Paul Brancato

After reading McBride's book I tried to piece together a time line for Tippett, in order to see if his whereabouts at 12:30 pm were known and reliable. I came to the conclusion they weren't. There is a story of course, of Tippett getting called to the scene of a petty theft in order to take custody of the thief, which he did. But there is no actual record of this. The story as I just told it came a decade after the fact, a belated alibi, which I think was made necessary by the lack of a police report showing that Tippett brought such a suspect into a police station anywhere. 15 minutes after the assassination he is spotted reliably by multiple witnesses, parked at a gas station a short distance (1-2 miles I think) from Dealey Plaza, where he proceeds to behave very erratically in the last 20-25 minutes of his life. McBride as you know discovered that Tippett was 'a good shot'.

Nice to hear from you Mr. Knight. I started this post and I'm glad it's had some longevity. I've asked a few times, and will again now, what people here think Ruby had in mind when he told Earl Warren he had a story to tell that necessitated being moved out of Dallas. Of course I've seen all the suggestive tidbits where Ruby mentions some people like Walker and groups like JBS and Minutemen (please Paul T., don't use this as an opening) or implies LBJ or other higher-ups were involved. I know Paul T.'s story, and hope that others have their own ideas and are willing to post them, and that Trejo will let this process play out. As an example, I've been exploring the idea that Ruby murdered Tippett. I know it's a long shot and the timing is off, assuming the alibis from the Dallas Morning News headquarters are good. I wonder like others have, whether the magic bullet was placed by him on the stretcher. I accept Kantor's memory as accurate, that Ruby was at Parkland by about 1:30 pm. I should post 'who was JD Tippett' since I think his death is very suggestive of his prior involvement. Trejo's idea that Ruby was motivated to kill LHO by Dallas cops, who played on Ruby's sympathy with police, is one I had not heard before. Half of that idea, that it was some Dallas policemen that facilitated, and perhaps 'encouraged' Ruby to kill Oswald, I find interesting. That it was simply Ruby's anger at Oswald the cop killer that motivated him I find laughable. (refrain yourself Paul T.)

Malcolm - that article was not familiar to me, and given all I've previously read on the subject I think it was very weak. The question that should have been asked but never was, at least in the version you posted (which might have been cut down by editors) is who were the 'Red Brigades' that kidnapped Moro? The U.S. consular official in the article was no player here, just an observer and someone sent to smooth over any problems they could.

I know that story, and agree it is really interesting, so thanks for posting it.

Yes you have made your point. Many times. Simpich would tell you himself that his writings are opinions based in facts as far as he can ascertain them, not facts themselves. He has done valuable research for sure.

Chris - any chance you recall which senators?

No doubt you are right Chris. Nothing is so simple...

Something else entirely. Interesting Douglas. The film explores deep links between Ialian fascists and our CIA. I think it's amusing that we never link this info to the CIA mafia links. I recall reading in depth looks at Gladio, P2, Gelli, etc, and noting that Andreotti, named as a principle in this film, was mafia all the way. There is really no distinction in my mind when looking at Italian post war history, between mob and government and fascisti. We know that because the Italian judicial system has, at great cost to life and liberty, uncovered these deeper links. However, here in the good old USA, these links have been much harder to prove and much less well known. The Itslian courts proved that terrorist acts were being committed by fascists masquerading as communists, in what was called the 'strategy of tension'. False flag events were designed to create distrust of the left generally and communists in particular, in order to influence the vote and soften the populace.

I'll watch as I have been interested in this for a long time. But please, is this new information based on new discoveries in Bloomfield's papers, or something else?

Paul - the pieces fit like a glove in your mind. In my mind Morales was a big time CIA operational guy. The whole nature of CIA operations is plausible deniability, obfuscation, misdirection. Hall of mirrors stuff. So good luck looking at a CIA operation and thinking you know which end us up.

Chris - I think Mr. Hargrove's point was that plenty of Ruby's connections did get busted while he seemed to escape notice. I'll let Jim clarify. I'm not, btw a 'two Oswald' theorist, though I try to keep an open mind, since there are so many discrepancies.

I know you always filter anything anyone writes through your pet theory. I am not going to second guess whether Morales was rogue or not, because unlike you I don't presume to know that guys like Phillips or Helms or the rest couldn't possibly be guilty, and that anything Morales might have done had to be on his own. What I am pointing out is that Garrison caught on to this muscular Mexican with the scar over his left eye watching Oswald in New Orleans, even though he didn't know his name. I'm pointing out also that we know with near certainty that Phillips met with Oswald in Dallas !! We have a very good eye witness account of a scene at the Carousel club where a Mexican with a scar over his left eye was sitting with Oswald. We also know that Phillips very close lifelong friend and co-founder of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers Gordon McLendon was close to Jack Ruby. How many more clues do we need? None. Oswald was in some capacity working with Phillips and Morales. And in some way, Ruby was involved. Exactly how remains a bit of a mystery. The notion that Ruby was mob, Oswald was part of a rogue right wing plot to kill JFK, and the footprints of intelligence on both of them can be safely ignored is just rubbish. I think the secrets still being withheld about the CIA relationship with the DRE are an additional clue. As Tannenbaum said, and as HSCA investigators like Lopez and Fonzi showed, the place to look was in the nexus between the right wing Cubans and the CIA/mafia connections to them. I simply cannot dismiss Ruby as a simple mob connected pimp, or Oswald as a secret right winger participating in a plot to kill the president. In order to make those assumptions one has to dismiss too many inconvenient facts.

Steve - the reason I asked that question is that the first description that went out to Dallas police of 'Oswald', presumably the alert heard by Tippett and others, matched the inaccurate details present in the segregated Oswald 201 file that were falsified by Angleton's group as a dangle searching for moles. This is important because Dallas Police have claimed that their first description came from an eyewitness account of someone seen in the 6th floor window. This seems very unlikely to me. I think it more likely that someone in one of the local military intelligence or reserve units supplied this info. And there were many Dallas cops who were also members of these units. Forgive me if my research skills aren't up to yours. I may have some detail wrong. But I have suspected some branch of military intelligence ever since I read this detail in Peter Dale Scott's excellent work. If one were to google Jack Crichton and read the article on Spartacus it really makes you wonder. So many suspicious details. So it seems to me that your work intersects with this body of research.

That's very weird

Thanks Tommy. According to that summary Ruby was at the Dallas Morning News until after 1 pm. I presume this has been corroborated.

Does anyone know what time on Nov 22 that Seth Kantor spoke to Jack Ruby at Parkland?

Steve - do you think it likely that military Intel was the source for the first radio description of Oswald?

Tommy - it's pics like the one you posted that make me wonder about the 'two Oswalds'.

It seems more and more unlikely to me that Ruby's involvement began when, after Oswald's arrest, he: 1 - got religious and, on his own initiative decided at some point in the next two days to kill Oswald for the reasons he stated. 2 - he was told by someone, presumably a mobster but could have been anyone whose offer he could not refuse, to kill Oswald. As an alternative to these two choices I'd like to propose a 3rd option - that Ruby was already involved in the assassination in some way. If this was the case we could safely eliminate his first explanation for killing LHO. The second explanation might still be true. But once we presume the 3rd option it opens the door to other possibilities. One is that Ruby's dramatic act might have been taken because if Oswald had lived it might have been Ruby who paid the price for what Oswald knew. Self preservation is a powerful motivator. We have not given enough attention to the idea that Ruby was part of the conspiracy. I've seen the eye witness accounts that suggest he might have been a shooter, that he might have killed Tippett, or placed the magic bullet on the stretcher. What other ideas are out there? What do you suppose was the truth behind Ruby's murder of Oswald?

'Not on ground level' - your words Paul T not mine. My post is suggesting that we are developing evidence that David Morales may have been in the ground in New Orleans and Dallas 'running' Oswald. Garrison, according to the notes of Richard Billings, speculated that a man with a scar over his left eye was watching Oswald, and that possibly the reason no photos of Oswald from Mexico City exist is because they show Oswald in the company of this man, presumed by Garrison to be CIA. From what I can tell, Garrison never heard of David Morales. If someone knows otherwise please correct me on this. But he seems to be describing an individual that very well could be Morales. Veciana eventually confirmed without equivocation that he had seen Oswald with 'Bishop', and that Bishop was David Atlee Phillips. Finding Morales in Oswald's milieu on the ground in New Orleans and at the Carousel Club would be ......not so surprising.

I recall that there was another Jack Rubenstein who some think is the one that worked for Nixon. I also recall he was not from Chicago and therefore is not the man referred to in the affidavit. This reminds me of the other 'George Bush of the CIA'. That 'other' George Bush gave a sworn deposition saying he was most certainly not the George Bush that Hoover's 1963 memo was addressed to. In both cases, seeds of doubt are sown. Jack Ruby was born in 1911, making him 36 in 1947. George H W Bush was born in 1924, and was 39 years old in 1963.

Chris, Jim, anyone else reading this, I know what is bothering me about the picture and the 'caption', which as Chris pointed out is not a caption. By continually showing the photo from 1953 of Prescott Bush and Richard Nixon with someone standing in between and in the background that might or might not be Jack Ruby, the question on everyone's mind is naturally 'is that a younger Jack Ruby'? We could compare notes on that forever. But that photo was taken in 1953, and we have an affidavit (and some hearsay to back it up) that says Jack Ruby worked for Richard Nixon 6 years earlier in 1947. So the more pertinent questions about the relationship between Nixon and Prescott Bush, and about the real Jack Ruby working for Nixon in 1947, take a back seat to whether this 1953 photo actually caught Jack Ruby. I think we would be better off deciding that the photo is of someone else, and then move on to examining the affidavit, and to Nixon's early career.

I see - he was vp. Thanks Chris. Was Prescott Bush instrumental in supporting Nixon's entry into elected politics and quick ascent to the vice-presidency? That's the context that makes this either historically important or just incidental.

See next post

Jim - I don't dismiss any of this. I'm just trying to understand the details in so far as they are known. How do we know the photo is from 1953?