission attorneys often take the discussion OFF THE RECORD. This makes sense in my theory -- the Warren Commission already knew that Edwin Walker's people were behind this, and they already took steps to neutralize them -- but never PUBLICLY. Anyway -- back to the Paines. I believe that they would like to come clean about everything they know about Edwin Walker. But who will ask them? Who will carefully go over the history of Edwin Walker from September 1962, when he planned and executed his attacks on the Civil Rights Movement in Mississippi, by starting a deadly race riot at Ole Miss on 30 September 1962 in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed? When Walker was acquitted from his blame in this in January 1962, liberal engineers in Dallas were outraged. In my reading, these liberal engineers included George De Mohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine. All these men were in close contact with Lee Harvey Oswald during this period. And who will carefully go over the history of Edwin Walker in Dallas in late October 1963, when he planned and executed his attacks on UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, in conformity to the John Birch Society dictum that the United Nations was COMMUNIST controlled? Who will carefully review with the Paines the fact that Edwin Walker and his people again walked away scot free from this outrage against basic rights in the USA? There is far more to this story about Edwin Walker than we have heard from the Warren Commission. George DM and Volkmar Schmidt have passed away. Only the Paines remain from that group, to the best of my reading. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Steve, at least you post an interesting quotation from James DiEugenio. I totally agree that David Atlee Phillips (alias Maurice Bishop) is an extremely interesting suspect in the JFK murder. However -- I've yet to find a smoking gun on him. Still, he is very close to many of the principals whom I've named and who've already confessed. David Atlee Phillips was close to David Sanchez Morales (CIA Officer), E. Howard Hunt (CIA Officer) and many paramilitary members of the Cuban Exile community in the USA. It was in the context of one such group, Alpha 66 and its leader, Antonio Veciana, that Phillips was seen with Lee Harvey Oswald. The context was for a plot to kill Fidel Castro, and while in Dallas, Phillips introduced Oswald to Veciana as a valuable resource. Now, DiEugenio wants to speculate on a wider connection -- not with facts, but with speculations. Let's follow his thinking. (1) DiEugenio notes that Phillips and CIA officer James McCord ran the CIA’s counter-intelligence program against the FPCC. We know from the findings of Jim Garrison that Lee Harvey Oswald was the leader of a fake FPCC in New Orleans, with a totally fake membership, using the address of Guy Banister, an ex-FBI Agent and an openly racist political figure in Lousiana in the early 1960's. It was on the basis of this fake FPCC set-up that Jim Garrison nearly solved the JFK murder case. So DiEugenio raises good questions -- could the CIA have been ignorant of Guy Banister's New Orleans operation against the FPCC? Better yet, could the CIA have been involved in it? While DiEugenio in his book, Destiny Betrayed, (2012), listed many additional people who would vouch for the findings of Jim Garrison regarding the relationship of Oswald and Banister, the groundwork was laid in 1968 by Jim Garrison and remains the starting point for all of us today. The FPCC in New Orleans was totally fake. Yet DiEugenio offers no further evidence to connect Phillips with Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald in this regard -- he simply concludes, "Phillips likely knew what he was doing." Well, not necessarily. Guy Banister (as Jim Garrison showed) was deliberately grooming Lee Harvey Oswald to be the patsy in a JFK murder case. Phillips was hoping to use Lee Harvey Oswald to kill Fidel Castro. When we read the quasi-fiction book written by David Atlee Phillips, Night Watch (1977), Phillips suggests that he was training Lee Harvey Oswald in his project to kill Fidel Castro, but then Oswald got diverted into a project to kill JFK. So, it is entirely plausible that Guy Banister was also keeping his JFK Kill Team secret from David Atlee Phillips and from the whole FBI and the whole CIA high-command. Based on this, one can at most claim that Phillips was an "accessory after the fact." That is, Phillips probably knew about other people who were handling Lee Harvey Oswald in Louisiana -- so why didn't he report them to the Warren Commission as likely suspects? His silence at the very least makes Phillips guilty of the Cover-up in the JFK murder. Yet the whole US Government took part in the Cover-up in the JFK murder, quite deliberately. It was a matter of National Security, they said -- and they had to push Hoover's mythology of the Lone Gunman, even though the members in the Warren Commission themselves knew that to be incorrect. So, Phillips is off the hook for the Cover-up. (2) DiEugenio asks us to suspect David Atlee Phillips because of the high position Phillips and his administrative assistant, Anne Goodpasture, held in the heavily wire-tapped Mexico City consulates. Here DiEugenio speaks about the very topic covered in greater detail in the book by Bill Simpich, State Secret (2014), which shows how the *impersonations* of Duran and Oswald in wire-tapped phone calls were immediately transcribed by the CIA, and declared to be *impersonations* by unknown subjects attempting to link the name of Lee Harvey Oswald with the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. Bill Simpich shows (using declassified CIA files) that the CIA high-command didn't know who impersonated Oswald, but immediately started a mole-hunt to try to find the *impersonators*. DiEugenio, on the other hand, simply relates the fact that declassified CIA files also show that David Atlee Phillips mailed these transcripts to himself at CIA Headquarters in Washington DC, using a false name. DiEugenio asks us to suspect -- on that basis -- that David Atlee Phillips was therefore part of the *impersonation* Team in Mexico City, which was clearly trying to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald as an FPCC Communist (presumably in cooperation with Guy Banister in New Orleans). But no further facts are given -- only the suspicion. It is just as likely that Phillips sent the files to himself using a false name merely as part of the mole-hunt procedure. (3) DiEugenio also notes that the Lopez Report caught David Atlee Phillips in at least three lies. Excuse me, but if a CIA officer isn't lying, then he probably isn't doing his job. (4) Nor is it any surprise that Phillips wouldn't be named in the Warren Report -- because Hoover's Myth of the Lone Shooter was the mandatory outcome of that massive Cover-up. Again, however, the Cover-up was not intended merely to conceal the guilty -- it was intended to prevent a National Security disaster. (5) As for Phillips’ last call to his brother -- when he basically admits he was in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 -- I will admit that this is profoundly suspicious. I will, therefore, keep David Atlee Phillips on my list of suspects. Neverthless, I now have a list of a dozen people who CONFESSED, and that is far more valuable, IMHO, as a starting point to solve the JFK murder case. In summary, it seems to me that James DiEugenio can be criticized for failing to distinguish the JFK Kill Team from the JFK Cover-up Team. Further, DiEugenio's work in 2012 couldn't be expected to know about the breakthrough that Bill Simpich would release in 2014. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

That article on the Warren Commission is inadequate in many respects. It is well-documented that three members of the Warren Commission rejected the Lone Shooter theory -- namely Senator Richard Russell, Senator John Cooper and Congressman Hale Boggs. Cooper and Boggs were pressured to sign the Warren Report on grounds of National Security. Senator Russell still refused to sign until the Commission promised to publish his lone, dissenting opinion. Then he signed. Then the Warren Commission decided to withhold Senator Russell's dissenting opinion, anyway! This history, a half-century old, is already well-known by scholars, and it's shameful that this isn't better known by journalists. Furthermore, the US Government itself (in the wake of the Garrison trials and Watergate) chose to re-open the JFK murder case and investigate it more thoroughly in 1977-1979 through the agency of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The conclusions of that Committee were the opposite of the conclusions of Warren Commission conclusions. They can be found on the web site of the National Archives and Records Administration at this URL: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html Perhaps the key paragraph on that web page is the following: I.3.c The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy. This official conclusion by the US Government in 1979 completely shatters the Warren Commission conclusion of a Lone Gunman. It upholds and vindicates the the doubts expressed by Senator Russell, as well as Senator Cooper and Congressman Boggs. Even Congressman (later President) Gerald Ford, in his own book on Oswald, namely, Portrait of the Assassin (1965), admitted that the Warren Commission was stunned in its first month of operation when Dallas authorities produced evidence to the Commission that Lee Harvey Oswald received small amounts of cash from the FBI for providing information. Certain facts about Lee Harvey Oswald, said Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, were simply to be withheld from the public in the interest of National Security for up to 75 years. So, the Warren Report was shaky on its first very day of publication. Further details abut the HSCA findings can be obtained in further NARA web pages, for example, the long page at this URL: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html Some of the interesting paragraphs on that web page include the following: ...The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors: (1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight. (2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable. (3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more limited conspiracy could not be ruled out. (4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact, fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly stated, in expressing its finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy." It is amazing to me that many Americans still don't know about the HSCA findings of 1979, even though this represents the official position of the US Government now, while the Warren Report has been officially out-dated for decades. Journalists are to blame -- probably because so much money is still being generated by Hoover's Myth of the Lone Gunman. It's shameful. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Steven, you have shared above a blend of eye-witness claims and mere rumor. I have no doubt that a mercenary like Jose Romero would be approached by people claiming to be a "hired JFK hit team", because clearly many mercenaries in the USA were similarly approached in 1961-1963. Loran Hall was so approached. Gerry Patrick Hemming was so approached. That list is long. Harry Dean says that talk of killing JFK was daily conversation among the right-wing. Gerry Hemming said that he would never mention the names he knew, because there were so many FAKE teams taking money and promising rich people (like Mafia dons) that they would kill JFK, that when JFK was finally murdered, nobody knew exactly whose money actually paid for the murder. Therefore, everybody who chipped in money to murder JFK (and that might be hundreds and hundreds of people) were paranoid that their name might become public. Therefore, said Hemming, some of these FAKE teams would then go back and try to blackmail the money donors that they would tell the Media their names, unless they came up with more money. So, said Hemming, the underground saw a rise in murder-for-hire in 1964, as these paranoid money donors then hired Mafia hit-men to rub out the blackmailers! Things were so dangerous for that reason, even into the 1990's, that Gerry Patrick Hemming wouldn't dare suggest to anybody that he was ready to give out names -- even though he knew the names of the real JFK killers. They were indeed mercenaries who were knee-deep inside the Cuban Exile Anti-Castro movement (just as the HSCA said), as well as their American, civilian leaders. I also believe Romero when he said that he remembered Frank Sturgis in the context of these JFK hit team recruitment efforts. This is very believable because Frank Sturgis confessed, and he was admittedly associated with Gerry Patrick Hemming and with David Morales (and John Martino) during this period. HOWEVER -- Romero did not name anybody else -- although your unreliable source, Louis Tackwood, then goes on to name CIA Officer James McCord in the next sentence, trying to forge a connection. I have little doubt that Frank Sturgis was associated with David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald during the summer of 1963 there in New Orlenans. There near the Cuban Exile paramilitary training camps in New Orleans, Frank Sturgis also would have encountered Guy Banister (the local boss), Clay Shaw (the money man), Gerry Patrick Hemming (mercenary), Loran Hall (mercenary), Larry Howard (mercenary) as well as many mercenaries and activists among Cuban Exiles, like Ed Butler (INCA) and Carlos Bringuier (DRE). That much is fairly certain. It is also possible (and worth researching) that Frank Sturgis in New Orleans in 1963 also met Guy Gabaldon and the resigned General Edwin Walker. Walker traveled to Lousiana frequently. Guy Gabaldon had offices in Southern California as well as Mexico City, as well as his own, private airplane. Now, E. Howard Hunt already confessed -- so we know he was part of the JFK murder (on the sidelines) and Mark Lane has already identified his "sideline" role -- namely, as Marita Lorenz testified, Howard Hunt brought the cash to Gerry Patrick Hemming and Frank Sturgis and others in this mercenary group to buy illegal weapons for allegedly Anti-Communist raids -- but also possibly for the ultimate Anti-Communist Raid (as defined by the JBS) to murder JFK, the number one Communist in the world. But James McCord? We have only Tackwood's innuendo about that. Just his guess that "Martin" was his alias and that "Martin" was in Dallas on the day JFK was killed. By the way, just because a CIA Officer was in Dallas on the day JFK was killed, that doesn't automatically prove that he was part of the JFK Kill Team. It is only political bias that asserts that. I don't mind people researching it, and digging out the facts, but to jump to a conclusion based only on alleged presence in Dallas is unacceptable, IMHO. You just gotta come up with more solid evidence, that's all. So, Tackwood jumps to conclusions. And what about Roger Stone? From him we get a massive batch of data comprised of political bias, rumor and innuendo. And then you cite David Martoso (9/7/14) who published his opinion that "the CIA hatched two plots to assassinate Nixon and sabotaged the Watergate break-in because they didn't want the Vietnam war to end." Whatever. Granted, my position is complicated because I accept part of Jim Garrison's work, and I reject part of it. I greatly admire Jim Garrison, who almost solved the JFK murder, single-handedly. Sadly, Garrison ultimately missed the mark, and for the rest of his life he blamed the CIA. (The situation reminds me of the 19th century philosopher, GWF Hegel, who admired his predecessor, Immanuel Kant, for almost solving the problem of metaphysics single-handedly, but unfortunately Kant missed the mark and for the rest of his life claimed that human beings can never know for sure the truth about God. Hegel gladly accepted Kant's research and language, but fiercely rejected Kant's conclusions.) I can accept Jim Garrison's research and especially his list of suspects -- some of whom confessed (and I forgot to mention mercenaries Jack S. Martin and David Ferrie in my list of confessors above). I praise Jim Garrison to high heaven for that breakthrough. However, I totally reject Garrison's frustrated decision to blame the CIA for the whole mess. I've read probably every rumor out there that blames the CIA, Steven, and the rumors aren't believable. What we get are innuendo, circumstantial happenstance -- and naked political prejudice. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

First of all, with regard to Nixon, you only have an allegation based on a rumor -- not a crime. So, no pattern. Secondly, it is merely a leap of prejudice to presume that since JFK wanted to dismantle the CIA for its unforgiveable blunder at the Bay of Pigs, that the CIA would react by killing JFK. There is no proof to your leap, and therefore, no pattern, either. Your logic appears to jump to conclusions based on prejudice. I realize, Steven, that many if not most of the major writers of the JFK Research Community have blamed the CIA for the murder of JFK. This includes Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, John Newman, Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Joan Mellen, and more recently, Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich. That's only a few of them. So, admittedly, you have the majority on your side. Yet many of us have read all of their works -- every word -- and find no smoking gun. No final proof. No clear and hard evidence. We see allegations based on rumors and political bias. Also, one of the anti-CIA theorists, Bill Simpich, contradicted the entire anti-CIA movement -- whether he intended to do so or not -- by demonstrating with scientific rigor that the CIA high-command had no idea who among its staff *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald over a wire-tapped telephone in Mexico City on 28 September 1963. Bill Simpich carefully traced a mole-hunt within the CIA based on this question, thus demonstrating conclusively that the CIA high-command was not involved in the strenous effort to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist officer of the FPCC. So -- the evidence against the CIA high-command in the murder of JFK is based on rumor, while the evidence absolving the CIA high-command of that plot is based on material evidence. On the other hand, we have actual confessions of people involved. Here are the people who confessed: 1. David Sanchez Morales (CIA Officer) -- via his best friend, Ruben Carbajal 2. E. Howard Hunt (CIA Officer) -- in his famous deathbed confession 3. Johnny Roselli (Mafia thug) 4. Frank Sturgis (mercenary) 5. Gerry Patrick Hemming (mercenary) -- to A.J. Weberman 6. John Martino (mercenary) 7. Loran Hall (mercenary) -- in his exclamation about Santos Traficante 8. Thomas Edward Beckham (mercenary) -- to Joan Mellen 9. Harry Dean (JBS) -- to Joe Pyne in 1965 10. Lee Harvey Oswald (mercenary) -- when he screamed, "I'm Just a Patsy!" While the first two on this list were CIA Officers, E. Howard Hunt confessed only to being "on the sidelines" and he named David Morales and Frank Sturgis as his only contacts. Note that of all ten on this list, only two were CIA Officers. All the rest were mercenaries or JBS-related. The JBS-related confessor, Harry Dean, is connected directly with Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Guy Gabaldon through the JBS. This is a direct link to Gerry Patrick Hemming as well as to resigned General Edwin Walker; another JBS bigwig. You're right that the CIA Officers were conditioned to take orders. But people like Edwin Walker were conditioned to give orders. In the early days of the Warren Commission, Edwin Walker was a suspect in the murder of JFK. Walker is mentioned more than 500 times in the Warren Commission volumes. He is almost forgotten today. The two CIA Officers involved in the JFK murder were ROGUES. Bill Simpich practically proved this. Thus, we must seek the JFK Kill Team leaders among US civilians. With Guy Banister and Edwin Walker we have political and paramilitary leaders who were completely capable of organizing the entire JFK murder in Dallas, step by step and inch by inch. If we seek a pattern, we should look at the behavior of Edwin Walker from 1959 (when he joined the JBS) through 1961 (when he became the only US General to resign in the 20th century) to 1962 when he lost his campaign for Texas Governor, and decided instead to start a riot at Ole Miss University, where hundreds were wounded and two were killed, because a Black Student had sued for entrance there. Walker was acquitted in Mississippi in January 1963, only because the Civil Rights movement was considered an enemy in Mississippi. Walker vowed revenge on JFK at that time. On 24 October 1963, Edwin Walker led the Dallas right-wing in a humiliating attack on UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson. There's the pattern. Edwin Walker would not let JFK escape from Dallas alive, because for any JBS true-believer, JFK was a COMMUNIST. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Oh, come on -- y'all can't prove a CIA murder plot against JFK, so now you want to blunder through not proving a CIA murder plot against Nixon? Stick to one case at a time, people. Try to solve the JFK murder first. It's only been a half-century -- c'mon -- you can do it. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

I'm not impressed at all by the knowledge that Michael and Ruth Paine had various relatives high up in the US Government. That means precisely nothing at all, IMHO. What is more interesting, however, is the following: This material is wide-open for speculation -- and nothing can be proved from it as given. But as long as some people want to speculate on some grand CIA plot based on these few snippets, I will take this opportunity to speculate on a JBS and an Edwin Walker plot. For one thing, Michael Paine admitted that he spoke with Lee Harvey Oswald about Edwin Walker in early 1963. We must remember the historical context -- Edwin Walker was acquitted by a Mississippi Grand Jury in January 1963 for the role he played in the deadly riots at Ole Miss University in September 1962. The USA liberal community was outraged -- Walker was clearly guilty based on his radio and TV announcements immediately before the riots, and based on Walker's provocative "Open Letter to JFK" only days before the riots. It was sometime in February that the liberal engineer community in Dallas gathered at a party attended by the Oswalds as well as George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt, a young engineer with a psychology background. Oswald had been telling George De Mohrenshildt that JFK should have been punished for his failure at the Bay of Pigs. George asked Volkmar Schmidt to help him change Oswald's mind. For hours at this Dallas party of young professional engineers, Volkmar Schmidt worked on Lee Harvey Oswald using a psychological technique to 'transfer his hatred of JFK to General Walker, the fascist.' This is amply documented. At the end of these sessions, Oswald was convinced, and he and George De Mohrenschildt began to laughingly call Edwin Walker, "General Fokker." Only days after this psychological treatment, Lee Harvey Oswald purchased weapons, and had Marina take a SINGLE photograph of himself wearing these weapons. At his job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall (IMHO) Oswald made plausibly deniable reproductions of this photographs, sent one to The Militant newspaper, one to Roscoe White, and a signed one to George De Mohrenschildt, also marked, "Hunter of fascists, Ha ha." About one week after failing to assassinate Edwin Walker at his Dallas home on 10 April 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald (IMHO) received an invitation from David Ferrie to travel to New Orleans to become a part of Operation Mongoose, as an undercover, phony officer of the FPCC, OR SO HE WAS TOLD (IMHO). Anyway, back to Michael and Ruth Paine. IMHO, they evaded their duty of enlightening us about the full truth about Lee Harvey Oswald and resigned Major General Edwin Walker. They knew far more about the shooting at General Walker than they ever told. For example, one month before the JFK murder, Edwin Walker and his JBS followers in Dallas had organized a campaign to utterly humiliate Adlai Stevenson in Dallas. It was a standing order among the JBS to always disrupt the speech of any known COMMUNIST if they could at all manage to do so. The fact that Edwin Walker was behind Adlai's humiliation was well-known in Dallas. The authorities in Dallas simply let Walker get away with it. Walker was still a hero to the right-wing, and he could get away with anything he wanted in Dallas. In summary, when Michael Paine told Ruth Paine -- "we both know who's responsible" he was referring to Edwin Walker. Ruth Paine knew this, too. Why didn't the Warren Commission press the Paine's further about it? Because the Warren Commission knew (IMHO) that Edwin Walker was the ring-leader of the JFK murder plot, and they were guided by the FBI Director to skirt that truth, and instead insist on the Lone Nut theory of the JFK murder. Otherwise, an issue of National Security might erupt in a Civil War of the USA liberals against the well-armed USA right-wing in 1963/1964. Well, Vincent Salandria was wrong, but to be fair, even a genius like Jim Garrison was blaming the CIA by that time. In NO WAY does the telephone call cited by Steven Gaal provide hard evidence for the Paine's involvement in the conspiracy to murder JFK. However, the Warren Commission did allow the Paine's to evade their duty to tell the truth about their knowledge of the plot to assassinate the resigned General Edwin Walker. Why? Because that would have led to the TRUTH that has been withheld by the US Government for a half-century. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about -- so much name-calling and innuendo pretending to be evidence. Some people are just politically biased, and really don't need solid evidence to blame LBJ or anybody for the murder of JFK. Here's the historical fact, though: the first, official, US Government version of the JFK murder was announced in 1964 by the Warren Commission, which insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and had no accomplices. It's amazing to me how many Americans still believe that this is the official US Government position on the JFK murder. It isn't. The US Government officially changed its verdict in 1979. The US Government re-opened the JFK murder case in 1977 with the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and in 1979 they concluded in section 1C as follows: 1C. The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy. That section immediately adds that the HSCA believes, based on evidence, that the USSR was not involved in the JFK murder, nor was the Cuban government. Prime suspects they were willing to suggest (though not name) were "individual members" of "Anti-Castro Cuban groups," as well as "individual members" of the "national syndicate of organized crime." Because the official US Government official position on the JFK murder since 1979 has been that JFK was "probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy," this fact supplies adequate justification for the existence of the JFK Research Community for the past half-century. Also, notice that the HSCA used the term, "unable to identify." There are many reasons for being "unable." We should remember that in 1979 the Cold War was still active, and therefore, the National Security ban on releasing Top Secret documents about Lee Harvey Oswald would still be in effect. Still, the HSCA clues are not hard to decipher. In 1963 there were three key theories of the JFK murder: 1. The right-wing did it (e.g. the JBS led by resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker) 2. The left-wing did it (via Lee Oswald, the Communist agitator for the FPCC in New Orleans and Mexico City) 3. A Lone Shooter (or Lone Nut) did it, and had absolutely no accomplices. Many Americans in 1963 were certain that theory #1 was the real truth. The people who continuously framed Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans and Mexico City from May 1963 through September 1963, were keen to push theory #2 above. The FBI, CIA, LBJ and Warren Commission were keen to push theory #3 above. In 1963, the US Government would not cease its support for theory #3 -- on grounds of National Security. (I think they feared how the American People would mostly likely respond if they found out that theory #1 was the real truth). In 1968, the US Government stomped down hard on the brilliant NOLA DA Jim Garrison for attempting to prove that #1 was (close to) the real truth. In 1979, however, the US Government, through the HSCA, changed its mind! Starting with the HSCA, the official position of the US Government is a frank admission that theory #3 was incorrect! The HSCA further emphasizes that the USSR and Cuba were not involved in the JFK murder -- therefore theory #2 was also incorrect! Therefore, by the simple process of elimination, the HSCA essentially -- abstractly -- agreed with Jim Garrison that theory #1 was (close to) the real truth. So, again, my theory isn't just some new notion I found in my noggin. It's the original account of the JFK murder. It's the account that Jim Garrison would have uncovered if he hadn't been slammed by the orders of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI (who were still acting in the interest of National Security). Now that the Cold War is over (as it ended in 1990 when the Berlin Wall fell and the USSR called in quits) it may be that the issue of National Security is no longer at issue, and perhaps that is why the US Government via the JFK Information Act has agreed to release all Top Secret documents regarding Lee Harvey Oswald in the year 2017 -- twenty two years ahead of the estimate announced by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren. I predict that in the year 2017 we'll learn the Jim Garrison was mostly right. We'll learn the identities of all of the accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald, including Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw -- but also many more than that -- many people already named in the Warren Commission volumes who were not charged with their crimes, but were allowed to walk about under covert surveillance because of National Security. It wasn't LBJ. It wasn't the CIA as such. It was a few rogues from the CIA who helped these right-wing vigilantes (and granted, the CIA methods were the key to the plot's success). Anyway, we'll soon know the full truth. LBJ already knew it -- but he couldn't tell us because of National Security. The full truth will be out in 2017. I can hardly wait. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

The case against LBJ in the JFK murder has always been notoriously weak. Even when it was announced by the brilliant NOLA DA, Jim Garrison, it was a weak and emotional tirade. "Nobody profited more from the JFK murder than LBJ," is what the argument boils down to. It's circumstantial. Those of us who chafe at the circumstantial evidence used to convict Lee Harvey Oswald in the public mind continue to chafe at these weak arguments with regard to LBJ. It's nothing more than suspicion, fueled by political bias. I do believe that LBJ was part of the Cover-up Team, along with J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles and Earl Warren. That means that LBJ knew exactly who killed JFK and why. Yet Jim Garrison's emotions got the better of him when he concluded that the JFK Cover-up Team must therefore be aligned with the JFK Kill Team, because the Cover-up Team seems to have allowed the Kill Team to escape. I disagree. The Cover-up Team always admitted from the start that their reason for withholding the facts about Lee Harvey Oswald (for up to 75 years) was National Security. Even in 1964 that sounded odd -- if Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Shooter, why would there be any National Security issue since he himself was killed that same weekend that JFK was killed? Yet the reason of National Security suggested the possibility of a Civil War in the USA. That was the real truth. The clues were shouting out even in 1963, as Bernie Weissman feared in the minutes before Oswald was arrested, that the JBS and General Walker would be blamed for the JFK murder. Jack Ruby told Earl Warren in June 1964 that that the JBS and General Walker were to blame for the JFK murder. Silvia Odio told the Warren Commission in August 1964 that she saw Lee Harvey Oswald at her door with two Latinos (one of whom the FBI arrested and initially confessed, Loran Hall, who was associated with the JBS and General Walker). Harry Dean told Joe Pyne on public radio in 1965 that, based on his eye-witness experience, the JBS and General Walker were to blame for the JFK murder. Because of the brilliant Jim Garrison, the JFK research community was founded. Garrison's emotional error of 1968, however, blaming the CIA and perhaps LBJ for the JFK murder, diverted us from our initial tracking of the JBS and General Walker. That's where we went wrong. By blaming LBJ and the CIA, on the weak basis of political bias, it is we, actually, and no longer the Warren Commission, who are letting the JFK Kill Team get away. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

This is the proper thread in which to communicate my opinion about Bill Simpich's new book, "State Secret," (2014). The broad consensus of JFK research before 2014 was an echo of work done by Jim Garrison, Mark Lane and Joan Mellen, and their conclusion that the CIA is probably the main source of planning and coordination of the JFK murder. In my opinion, the breakthrough by Bill Simpich this year shakes up our basic assumptions. Simpich reveals with careful precision, that the CIA top leaders were clueless about who had *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald over a wire-tapped line in Mexico City on 28 September 1963 -- but they knew it wasn't Oswald -- so they started a mole-hunt to find out who knew enough about CIA methods to effect this *impersonation*. As late as 2008 James De Eugenio thought that the FBI was the first entity to recognize that the voice on that wire-tapped recording was not Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet Bill Simpich showed that the CIA Chief in Mexico City knew that it wasn't Oswald -- within MINUTES of that consulate-to-consulate phone call and its immediate transcription. The purport of that phone call was an attempt to link the name of Lee Harvey Oswald with the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. It was a fabrication. It was yet another effort to FRAME Oswald, shortly after his New Orleans FRAMING. Insofar as Bill Simpich has demonstrated that the CIA started a mole-hunt that very hour (and altered Oswald's 201 file), JFK researchers are faced with a new dilemma -- explaining why the CIA high-command was ignorant of that plot to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK. Perhaps it isn't widely recognized yet, but Bill Simpich has undercut the key assumption among JFK researchers -- the assumption that the CIA top command was in charge of the JFK murder and the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald for it. I salute Bill Simpich for this courageous breakthrough. Further, Bill offered his interpretation of these facts only tentatively, in the interest of sharing the facts with the public ASAP. He wrote in Chapter 5: "...Now let me offer a hypothesis that provides what I call the Mexico City solution to the suppression of Oswald’s connections to Cuba, why the assassination was covered up -- and, just maybe, an important insight into the assassination itself...What is presented here will not answer all the questions, but it offers a working solution that is based on the facts that we know...The reader is invited to join in, contribute, and add to this body of research. There’s more to learn, and I could be wrong, but I think I have the gist of it right." (Bill Simpich, 2014, STATE SECRET, Ch. 5) I note that Bill offers his interpretation humbly, so I can't be very critical of his position when he reaches out in his final speculation on the *motives* of the impersonators and as he terms it, "why the assassination was covered up." I regard the following as the weaker part of Bill's theory: "Whoever imitated Oswald on the telephone in Mexico City knew that such a paper trail would be a powerful way to blackmail the involved CIA and FBI officers after November 22 into deep-sixing any serious investigation of the assassination -– even an internal inquiry that could be hushed up on the grounds of 'national security.' If it went public that these officers had used the Oswald legend for a molehunt prior to the assassination, the result would be not only embarrassment or a security breach, but suspicion that they were involved in the assassination itself. At a minimum, it would mean the end of the careers of these officers. The impact on their families and their agencies would be devastating." (Bill Simpich, 2014, STATE SECRET, Ch. 5) It seems to me that the issue of National Security just doesn't fit the disaster that Bill Simpich names: "the end of the careers of these officers." I doubt that the CIA would botch the murder investigation of a US President in order to save a few jobs of a few CIA people. Yet Bill urges that, "the impact on their families and their agencies would be devastating." To a few people, certainly, but not to National Security. Therefore, the theory offered by Bill Simpich, namely, BLACKMAIL, hasn't been satisfactorily demonstrated by his argument. I think that a better explanation is simply that the *impersonators* thought they could get away with linking the name of Lee Harvey Oswald with the name of notorious KGB Agent, Valery Kostikov. As I see it, there were three stories that hit the street on 11/22/1963 -- almost immediately. (1) The first story was voiced by Bernard Weissman in his Warren Commission testimony about his opinion in the first minutes after CBS announced the death of JFK, namely, that the Right-wing had murdered JFK. Weissman used the name of Ex-General Edwin Walker openly in this context. This is also what Jack Ruby told to Chief Justice Earl Warren. Many Americans thought this immediately (according to Professor David R. Wrone). This, IMHO, was the truth about what actually happened. (2) The second story was that the Left-wing murdered JFK. This was plain as soon as Lee Harvey Oswald was presented on TV as the main suspect. He was "a Communist." (This was the cover story carefully created by the JFK Kill Team.) (3) The third story was that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "Lone Nut," and was the "Lone shooter" at JFK, and "had no accomplices." That story was presented by J. Edgar Hoover himself, before the sun set on 11/22/1963, meant to prevent the other two stories from gaining traction, and thereby leading to extreme violence and perhaps Civil War. The first story, however, seemed to fizzle into nothingness one day after Lee Harvey Oswald was identified as a Communist and a Castro supporter, because TV began showing film footage of Oswald in New Orleans passing out FPCC leaflets during the previous summer, and news about Oswald getting arrested because of a street fight with Carlos Bringuier, and appearing on radio and TV because of his FPCC antics. All of this filled the mass media just about continuously. So two stories remained on 11/23/1963. Those who insisted that the Communists murdered JFK were outspoken well into 1964, adding that we must invade Cuba right away, kill Fidel Castro and take back Cuba for the Free World. Among them were Frank Sturgis, Johnny Roselli, John Martino, David Morales (via some shills he set up to feed the mass media) as well as Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Billy James Hargis, Ex-General Edwin Walker (even to the Warren Commission), Guy Gabaldon, Loran Hall and others within the John Birch Society. The third story, that Lee Harvey Oswald was nothing but a Lone Nut, was pushed hard by the US Government, and won the day. Those who argued for stories #1 and #2 faded away (for a half-century). Instead of BLACKMAIL, I propose that whoever *impersonated* Duran and Oswald on a wire-tapped telephone in Mexico City believed that such a media trail would convince the CIA and FBI that Lee Harvey Oswald was in league with KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. With that connection, the US Government might have concluded that the Communists killed JFK, and that we should immediately commit military forces to war against Cuba and the USSR. In my opinion, the US Government figured this out very early -- perhaps within an hour of the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. They knew exactly who the JFK murderers were -- but rather than risk Civil War, they decided to cover-up the JFK murder for 75 years. Yet, getting back to Bill Simpich's new book -- I believe he demonstrated firm evidence (if not final proof) that the CIA was divided within itself on this topic. Some CIA people were involved in a plot to kill JFK, and some were not. Those who were not, apparently, started a mole-hunt. Now, only the CIA high-command could start a mole-hunt. This is solid evidence, then, that the CIA Officers who participated in the JFK murder were actually ROGUES. That is the result of Bill Simpich's book, by my reading. It's a major breakthrough, and it obliges most JFK researchers to go back to the drawing board. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

That's your right, Paul B. Yet I will conclude our debates by noting that you haven't offered a convincing argument against my position. You say you offer a deck of trading cards listing the JFK murder plot suspects -- and I can only imagine that you regard the CIA Officers in your deck to have a higher value -- or at least your hierarchy isn't the same as mine. Perhaps, if you were persuaded by my theory, you would have to re-organize your deck of cards, and perhaps that would be too much labor. Or maybe not. In any case, your case for a CIA plot to kill JFK is based only on political bias, and not on solid evidence. That's my final word on it. Regards, --Paul Trejo

BUMP

It's not impossible, Tommy -- and no doubt some Mafia people were involved in the murder of JFK, as we have some evidence from mercenary Loran Hall ("there's only me and Santos Traficante still alive...") and of course we have the personal confession of Johnny Roselli. We also have ample evidence that Mafia kingfish Carlos Marcello of New Orleans donated tons of money to any Kill-JFK plot that he heard about, but more urgently, he was directly working with Guy Banister and David Ferrie even on the very day of the JFK murder. Yet it seems most clear to me that the main role that the Mafia played was for its Big Dons to throw mega-bucks at the JFK plot. They provided millions of dollars. In this respect they were very much like any Texas oil millionaires who may have been involved. They were among the biggest Financiers. Yet when I think of a Civilian plot to murder JFK, I think of a fringe political group of wackos who were outspoken about overthrowing the US Government, and specifically JFK, because they were convinced that JFK was a COMMUNIST. These were the Leaders of the JFK Kill-Team, it seems to me. It also seems to me that this dimension receives far too little attention in the 400 books on the JFK murder than have been published in the past several decades. Only in the Warren Commission volumes do we see the proper amount of attention being paid to the resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker in connection with the JFK murder, as well as the John Birch Society and their unmistakable role in the JFK: WANTED FOR TREASON handbills that circulated in Dallas on 11/22/1963 (as well as one month earlier, on 10/23/1963, when General Walker was plotting the sabotage of Adlai Stevenson's UN speech in Dallas). The John Birch Society -- according to the Warren Commission -- also played the leading role in the full-page black-bordered Ad (WELCOME, MR. KENNEDY, TO DALLAS) that appeared in the Dallas Morning News on 11/22/1963. Their bold, unashamed, strident defiance of JFK and of common sense was highlighted in Warren Commission testimony from Bernard Schwarz, Robert Allen Surrey and several others involved in the handbills and the DMN Ad. As I recall, Joan Mellen wrote in her, Farewell to Justice (2005) that Carlos Marcello's hotels hosted Edwin Walker, Guy Banister and David Morales, along with other rightist fanatics, during September of 1963, and a very young Thomas Edward Beckham heard them discussing the JFK murder at those meetings. It seems to me that the direct participation of the Mafia in the actual ground-crew (aside from the Financiers) would have started with Johnny Roselli, and would have been supervised by David Morales and his team. (Perhaps this was your point, Tommy, that the Mafia in their limited role reported to the CIA players). But in my view, the Mafia was a bit-player in the JFK murder. Jim Garrison seems to have demonstrated that fully. Guy Banister was not in the Mafia -- and he played the lead role in New Orleans regarding the key strategy of FRAMING Lee Harvey Oswald to be the Patsy for the plot. The Mafia may have reported to David Morales; but Guy Banister didn't report to David Morales; Edwin Walker didn't report to David Morales; nor did the Minutemen, the DPD or any Dallas players, without whom the JFK murder plot would have remained one more day of big talk. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Your objections are the correct ones, Paul B., and you state them properly. Still, I can't agree that "splitting hairs" as you put it, is immaterial. I call it paying attention to the NUANCES. The problem with the term, "secret racists," is that it can be applied to ANYBODY -- racist or not. So a large margin of error is possible with that term. For example, some people weren't racist in 1963, but literally PRETENDED to be racists in the South in order to get political support from the far-right wing. One can speak of George Wallace in this regard, by reference to a movie made about Wallace (George Wallace, 1997) starring Gary Sinise and Angelina Jolie. In that movie we observe George Wallace losing in election after election because of his tolerant position toward Black Americans, until he realized in 1962 that in the South he could only win with KKK support. Then he came out as a rabid racist and made all those headlines -- but later came to regret it because it led to horrific violence in his State. One can make a case that many others in 1955-1965 took this same position with the rise of the White Citizens Councils that became so powerful coast to coast in America *after* they changed their names to Citizens Councils. One can make the case, for example, that Congressman John Rousselot was only playing Southern politics when he called for the reversal of the Brown Decision and the impeachment of Earl Warren. He never used the "N" word himself, for example, because he was too meek and gentle for that. Yet he did like to play at Southern politics. One of the reasons that the attacks on Civil Rights was so violent in the 1960's was because of the Southern doctrine that Civil Rights was COMMUNIST. Without that doctrine, perhaps most Americans who joined a Citizens Council would NEVER have done so. J. Edgar Hoover never argued for the superiority of the White race -- instead, he argued for the COMMUNISM of the Civil Rights movement. (Some Tea Party folks still argue this.) This started in the South in 1954, and sixty years later still has traction in the South and in some communities in the North. (I might add here that former FBI Agent Wesley Swearingen swears that J. Edgar Hoover himself was partly African-American!) So, Paul B., I think we must "split hairs" on this topic. Allen Dulles said that the solution to the JFK murder can be found in the pages of the Warren Commission -- but we must first become experts at "hair splitting." I think he was telling the truth in that statement. The FBI was only able to oppose Martin Luther King on the trumped up charge that he was a COMMUNIST. History is clear on that point. Now that the USSR has fallen and there is no more Cold War, only extremists raise that argument today. But in 1963, perhaps a majority of Americans raised it. Guy Banister, however, was different. He not only used racism to run for public office in Louisiana, but he was widely portrayed as a violent man with an insulting. racist mouth. Your view, Paul B., seeks to minimize the distance between the FBI and Guy Banister. That's the wrong way, IMHO. You should instead sharpen the differences, so that we can more easily perceive the REAL KILLERS of JFK. Because, despite the clear participation of the racist element in the ground-crew support of the Kill-Team (e.g. with Banister, Walker, Roscoe White, J.D. Tippit, and other KKK fellow-travelers) we must also recognize that JFK could not have been murdered without the help of COLORED AMERICANS. By COLORED AMERICANS in this context I mean Hispanic Americans, and I'll name four suspects here: David Morales, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Guy Gabaldon. I have argued against those who want to find the Aryan Christian Churches behind the JFK murder, that their theory fails to involve these key Hispanic Americans, because, by definition, Aryan Christian Church leaders would never deal with such "inferiors" as Hispanic Americans. So -- it wasn't ultimately Racists that killed JFK (according to me). They were only on the sidelines. The professional assassination squad that did the heavy lifting -- these were Cuban Exiles, Cuban mercenaries, and their CIA comrades. I think Larry Hancock has demonstrated (if not proven) this quite voluminously. The leaders of the JFK plot, however, were IMHO American Civilians of a very specific type, and not the CIA. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Your advice is duly noted, Paul B. As for my writing style, I've designed it for the Internet, where I expect hundreds of readers -- at different levels of reading background -- to encounter the thread. So, I ask for your patience as I address my responses to you also to newbies and other readers. As for the word, 'proof,' should I repeat again that I don't find enough proofs for my theory (or for any theory) yet? When I say PROOF in the context of the current thread, though, I find it astounding that Bill Simpich has covered the ground of the Mexico City wire-tapping episode with such scientific rigor -- and nobody else had ever done this. The mountain of detail -- the thorough and critical treatment he provides to the reader -- is tantamount to an Island of hard facts in an ocean of soft speculation. Until somebody demonstrates that Bill Simpich's Mexico City findings are mistaken, I'm inclined to say that Bill Simpich has PROVED that the CIA was divided with regard to the Mexico City *impersonation* of Lee Harvey Oswald. This is PROOF, in my theory, that the left hand of the CIA did not know what its extreme right hand was doing regarding the JFK murder. As for Larry Hancock, I never claimed that he's discounted the POSSIBILITY of the participation of Morales' superiors in the JFK murder -- but I do notice that he has not ACCUSED any of Morales' superiors in the JFK murder, either! As you may recall, I was ready to accuse General Ed Lansdale of a JFK conspiracy on the evidence provided by Colonel Fletcher Prouty, and by the appearance of Ed Lansdale in photographs in Dealey Plaza (with the three tramps) shortly after the murder of JFK. Yet it was Larry Hancock who dissuaded me from that conclusion. I am now officially on the fence with regard to Lansdale, because I don't have a ready answer for Larry Hancock. Larry Hancock, for his part, seems to be straddling the fence himself on this question -- however, on the topic of Bill Simpich and his findings in State Secret (2014), I don't see Larry Hancock straddling the fence. It seems to me that Larry is "all in" with Bill Simpich on this score. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Paul B., you'd like to debate Bill Simpich's point that David Morales ran the assassination without the knowledge of Harvey, Shackley, Phillips, and others higher in the chain of command of CIA like King, Angleton, Dulles, etc. I second the motion. I hope Bill Simpich checks into this thread occasionally, too. His work has set a new course for JFK research in 2014. I'm very impressed by it. Starting with Gaeton Fonzi's, The Last Investigation (1993), and then proceeding to the Edwin Lopez, The Lopez Report (2003), and then to Joan Mellen's, Farewell to Justice (2005), we arrive in present time to encounter the work of Larry Hancock and Bill Simpich. Your take on Simpich, Paul B., seems to be that if David Atlee Phillips had been involved in hijacking Oswald from Anti-FPCC operations into a JFK plot, that he would have taken more precautions after the JFK murder, and not left so many clues. I think that's a fair evaluation of part of Bill Simpich's argument. You also rightly note that David Morales is the likely CIA Officer to take an active role in FRAMING Lee Harvey Oswald (the way that Guy Banister and other associates of the John Birch Society had been FRAMING Oswald in New Orleans from May 1963 through August 1963). I also find this same accusation of David Morales in the pages of Bill Simpich's State Secret (2014). David Morales was experienced enough to exploit CIA wire-tapping arrangements for his own purposes. It's not that David Atlee Phillips was ignorant of how the CIA system worked -- it's the fingerprints that are in question. I agree with you that Phillips would have been just as wise and bold and David Morales -- if he wanted to be -- but where are the fingerprints? On the other hand, we have David Morales' fingerprints in the sense that his pal, Reuben Carbajal, tells of Morales' personal confession that he was part of the JFK Kill-Team. Phillips, going by his own word, was trying to exploit Lee Harvey Oswald to murder Fidel Castro, but Oswald got "diverted" from that task into the role of Patsy in one of many JFK murder plots. That's not a "fingerprint" in my book. We agree, Paul B., that Bill Simpich makes a solid case for the direct involvement of a cast of CIA and Mafia characters directly related to Operation 40 -- and that Simpich regards the operation as basically Rogue. You're right that we have no final proof that the CIA high-command wasn't involved, and so the door must remain open. Yet there is no proof of CIA high-command involvement, and ample evidence of this Rogue-level involvement in the JFK murder. So we should just be running with the known evidence, IMHO, to see how far it can take us. I also agree with you, Paul B., that Bill Simpich has supplied remarkable, admirable detail regarding the Mexico City episode of the Lee Harvey Oswald story. Here is the new starting point for all future JFK research, IMHO. As you know, the reason that I favor the "Rogue" theory of CIA involvement, is because I maintain that the JFK Kill-Team was a Civilian Team, with a few CIA players on the side. I insist on this, because the predominant theory of the past forty years (i.e. that the CIA high-command was behind the JFK murder) has totally distracted research from the REAL KILLERS. The REAL KILLERS, in my opinion, were members of a Civilian group of radical reactionaries who preached widely that JFK (like FDR, Truman and Ike before him) was a conscious, deliberate agent of the Communist Conspiracy. This reactionary team, led by Edwin Walker and Guy Banister, mostly sported big talk from 1961 forward. But when this reactionary team (in my theory) finally obtained the ground-crew support of David Morales -- the professional level of the JFK Kill-Team took a great leap forward. The actual murder of JFK was the part of that plot which succeeded with great efficiency. It worked great, mostly because David Morales was a world-class expert in political assassination, with years of successful hits in his resume. But the ultimate purpose of the JFK Kill-Team, I say, was ultimately thwarted by J. Edgar Hoover and his Lone Nut theory of the JFK murder. The JFK Kill-Team spent tons of energy from May 1963 through August 1963 to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald as an officer of a fake FPCC in New Orleans. David Morales (according to Bill Simpich) added the icing on the cake in Mexico City, when by this wire-tapped *impersonation* of Lee Harvey Oswald, he linked the name of Oswald to the name of KGB Agent Valery Kostikov. The purpose was clear -- months of effort in New Orleans attempted to FRAME a Communist for the murder of JFK. This was intended to inspire the USA to invade Cuba and take back Cuba from the Communists. If David Morales had been successful with his Mexico City *impersonation* of Lee Harvey Oswald, nobody could have questioned that the JFK murder was a Communist plot. But the JFK Kill-Team failed in their ultimate goal to re-take Cuba. They succeeded in killing JFK, but they did not get what they ultimately wanted -- Cuba. The Cover-up Team, led by J. Edgar Hoover, saw to that. For forty years JFK reseachers have failed to distinguish between the Kill-Team and the Cover-up Team in the JFK murder. Jim Garrison was probably the first to set this error in motion. But once we carefully separate the Kill-Team (LHO was a Red) from the Cover-up Team (LHO was a Lone-Nut) then we can see clearly toward a resolution of the ground-crew and the identification of the principals of the JFK murder plot. Bill Simpich has made a giant step in this direction -- in my opinion -- by showing a major split inside the CIA -- those who started a mole-hunt and the actual, rightist moles themselves who *impersonated* Lee Harvey Oswald in order to FRAME him as a Communist. We are that much closer to solving the JFK murder -- finally -- after a half-century. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Tommy, there's no way I tried to put words into your mouth. You denied that Banister broke with the FBI on the topic of Civil Rights -- and I pointed out that OFFICIALLY they broke sharply. Banister called openly for racial segregation in the schools, and the FBI did NOT. We sharply disagree -- I'm noting this openly -- and I'm not putting any words into your mouth. Well, Tommy, neither does it mean that that Guy Banister *did* collaborate with Hoover. You have no proof of that. I on the other hand, have solid proof of my statement that on the central Civil Rights question of the Brown Decision, Banister and the FBI had no choice but to break. Well, Tommy, first, yes, I am saying that Guy Banister broke with the FBI because it wasn't reactionary enough for his taste. Secondly, I know the difference between reactionary and radical, and I know that somebody can be a radical reactionary. Anybody who chooses to use violence and to violate the Constitution to pursue reactionary political goals is a radical reactionary. This is how I characterize Guy Banister (based on the evidence we have from Jim Garrison). This is also how I characterize the resigned Major General Edwin A. Walker, who fomented a deadly riot at Ole Miss University on 30 September 1962 to prevent one Black Student (James Meredith) from registering as a student there. Walker was also a radical reactionary. If you have material proof of that, Tommy, I'd like to see it. In point of actual fact, however, Guy Banister broke with the FBI on the topic of the Brown Decision. It takes subtlety to see this -- there are nuances of rightist behavior -- they can't be well-understood with a sledge-hammer and one color of paint. Now who's trying to put words into the other's mouth, Tommy? I never denied that J. Edgar Hoover persecuted Martin Luther King, or persecuted the NAACP, using the typical Southern rhetoric that Civil Rights was COMMUNIST. We have ample evidence of this. My point was one of NUANCE. I have solid proof that Guy Banister sharply broke with the FBI on the topic of the Brown Decision. That's my point, and if you keep denying it, you're really only wasting my time. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Steven, I'll grant that David Atlee Phillips actually said, "My final take on the assassination is there was a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers," that is, Phillips didn't use the word, "Rogue," as some books render that sentence. However, we must still interpret Phillips' sentence because of its ambiguity. You seem to interpret the clause, "including American intelligence officers," to mean that the CIA high-command was in charge. But such an intepretation is not necessarily warranted by those words. Phillips didn't literally say that the CIA high-command was in charge -- and he would know. I accept that statement by David Atlee Phillips as authoritative, and yet I interpret differently than you do, evidently. For me, like many other writers, Phillips was speaking of a break-away group of CIA rogues who were "included" in an external, outside, on-going plot -- specifically of a group of rightist radicals who openly preached that JFK was a Communist (and also had a paramilitary arm ready and willing to act on this ideology). I take that "external" plot to be that of the radical rogues from the John Birch Society, led by Edwin Walker, exactly as Jack Ruby told Earl Warren in June, 1964, and as Harry Dean told Joe Pyne in January 1965, and as Sylvia Odio implied in her account of the accomplices of Lee Harvey Oswald. Let's also, for the sake of argument, grant Fabian Escalante's sensational story about David Atlee Phillips alias Harold Benson peeing on JFK's grave and telling his confidantes that JFK was a Communist. Although I claim that the JFK Kill-Team was motivated by the conviction that JFK was a Communist, this story is still not enough proof that Phillips was personally "included" with those rogue CIA agents. Harry Dean also repeated the John Birch Society doctrine that JFK was a Communist in 1963, and he even gave his blessing to a plot to kill JFK -- but he soon changed his mind and told the FBI about it (according to Harry Dean). In other words -- hate-talk about JFK was so common, so cheap, so wide-spread in 1963 that JFK hate-talk alone can never be enough to arrive at a conclusion about a JFK Kill-Team member. We need something material. (Even peeing on JFK's grave isn't proof of murder -- its only proof of hatred.) Also, I appreciate your citation of James DiEugenio's remark that David Atlee Phillips was a CIA "operations officer," and that an operations officer is only a CIA officer in the field; one who supervises the proper closure of orders, and not one who sits with the high-command to plan and approve campaigns and strategies. I would add: even if somebody comes up with material evidence implicating Phillips in the JFK murder (which always remains possible) so that logic forces me to accept it, then I'll accept it but I'll also emphasize that Phillips wasn't a part of the CIA high-command. James DiEugenio added that David Morales was also a mid-level CIA officer, reporting to Ted Shackley at JM/WAVE in 1963, and even Ted Shackley wasn't part of the CIA high-command. David Morales was largely an executioner, allegedly responsible for the deaths of thousands of South American left-wingers from 1955-1965. That's no flunky, but it's not a General, either. James DiEugenio raised some key points with regard to Phillips in Mexico City -- and the fraudulent tapes sent to Washington DC to implicate Oswald in the JFK case deserves a more careful review. Also, the role of Anne Goodpasture, Phillips' assistant in Mexico City, deserves serious review. As for the transcribed Mexico City tapes of Oswald sent by Phillips by pouch to himself at Langley under an assumed name -- that suggests to me that Phillips may have learned from J.J. Angleton that a CIA mole-hunt had started, and he needed to keep the tapes extra-secure. But I'm open to other theories. James DiEugenio, however, was unaware in 2008 of the mole-hunt that Bill Simpich revealed this year; in fact, James thought that the FBI was the first to declare that the voice was not Oswald's. So, again we are indebted to Bill Simpich in many ways, and we must also recognize Larry Hancock's work with Bill Simpich in this regard. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>