Joseph McBride

Thanks, Jim. That period leading up to the assassination is filled with foreboding, even more in retrospect, in both our political history and our cultural history (cf. the foreshadowing of the assassination plot and coverup, complete with a "grassy knoll," in John Ford's 1962 film THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE). The blacklisted screenwriter Abe Polonsky was a friend of mine, and when I asked him about AMERICAN GRAFFITI, which I like very much, he expressed astonishment that "anyone could be nostalgic for 1962." When I interviewed Richard Lester, he noted that A HARD DAY'S NIGHT reflects the optimism people had in the early sixties, even though there was really no reason for it. Those were the days of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the nuclear saber-rattling of the Joint Chiefs, after all.

going to pieces after the assassination http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Places-Joseph-McBride/dp/1943784124/ref=la_B001IZ1KM8_1_13?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1446720475&sr=1-13&refinements=p_82%3AB001IZ1KM8 My friends at this site and in the assassination community may be interested in my most recent book, just published, THE BROKEN PLACES: A MEMOIR, my first since INTO THE NIGHTMARE: MY SEARCH FOR THE KILLERS OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AND OFFICER J. D. TIPPIT. This (other) longtime labor of love is not primarily about the assassination or my research but partly about the period in which those events occurred and the shattering (but enlightening) impact they and other factors had on me as a teenager. The book is now available from Amazon.com. See an excerpt below dealing with my response to the assassination. THE BROKEN PLACES: A MEMOIR by Joseph McBride In The Broken Places, Joseph McBride, an internationally acclaimed American cultural historian, recalls his troubled youth in the Midwest during the 1960s. Searingly immediate and yet reflective, this is the author’s memoir of his breakdown as a teenager and triumphant recovery. It gives an unsparing look at physical and psychological abuse, family dysfunction and addiction, sexual repression, and Catholic guilt. And at its heart, this is a haunting, often joyous love story. The Broken Places offers an unforgettable portrait of Kathy Wolf, a brilliant, vibrant, shattered young Native American woman who taught Joe how to live even though she could not save herself. Kathy’s life exemplifies what Ernest Hemingway wrote, “The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially.” This extraordinary love story will move you and disturb you. Joseph McBride was born in Milwaukee and educated at Marquette University High School and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He lives in Berkeley, California, and is a professor in the Cinema Department at San Francisco State University. McBride is the author of seventeen previous books, including biographies of Frank Capra, John Ford, and Steven Spielberg; three books on Orson Welles; and Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit. Available from Amazon.com An excerpt from THE BROKEN PLACES: [My parents] were both newspaper reporters, my father a veteran feature writer, columnist, and rewrite man for the [Milwaukee] Journal and my mother a local and national political reporter for the Sentinel, worldly people who were fully engaged with the hectic workaday world of politics, business, and crime. Raymond and Marian Dunne McBride (called “Toni” by everyone) were masterful reporters with graceful writing styles, influential, well-regarded, the opposite of recluses. My mother had also been active in the Democratic Party and served as the state vice chairman during John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign in 1960. She had brought me into his primary campaign as a volunteer. While covering the White House for the Sentinel, she later helped the dean of Washington journalists, Helen Thomas, break down the barriers against women at the National Press Club. Thomas wrote me about my mother in 2005 that she “always admired her; great journalist.” My parents talked shop at our dinner table each night, helping educate us seven children with a fairly sophisticated and precocious understanding of politics and journalism. . . . I found bitter amusement in the fact that to the readers of the Milwaukee Journal, the McBrides were the source of (mostly) jolly entertainment in a column my father wrote called “All in the Family.” Years before Archie Bunker was created (a character with whom my Dad, who spent most of his home life muttering nasty remarks in front of the television his easy chair as he drank himself blotto each night, unfortunately would find much to identify with), the McBride version of “All in the Family” provided a highly sanitized “comical” account of our family doings in the Green Sheet. Twice a week, amidst the comic strips and the “Dear Mrs. Griggs” advice column, my Dad deftly amused the readers with the antics of the seven McBride children, ages six through seventeen, pictured in ascending order in a cartoon at the head of the column, waiting to use the bathroom in the morning. My father is pounding on the door with my mother, my sister, and two little brothers in back of him; evidently I’m the one inside, working on my zits or maybe studying a skin magazine. In later years I would come to appreciate the column’s frequent charm and graceful prose. It was the verbal equivalent of a Norman Rockwell painting, folksy and warm and idealized, a form of wish fulfillment that papered over an ugly reality. But it was only a minor embarrassment to us children until, little by little, bits of reality began to intrude into the column. . . . My own blowup over the column was late in coming because my father seldom wrote about me. There were no funny stories to tell about my life in those days. I did not engage in any of the normal teenage shenanigans. I didn't smoke, drink, or drive a car. I didn't go out on dates (my flower hadn’t bloomed). As a high school senior [at Marquette University High School], I had no friends outside my schoolmates, mostly the handful of boys who worked with me on our monthly newsmagazine, The Flambeau Monthly, a slick publication slavishly modeled on Time magazine. That was the extent of my social life, my only genuine recreation. All I did otherwise was study, go to church, and jerk off. But a clash over the column was inevitable, and it came in my senior year, that October 27, 1964, when my Dad wrote a piece called "Chess Moves." The column’s complaint was that “It’s hard to outsmart a teenager.” My father thought I was testing parental authority by staying up too late doing my homework (four hours a night by that point). After noting that I was an honor student and stayed up long into the night studying, my Dad wrote, “This may seem admirable, but too much study possibly is as dangerous as too little.” His oldest son would come to the breakfast table “bleary-eyed from hours of study.” The column detailed my Dad’s battles with me over my schedule -- an attempt to impose an 11:30 curfew on studying, his struggles to wake me at 7 each morning, and my coming to breakfast in my pajamas to read the paper and eat before I dressed -- all of which struck him as acts of defiance. Although the column manifested a vague concern with my possibly “dangerous” health situation, it missed the actual seriousness of the situation, showing no sense of any deeper underlying causes. Still, it was an inchoate cry for help. A very public outcry it was too, delivered to the entire city of Milwaukee, one of the most unpleasant side effects of having parents who wrote for newspapers. They tended not to take our problems to psychologists or psychiatrists who might actually be able to help us but perhaps might have been seen as threatening their authority; only in occasional desperation did they send me to irresponsible quacks who didn’t do a bit of good. In any case, my parents were Catholics, and generally in those days you were supposed to take your problems to the priests. My father reported in his column about me that after he succeeded in getting me to show up fully dressed at breakfast, it did not last long. Then the column reached the conclusion that would get me in trouble. He told the readers that after more of this struggle ensued with his son, “a little later he asked if he could get some pills to keep him awake in the morning. "'Boys your age can’t be on drugs,' I said curtly, but I’m preparing rebuttals for his next arguments." Since I rarely bothered to read "All in the Family," I didn't know what my father had written about me until the following day, when Father McGinnity stopped me in the hall at Marquette and asked if it was true that I was "on drugs." Afraid of punishment, I said my father didn't know what he was talking about. I have to give Father McGinnity credit for seeming to be the only person in Milwaukee (population then: 741,324) who responded at all to my father’s cry for help, but it is a shame in retrospect that I couldn’t be honest with the priest about the spiritual and physical struggle that was affecting my health. And it’s unfortunate that he let the matter drop. If we had been able to deal with the problem frankly, I might have received the help I needed at a time then. Around that same time, a classmate who worked with me on the Flambeau Monthly asked, “Are you OK?,” and I became uncomfortable with his probing question and stare, mumbling a false affirmative. Today, a student so visibly afflicted with health problems might get more attention at school. But in those days not only parents but also teachers and school administrators seemed almost entirely oblivious to such problems. Since I was barely eating as well as getting too little sleep, and my weight was plunging so rapidly, it is clear in retrospect that my problem not only should have been visible, but that it was as much physical as psychological, the blending of afflictions that are now seen as interrelated symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Back then, that term was little known to the general public, and it would not enter common discourse for than a decade. Severe eating disorders and their psychological causes were not much understood; today we recognize that anorexia can stem at least in part from fear of the onset of puberty. Subconsciously I was reacting against the onset of uncontrollable sexual drives, natural impulses that were stigmatized by my church, teachers, and family as sinful, and my reaction was to severely punish my body. Early studies of anorexia connected the illness with religious fasting and self-starvation, a condition so frequent among religious women in the Middle Ages (including some who were later canonized) that it was sometimes referred to as anorexia mirabilis. But my problems, our family’s problems, were shrouded in a heavy fog of taboo and denial. Even though my father may have meant well, in his own clumsy way, I did not take it kindly that he went public with his sketchy apprehensions about my health, particularly after Father McGinnity had accosted me in the hall with his worry about my drug-taking. That night at the dinner table, I screamed and cried when my father tried to make light of the situation. My mother took my side, contending as she sipped a beer that the column showed a "pretty goddam warped sense of humor." My father retreated to the living room with a bottle of wine to drink himself into oblivion in front of the television. I broke my curfew with impunity after that, studying past two every night. In early November, about a month before my second run at the SATs (Scholastic Aptitude Tests), I bought a box of NoDoz tablets to keep from falling asleep at my desk. I took the SATs with an unhealthy degree of seriousness because they would be critical in determining whether I would be accepted at Harvard, the school of my choice. I cared so intensely about that potential achievement that I kept taking the SATs over and over to keep improving my score, an obsessive process that made me increasingly agitated and collapsed my few remaining reserves of energy. My father’s column seemed to fumble around the key but unspoken question, Why was I so driven to overwork? I felt I knew part of the reason why that was the case, but I would have been hard put to articulate it to anyone, since it rested on such troubling foundations, and at the time I did not fully understand what was happening to me. Nor could I have explained then the overriding reason: Although I had tried to rebel in grade school by doing poorly in my studies, a cry for help that failed, now I was trying to win approval from my parents and society by doing the opposite. It was a year earlier, in December 1963, that I had first consciously recognized I was developing a monomania about my studies. What was the urgency of that need? I remember clearly recognizing then another, more specific trigger for that development, one that had contributed to my sense of mounting desperation. I was aware then that it must have something to do with the murder of President Kennedy just a couple of weeks earlier, and that my overcompensating reaction was some form of the grieving process. I felt a crushing weight of depression and disillusionmen, a sense of being abruptly cut off from the person I thought I was in a way I could not entirely comprehend and did not have the tools to examine. There was a numbness, a void caused by the loss of another of my major illusions, the props of my shaky existence, that needed to be filled somehow. Why I sought a refuge in accelerating my studies so frantically rather than in some other form of achievement was unclear to me then. It was only much later, when I could view this period in hindsight -- with what Wordsworth called “emotion recollected in tranquillity” -- that I realized I threw myself headlong into the thickets of schoolwork, a maze that had no limit or exit, partly as a way of blotting out the terrifying questions raised by the president’s death and because it was the only way I knew how to do so. And though the escalating battle between my religious faith and my sexuality seemed, at the moment, even more urgent than this bewildering political calamity, for which there already seemed no clear explanation, I knew in some inchoate fashion that my heretical feelings about these two major crises in my view of life, personal and political, were coming together to contribute to my emotional, spiritual, and physical isolation. After I had worked as a volunteer for JFK in the Wisconsin presidential primary and met him three times (once in 1962 when he was president), his inspiration was what had led me to my planned career: I had it all mapped out, to attend Harvard, study law, and enter politics, probably running for Congress. When I had answered a question from Kennedy about his book Profiles in Courage at a small “Kids for Kennedy” rally my mother organized at the Wauwatosa Civic Center in March 1960, he quipped, “I hope I don’t have to run against you in 1964.” He then launched into a humorous anecdote about a boy who, upon meeting French President Charles de Gaulle, advised him on his foreign policy. But now that I had to face the realization that my candidate had been murdered and the government seemed strangely uninterested in solving the crime, I was losing another of my bedrocks, my faith in the American democratic system as well as in my religious beliefs. Where there had been faith now I was starting to see mostly lies and insane delusions. When I watched Dr. Strangelove shortly after the assassination, with my friend Dick Benka in February 1964 at the Tosa Theater in Wauwatosa, that black comedy about nuclear war brought about another paradigm shift in my view of the world. The film made recognize that world events I had found simply frightening could also be thoroughly absurd. Rekindling the subversiveness engendered in our Baby Boomer generation by Mad magazine in the 1950s and ’60s, Dr. Strangelove helped me see that I should question authority and not to follow it so blindly. I could not fail to notice that the psychoses that cause these men of power to blow up the world in Dr. Strangelove have twisted sexual roots. I did not have to be convinced that sexual impulses could be so explosive, but to discover that sexual pathologies could also be hilarious was somehow a promise of liberation. Nevertheless, these developments in my life, drawing together inflammatory political and sexual revelations, involved incremental realizations; painfully so. I ploughed ahead blindly with my Harvard ambitions, mostly out of inertia, as I can see now. My suppressed anxieties about my future plans ironically made me all the more determined at the time to follow through on that goal. My quest for a National Merit Scholarship, which I thought would be the catalyst that would make everything happen for me, became the conscious center of my universe, almost a form of magical thinking. But in fact, all my philosophical underpinnings were coming unmoored at once; the pillars of my existence were beginning to topple systematically, inexorably. That is a dangerous, if potentially creative, situation, and so I was in the disorienting throes of a life-threatening struggle over my illusions as I approached my crisis point both physically and psychologically by November of 1964. . . .

http://intothenightmare.com My website for my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE: MY SEARCH FOR THE KILLERS OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AND OFFICER J. D. TIPPIT has been updated to include recent videos, articles, interviews, reviews, and news. Joseph McBride

http://jfk-thecontinuinginquiry.com/our-newsletter.html http://www.amazon.com/Into-Nightmare-Killers-President-Kennedy/dp/1939795257

Gene, Thanks for your kind words. I am glad you appreciate my research. I've been studying the case since day one and will continue to do so. Dale Myers predictably attacked my book, and I wrote a response on the CTKA site that you will find interesting. I go into Westbrook and the wallet. Others may find more on Westbrook. I reported what I found. I tried to locate Gerald Hill for an interview but could not reach him. Larry Sneed interviewed him, and I quote that. I have a fair amount about Hill in the book.

http://garyrevel.com/jfk/mcbride2.html

Thanks, Vince!

Some of the 50 REASONS videos going up on Vimeo https://vimeo.com/8621312450 Reasons - Political Truth: The Media and the Assassination from Ocular Tip Media PRO 1 day ago ALL AUDIENCES Author Joseph McBride presents a video essay describing the compromised relationship between the mainstream American media and the JFK assassination. Despite conflicting reports emanating from Dallas in the aftermath of the shooting, news reporting quickly coalesced in support of the developing official story and has since never wavered. McBride examines the institutional biases which inform the presentation of events, and locates the role of U.S. intelligence agencies such as the CIA in the manufacture of "truth". This program was produced for Black Op Radio's "50 Reasons For 50 Years", an internet series which played throughout the 50th anniversary year of Kennedy's death, utilizing leading authors and researchers exploring the many facets of this important and controversial event. josephmcbridefilm.com/ blackopradio.com/50%20reasons%20for%2050%20years.html youtube.com/channel/UCOpje8kixcV-skbCZOOiNIw/featured OTHER "50 REASONS FOR 50 YEARS" VIDEOS PRODUCED BY LEN OSANIC AND JEFF CARTER ARE UP ON VIMEO NOW AS WELL, INCLUDING ONES BY OLIVER STONE, BILL KELLY, AND JEFFERSON MORLEY.

http://garyrevel.com/jfk/mcbride.html

Thanks, Ray and Vince. Yes, Tippit made a phone call at the record store. He was known to use pay phones. It's also possible the directive to him and the other officer was made before 12:30.

Thanks for your comments. I have followed parts of the other thread but have not had time to study them all. I will go over it some more. Meanwhile, I would encourage those who have not read INTO THE NIGHTMARE to dig into the book's highly detailed analysis of these events. In regard to one question above: The Dallas Police Department claimed not to have known who Oswald was until he was at the police station after 2 p.m. They claimed the man arrested at the Texas Theatre about ten minutes before that had two pieces of identification, in the names of Lee Oswald and Alek Hidell. and that Oswald wouldn't give his name, though that account is highly questionable. So an order to Tippit and the other officer (probably William Mentzel) to hunt down Oswald shortly after the 12:30 assassination indicates covert police foreknowledge of Oswald-as-suspect. There is no record of an APB for him in the police dispatcher tapes. The description of a suspect that was broadcast at 12:45 differs in some particulars from Oswald. It does not mention the suspect is headed to Oak Cliff. So the two officers had to have had another way of getting their orders to pursue Oswald in Oak Cliff. I believe Oswald was known to the DPD through surveillance and possibly as an informant.

http://www.ctka.net/2014/mcbride_01.html

NOIR CITY magazine, Fall 2013 INTO THE NIGHTMARE An Interview With Joseph McBride Dan Akira Nishimura San Francisco State University professor Joseph McBride has published seventeen books, mostly about film. Growing up an Irish Catholic, young Joe aspired to be a priest or (after discovering girls) a lawyer/politician. Those plans ended abruptly when President Kennedy, the man he and his family had campaigned for, was shot and killed. With everything he believed in turned upside down, McBride began a lifelong quest to discover the truth of what happened that afternoon in Dallas. His arduous research has culminated in the publication of Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit. President Kennedy’s death “set me firmly on my course to be a professional writer rather than a politician.” True to his Irish roots, McBride shows innate storytelling abilities as he describes his grief, anger and eventual resolve to set the record straight about that terrifying weekend in November 1963. Like a bespectacled Philip Marlowe, McBride follows the trails of clues wherever they lead, poring through documents, interviewing relatives, law enforcement officials, and eyewitnesses -- and ultimately butting up against Washington insiders like Donald Rumsfeld, the Bush family juggernaut, and the editors of the supposedly “liberal” publications, The Nation, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. While maintaining the principles he was raised with, he’s become a political gadfly, willing to take on all sides. Our interview took place as Tea Party Republicans had managed to do something even the murder of a President couldn’t accomplish -- a partial shutdown of the government. Noir City: Joe, we greatly appreciate your taking the time to discuss your new book. First question: Are the premiums on your life insurance paid up? Joseph McBride: Thanks for your concern, Dan. Numerous witnesses to the assassination and related events have been killed, as well as various players in the actual plot, but relatively few reporters (Jim Koethe and Bill Hunter are among the people on the pioneer JFK assassination researcher Penn Jones’s “mysterious deaths” list). That’s not to say this kind of thing does not still happen in America from time to time (the violent death of Michael Hastings is certainly suspicious), but when you investigate the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Officer Tippit, you have to plough along and not succumb to fear or intimidation. The weapon most often used to attack researchers in our society is ridiculing them as “conspiracy theorists” or worse; you have to ignore that and become proud of such labels. On a related note, my father, Raymond E. McBride, a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal, asked President Kennedy in May 1962, “Do you ever worry about being assassinated?” Kennedy replied that he couldn’t think about being assassinated, because it would be hard for him to do his job if he did. He should have worried about it more -- and there is evidence he was aware of increasing danger, even speaking about it on the morning of his death -- but he was fatalistic and had to do his job. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote in his autobiography, “A man who won’t die for something is not fit to live.” NC: You’ve been studying the JFK assassination since it happened. Twenty years after that, you began your active investigation. In 1993-1994, you conducted a number of interviews in and around Dallas, uncovering some previously unreported aspects of the case regarding Officer J. D. Tippit’s murder. Why have you waited another twenty years to publish your findings? JM: I have been following the case from a few minutes after Kennedy was shot. I ran from my high school to a radio in a nearby drugstore to listen to the breaking network news reports. The first reports I heard from about 12:40 onward said the shots came from the front, from the railroad bridge or from the grassy knoll. By 1 p.m., the reports started saying all the shots came from behind, from a building called the Texas School Book Depository. My early awareness of how the story was being altered, without explanation, helped me realize by the end of that day that Oswald was innocent. That and my belief in his statements of innocence on live television. I followed the case sporadically until the late 1970s, when I began reading about it seriously. I launched my own investigation in 1982. From then until Into the Nightmare was published this June, I read about it and studied it every day (as I continue to do). I had several periods of on-site research in Washington and Dallas in the eighties and nineties. Why did it take so long to complete the book? Part of the reason was that I had other jobs to do to earn a living (including writing other books), but this subject was always my avocation. And so much was coming out in the way of documents (millions of pages of previously classified U.S. government documents were released in the 1990s as a result of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act), and other independent researchers were making valuable contributions in various areas of this highly complex case. It took me this long to fully understand as much of the case as I do and to be able to assemble and make clear all my findings. The actual writing of the book took nine years. I spent two years writing one chapter -- and rewrote it entirely four times -- before breaking it into two chapters. It was the hardest book to write that I’ve ever tackled, and I am pleased that I was able to finally complete my long labor of love. NC: In the back cover photo, you look like either a young missionary or a junior spook with the CIA. What was your approach in contacting people years after the fact? Were you provided introductions by other researchers or did you have to make cold calls? You appear to have established a good rapport with your subjects. Was it tough trying to find common ground? JM: I did it the old-fashioned way, going to Dallas and making phone calls to people to ask for interviews. I found some in the phone book and had to track down others with help from other researchers and so forth. You learn in doing investigative reporting and books that one interviewee can help lead to others; it’s a question you always ask people. Of course, it was not easy finding some witnesses: many have died, vanished, or moved away --some out of fear. I was remarkably fortunate to find some highly important interview subjects, such as J. D. Tippit’s father, Edgar Lee Tippit, who had never been interviewed before, and J. D.’s mistress Johnnie Maxie Witherspoon, who had rarely been interviewed. Both gave me remarkably insightful interviews. Two of my most revealing interviews were with Detective James Leavelle, the lead detective in the Tippit case, and Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade. I questioned both of them closely about the case and its many flaws and elicited admissions from them about how weak the case was against Oswald for both shootings and why they concentrated on trying to nail him for the Tippit killing. Oswald was never even arraigned for the murder of President Kennedy, only for the murder of Officer Tippit, although he was charged with both crimes. NC: W. Penn Jones, Jr., who became your mentor, reminded me of the newspaper editor in Billy Wilder’s Ace in Hole (1951). Small town papers seemed to be the only ones asking the tough questions back then. JM: Penn is one of my heroes. There are heroes in this case, but they are the “little people,” the witnesses who bravely came forward and the independent-minded reporters and researchers who dug into the case despite all odds and endured much ridicule and other abuse. Penn edited the Midlothian Mirror, in a small town outside Dallas, and was a relentless and fearless reporter in the old-fashioned shoe-leather tradition. Even before the assassination, his office was firebombed. He started researching the case the day Kennedy was killed but said, “I didn’t believe it was a conspiracy ’till Sunday mornin’. That’s how naive I was.” But he was unstoppable for many years until Alzheimer’s brought him down by the early 1990s. I met him in Dealey Plaza on my first visit there on the twentieth anniversary of the assassination in 1983, when he was leading his annual memorial service on the grassy knoll, and we had an instant rapport. He reminded me of my friend Samuel Fuller, the great writer-director, another old newspaperman with a gruff exterior and a warm heart, and a passion for the truth. I visited Penn frequently on my visits to Dallas. He advised me, as he did others, to “Pick one aspect of the case, one that hasn’t been studied enough, and research the hell out of it.” NC: You interviewed James R. Leavelle, the policeman in the Stetson handcuffed to Oswald when he was shot by Jack Ruby. Leavelle told you they’d been treating the JFK assassination like “a South Dallas n killin’.” My God, it was the President of United States! A judge in the Jack Ruby trial told Leavelle basically the same thing about Oswald’s murder. What was going through your mind when you heard that? JM: I was stunned. Leavelle did preface that comment with “As the old saying goes back then.” But he said it with a little smile, as if he were genuinely amused by the remark. Evidently it was a common view among the Dallas police. Many of them, according to Penn Jones and others, were Ku Klux Klan members. I was stunned when I was interviewing retired Dallas Police Detective Morris Brumley, who had been a boyhood friend of Tippit, and Brumley pulled out his KKK regional membership card (signed by the Grand Dragon in 1959). Brumley claimed he had “infiltrated the Ku Klux Klan for the Dallas Police Department” from 1957 through 1959. But when I asked about his activities with the Klan, he said, “Oh, hell, I went out some places -- you went out and whipped the niggers, you know, castrate ’em if you catch one with a white woman, you know, stuff like that.” When you hear shocking comments such as that, as an investigative reporter you don’t object but keep the person talking to find out as much as you can for the record. If you express your outrage, they would stop talking. I was able to get many people to say things you might not expect and that helped reveal the mindset of Dallas in 1963 and other significant insights into the case. NC: In The Parallax View (1974), witnesses to an assassination are being killed off one by one. Reporter George Frady (Warren Beatty) discovers the Parallax Corporation, a school for assassins. They administer a test, a video of still images that traces the evolution of a killer. It’s an extremely disturbing film-within-a-film. In your research, you found the Rorschach blot test administered to J. D. Tippit by the Dallas police shortly after he was hired. Like the Warren Beatty character, Tippit was found to be antisocial and, of course, kept his job. JM: That’s an intriguing parallel. The Rorschach test concluded, “This man appears to be wholly devoid of any imaginative faculties. . . . His grip on reality is below the average. Errors of judgment may be expected.” And the examiner wrote that Tippit actually held the test cards edgeways to handle them, “a very unhealthy sign.” This is the only such test in Tippit’s police personnel file, but it should have raised alarm bells in the department, one would think. The examiner wrote that Tippit was “within the limits of the average in that his thinking corresponds with that of the community at large,” which tells us something about Dallas and its police department. I found abundant evidence that Tippit, until his death, was suffering from what we now call Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from his experiences in World War II. One manifestation was that he had trouble looking people in the eye -- he would look down at his feet or look away. This can be a fatal flaw for a policeman. Tippit’s father told me that during the background innvestigation for Tippit’s hiring, a minister who knew them told the Dallas Police Department, “He’s a good boy but he’s no policeman.” That should have caused concern as well. Tippit’s friend Morris Brumley told me, “I don’t think he met people real well. He was real quiet. He wouldn’t say xxxx if he had a mouthful.” Tippit’s father told me that after the war, J. D. “was nervous, I would call him. There were many who came back wild. The war ruined a lot of people’s nerves. It took several years before J. D. settled down. He had it pretty rough as a paratrooper, jumping out of planes. His nerves was shot for a few years.” He was clearly a man with serious psychological issues. He had killed a man with another officer in the line of duty and on another occasion was attacked by a disturbed man with an ice pick, causing him to limp for the rest of his life. While he left few traces of his political views, Tippit moved in the circles of the extreme right in Dallas and could have been recruited for the plot by some of those contacts. His father told me that J. D. had uncanny shooting ability. NC: As a boy in 1962, I was greatly disappointed that The Manchurian Candidate wasn’t the traditional war movie I was hoping for. I think I fell asleep. I can now appreciate the satire and marvel at its unintended prophecy. Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey) has an evil mother played by Angela Lansbury. What about her real-life counterpart, Ruth Paine, Oswald’s local CIA handler? Did you try to track her down? JM: That first adaptation of The Manchurian Candidate is a great film, and the novel by Richard Condon is the book I’ve read most often (seven times, compared with six for David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest). Condon’s novel is astonishing and somehow seems almost totally new every time I read it. I did not interview Ruth Paine for my book, because I wasn’t investigating Oswald’s background primarily. Other researchers have done so in great depth, most notably John Armstrong in his book Harvey & Lee, which finally convinced me that the theory that there were two people using Oswald’s identity is correct. I did go hear Ruth Paine give a talk in September 2013 to the Sonoma Valley Historical Society in northern California. She is eighty-one and still lucid and disciplined in her telling of what in spycraft would be called Oswald’s “legend.” The questions at the event had to be written and were screened; I put in three but only one was asked. I wanted to know why after her home in Irving, where she lived with Marina Oswald, was thoroughly searched for two days by the Dallas police and sheriff’s departments, she kept turning up key pieces of evidence supposedly incriminating Lee Oswald. That question seemed to rattle her a bit, and she launched into a long account focusing partly on the Russian-language letter supposedly by Oswald that was used, speciously, to link him to the attempt to murder General Edwin Walker. Some intriguing nuances emerged during her talk, mostly between the lines; C-SPAN was there videotaping the event, so you and your readers can see it eventually. I wish they had asked her my other questions, including one about her and her sister’s involvement with the CIA. NC: Frank Sinatra’s other assassination movie, Suddenly (1954), would be forgettable without the ironic Kennedy/Sinatra connection. If I recall the plot correctly, the Sinatra character and his cronies don’t have a political ax to grind -- it’s just business. Is a contract hit man scenario feasible with the JFK assassination? The shooting itself, aided intentionally or not by the Secret Service, was perfectly executed but the cover-up was botched from the beginning. JM: After the Dealey Plaza hit succeeded, it seems that the plot was starting to unravel, necessitating some improvisation; the scapegoat, Oswald, was captured alive and needed to be silenced. The cover-up has worked well in some ways, especially by snowing and/or intimidating the mainstream media into compliance, to this day. But the public is smarter than the media; seventy to eighty percent of the American public has never believed the official story. A contract hit against President Kennedy is likely, at least in the case of some of the three or four gunmen, although we can’t be sure of their identitties. Various people have been suggested as possible killers, and I explore the possibility that Tippit may have been “Badge Man,” the man in a Dallas policeman’s uniform who was photographed firing from behind the concrete retaining wall on the grassy knoll. NC: In the mid-to-late 1960s, Time and Life would occasionally dole out stories pertaining to the assassination. You describe how the Zapruder film, the home movie shot by clothing manufacturer Abraham Zapruder, was released piecemeal and without attribution until later. Another series in Life magazine that I recall dealt with the Oswalds. Marina Oswald was portrayed as a young innocent, a sweet Russian girl who got in with the wrong crowd. She’s elsewhere been exposed as a Mata Hari-like femme fatale with Soviet intelligence connections. Was she a Russian spy who got turned by the CIA? JM: Dallas FBI Special Agent James P. Hosty, Jr., who was monitoring the Oswalds before the assassination, writes in his 1996 memoir, Assignment: Oswald, that he suspected both Marina and Lee of being KGB sleeper agents. Marina’s uncle, with whom she lived in Minsk, was a lieutenant colonel in the MVD, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, an agency with secret police authority, and she may have been used in KGB “honeytrap” intelligence operations to ensnare American “defectors” (including another one, Robert Webster, before Oswald). She may have been “turned” even before the assassination to work for American intelligence, along with Ruth Paine. Marina certainly did everything she could after the assassination to cooperate with the American authorities to help frame her husband. She was under duress, literally held prisoner by the Secret Service and threatened with deportation. She has told so many conflicting and false stories over the years that her more recent statements about Lee being innocent don’t hold any more weight than her earlier statements to the contrary. NC: In Goodbye World (2013) a character with government experience understands the meaning behind the President’s coded message when he appears on television after a Y2K meltdown. When a beat-up looking Oswald was brought before the television cameras, he professed innocence and asked for legal assistance. As a sixteen-year-old, you saw the pathos of the moment and sympathized with his situation. Has anyone to your knowledge analyzed Oswald’s words for a message he may have been trying to communicate to his CIA and FBI handlers? Was he trying to maintain deep cover? Or, do you think he realized the game, whatever it was, was up? JM: Apparently he was waiting for legal representation or for other help. We don’t know for sure what he was saying under interrogation, because a complete and reliable record apparently was not kept. We have learned that on Saturday, November, 23, Oswald made two mysterious phone calls from the Dallas jail. One was to an unknown party, and then he tried to place a call to a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence agent living in North Carolina, John David Hurt, but that the police wouldn’t put the call through. That attempt to reach out to a man who may have been a contact in a “cutout” system may have helped seal Oswald’s fate. NC: If he were a fall guy, the self-confessed “patsy,” what could he have thought his mission in Dallas was? JM: I believe Oswald was infiltrating the plot against Kennedy for the FBI and did not realize he was being set up by the CIA and others to be the fall guy. The Dallas police knew who he was. I learned that Officer Tippit and another policeman were secretly sent in pursuit of Oswald shortly after the assassination and before he was officially regarded as a suspect, which is proof of a conspiracy to scapegoat him, if not to kill him. It’s known that he had delivered a message to the FBI shortly before the assassination, which was destroyed after he was killed. The Dallas Morning News reported in its edition published the morning he was killed that Oswald was interviewed by the FBI on November 16th. Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, a former FBI agent, told me that Oswald had spoken with the FBI’s Hosty “Within a day or two [before the assassination], I don’t know exactly.” We don’t know what Oswald was telling them, but he was involved with anti-Castro Cubans and other rightwing elements, most likely as an infiltrator, and may well have been trying to help stop the plot. An FBI informant named “Lee” helped stop a plot against Kennedy in Chicago when he was to visit there on November 2, 1963, a trip that was called off at the last minute because the Secret Service and Chicago police couldn’t find all the conspirators. This incident was hushed up until Secret Service Agent Abraham Bolden eventually managed to reveal it. NC: Jacqueline Kennedy was quoted as saying of her blood-stained clothing, “I want them to see what they have done to Jack.” It’s curious she would use “they.” It may have been a figure of speech referring to the haters she knew were out there. Still, she was there in the limousine, heard and felt the shots, probably knew instinctively the bullets were coming from more than one direction. Was she interviewed by the Warren Commission or the House Select Committee on Assassinations? JM: I think her comment, made to several people that day, and her conspicuous refusal to change her clothes, indicated knowledge of a crossfire. Mrs. Kennedy was interviewed by the Warren Commission, rather gingerly and sketchily, but not by the HSCA. The commission didn’t ask her probing questions. Comments she made about her husband’s wounds were censored from the Warren volumes and only later revealed. It’s known that she and Robert Kennedy soon realized that this was a right wing plot. They had an emissary tell that to the Soviets shortly after the assassination, while assuring them they didn’t believe the USSR had anything to do with it. The Kennedy family, for complicated reasons, has largely kept silent publicly about the case. NC: Do you believe Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade’s story that it was Jackie Kennedy who demanded that her husband’s body be brought back to Washington, thereby canceling the legally mandated autopsy about to be performed at Parkland Memorial? JM: There’s no genuine evidence that Mrs. Kennedy was the one who insisted on taking her husband’s body from Parkland. Kennedy aides and Secret Service agents used that as an excuse to break the law by refusing the Dallas County medical examiner, Dr. Earl Rose, the right to conduct the autopsy. He did the impeccable autopsies on Tippit and Oswald, and if he had been allowed to do the autopsy on Kennedy, the plot would have been blown. So it was literally a matter of life or death for those parties to steal the coffin, which I believe may have been empty. Guns were drawn against Dr.. Rose and Dallas policemen. The body may have been spirited out a tunnel from Parkland. This is one of the most disturbing incidents in the case, and it made a great impression on me when I first learned about it in William Manchester’s 1967 book The Death of a President, November 20-November 25, 1963. When I interviewed Henry Wade, he took responsibility for letting the coffin be removed from Dallas. But he expressed misgivings, admitting that Dr. Rose “could have done a better job. . . . And that [military] autopsy was probably the poorest autopsy I ever saw. . . . I probably made a lot of mistakes.” NC: We’ve talked about the “doubling” that occurs in Vertigo (1958), an Alfred Hitchcock trademark. Unlikely as it seems, there were three men named Tippit or Tippett on the Dallas Police Department in 1963. That made it convenient for witnesses to backtrack on testimony. You also mention the speculation about multiple Oswalds. Strangely, J. D.Tippit possessed some of the qualities incorrectly attributed to Oswald by the Warren Commission, one being that he was an expert marksman. Another point rarely discussed that you relate in the book is the planned attempt on the President’s life not long before Dallas. Could you tell us about the “patsy” in that scenario? JM: Investigative journalist Edwin Black wrote an outstanding 1975 article on the plot against Kennedy in Chicago on November 2, 1963, the day South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated. The Chicago plot was foiled by the Chicago police, the Secret Service, and the FBI, although they didn’t catch all the hit men, and the plot was hushed up. Kennedy’s trip to Chicago was canceled at the last minute. The apparent patsy was Thomas Arthur Vallee, a Chicago mirror image of what Oswald was said to be: a thirty-year-old ex-Marine who had been assigned to a U-2 base in Japan, had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic by military doctors, and later had trained anti-Castro Cubans to assassinate Castro. Vallee had a job in a warehouse overlooking Kennedy’s motorcade route and was arrested that morning after being found with weapons and ammunition. There also were also plots against Kennedy that November 18 in Tampa and Miami, Florida. Despite all this, the Secret Service protection for Kennedy in Dallas was far more lax than usual. NC: In a previous Noir City interview, you spoke at length about Orson Welles. You’ve written that he planned a movie to be called either Assassin or The Safe House, from a screenplay by Donald Freed (Executive Action [1973]). The story was about Sirhan Sirhan and the Bobby Kennedy killing. That film never got made, but you quote Oliver Stone’s remarkable comment that Welles should have directed JFK. Do you recall Welles saying anything about either Kennedy assassination? JM: Not to me. But I’ve read Welles’s fine screenplay Assassin, his rewrite of Freed’s script on the subject. It deals with Sirhan being brainwashed in a safe house by an intelligence programmer who would have been played by Welles himself. Welles shows Sirhan being set up as the patsy in a plot run by the FBI and carried out by a paramilitary group. This script is based on documented evidence. Sirhan did not shoot Robert Kennedy. The autopsy by Dr. Thomas Noguchi showed that the fatal shot to the head was fired from behind, from less than one inch on an upward trajectory. Sirhan was always in front of Kennedy, firing from a standing position, and at least three feet away. His shots wounded other people. There were more shots fired than Sirhan’s gun held. The likely suspect for Kennedy’s actual killer is security guard Thane Eugene Cesar, a right winger who was following immediately behind Kennedy. This is another assassination, like those of JFK and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which used a patsy. Scapegoats are often used to conceal the true nature of such plots and blame them on supposed “lone nuts” in order to distract the public from the actual political implications. NC: Not to minimize its importance, but pushing through civil rights legislation seems to have given LBJ effective liberal cover, at least for a time. Isn’t that right? JM: Johnson was a tragic figure. I believe he was involved in the plotting of the assassination, though the evidence brought forth to date is largely circumstantial. He was certainly the one who made the cover-up possible, since he had the power to control the military autopsy, the FBI investigation through his close friend J. Edgar Hoover, and the Warren Commission, whose actual title was the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. And Johnson secretly gave the order on November 24, 1963, to widen the Vietnam War. Kennedy had been in the process of trying to wind it down and withdraw. Johnson was in serious danger of not only being dropped from the 1964 ticket but also of going to jail because of corruption investigations taking place at the time of the assassination, including a hearing taking place at that exact moment in Washington. Johnson’s telephone conversations reveal that as early as the spring of 1964, he knew widening the war would be futile but that he felt powerless to stop it. Those in the military-industrial complex who put him in power (he was owned and operated by Brown & Root, the Houston construction company that became part of Halliburton in 1962) forced him to wage the war for their profit. The war then killed the Great Society and shadowed Johnson’s accomplishments in civil rights and other areas. Johnson’s senior advisers, “The Wise Men,” ordered him in March 1968 not to run for re-election following the Tet Offensive, Johnson told Henry Brandon of the Sunday Times of London in a conversation later that year: “The only difference between Kennedy’s assassination and mine is that mine was a live one, which makes it all a little more torturing.” NC: Liberal icon Bill Moyers was one of Johnson’s “boys.” You repeat the shocking charge, something you won’t hear on the next PBS pledge drive, that Moyers helped determine the route of the motorcade to pass through Dealey Plaza and had the bubbletop removed from the presidential limousine. I’m wondering how a mere vice-presidential aide could have had that much power? Wouldn’t that be the Secret Service’s call? JM: Moyers, who was deputy director of the Peace Corps at the time, had worked closely with Johnson and flew from Austin to Love Field to join him immediately after the assassination; he went on to work in the Johnson administration until 1967 as his de facto chief of staff and as press secretary. Moyers was an advance man on Kennedy’s trip to Texas and was involved in the decision to hold Kennedy’s speech in the Trade Mart, which caused the motorcade to go through Dealey Plaza. But he was not the prime instigator of that decision. Kennedy aide Kenneth O’Donnell, whose actions were highly suspicious, seems to have been the main decider, along with Texas Governor Connally and the Secret Service. Moyers also was on a committee that helped publicize the trip; he insisted that the motorcade route be published, which was natural enough since his job was partly to ensure maximum attendance on the motorcade route, but which wouldn’t be done today for security reasons. Moyers also was the recipient of the infamous memo from Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach on November 25 urging that a cover-up be put in place and that the public had to be convinced that Oswald was the lone gunman. Perhaps all this helps account for why Moyers has never written his memoirs, which would surely be an interesting book. NC: You describe our current form of government as a “limited police state.” That’s still better than the actual police state of the Bush/Cheney years, wouldn’t you say? JM: I use the word “limited” before “police state” because we still have some of our freedoms, such as the freedom to criticize the government in the press and in books, although Obama and Bush/Cheney have tried to stifle the media as part of their repressive measures. So we are not a fully totalitarian state at present. But we have lost many of our civil liberties since 9/11, and Obama, despite pretending to be a liberal, in some ways is even worse than Bush/Cheney. Obama claims the right as President to kill even American citizens, as he has actually done. His drone program is a targeted assassination program that is contrary to all of our supposed democratic principles. The Fourth Amendment basically does not exist anymore. I could go on and on about the crimes of Bush, Cheney, and Obama, but perhaps former President Jimmy Carter said it best in July 2013: “America has no functioning democracy at this moment.” He was referring largely to the illegal surveillance programs that now target us all. This was even before the Republicans tried to shut down the government. Everyone now realizes we have a dysfunctional government. All this is a result of the Coup of 1963, whether people understand that or not. Many people are in denial about what happened to our country when President Kennedy was killed. It was the end of our experiment with democracy. NC: The War Powers Resolution of 1973 has tried to check presidential power since Kennedy’s time. But, with Kennedy, “they” genuinely felt the need to kill him. The Tea Party just spent most of October 2013 holding the government hostage without firing a shot. Previously, Bill Clinton was subject to very effective character assassination. Unless you believe the theory that Monica Lewinsky was a Mossad agent, it was self-inflicted on Clinton’s part, but you get my point about assassination by other means? JM: Garry Wills, in his 2010 book Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State, argues that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the postwar imperial presidency by giving one man the power to wage war unilaterally and wipe out nations. The War Powers Resolution is a relatively weak attempt by Congress to rein in that presidential power. President Kennedy was trying to stop the war in Vietnam that he had helped launch; there is little doubt that he would have done all he could to resist pressures to widen the war and certainly would not have widened it to the extent Johnson did. But when asked early in his presidency what most surprised him about the job, Kennedy replied that it was how little power he actually had. Obama made a similar comment early in his presidency. The President in some ways does have great power, but he is subject to the tremendous influence and pressures of what Eisenhower in his farewell address warned about, the “military-industrial complex.” There are other ways to remove presidents, such as cooking up or revealing scandals, but Kennedy was a serious threat to the war machine that badly needed and wanted a large-scale war in Vietnam. NC: Unlike Jack Kennedy, Martin Luther King held no office. By 1968, the most important civil rights legislation was already in effect. To militant blacks, King was politically irrelevant. Even radical whites found him too tame. Was his assassination vindictive rather than practical? Was it connected to either of the Kennedy assassinations? JM: Dr. King actually was considered a major threat to the establishment at the time of his death. He had come out against the Vietnam War a year before his death, despite the misgivings of some of his associates, and was determined to link the war to racial oppression. He was also turning his focus more and more to economic issues with his Poor People’s Campaign, challenging the basic injustice in the distribution of wealth that still plagues us today. So he was someone who was feared and targeted for those reasons. The King family lawyer William F. Pepper’s 2003/08 book An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King is authoritative in laying out the facts that can be ascertained about the actual plot that killed Dr. King. According to Pepper, the Memphis police department was involved in the plot, with at least one of their men as part of the hit team, and U.S. military intelligence and Carlos Marcello’s mob operation also participated. James Earl Ray was only a patsy, like Oswald. The similarities between the King assassination and those against the Kennedys are telling about the forces arrayed against all three men in that era of violent assaults on those trying to bring about social change and a more rational foreign policy. Professor McBride has done four Black Op Radio interviews and has written and narrated two shows for their YouTube series Fifty Reasons for Fifty Years. Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit is published by Hightower Press, Berkeley, and is available exclusively from Amazon.com. ####

my Amazon.com review of RECLAIMING PARKLAND A splendid scholarly work and a great read October 11, 2013By Joseph McBride The best book on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (and there are many fine ones) remains Sylvia Meagher's 1967 ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT: THE WARREN COMMISSION, THE AUTHORITIES, AND THE REPORT. Meagher was a private citizen who took it upon herself first to compile a proper index to the Warren Report and then to dissect its findings piece by piece in as thorough and revealing an autopsy as has ever been done (and in stark contrast to the dishonest U.S. Navy autopsy performed on President Kennedy). The logic and lucidity of Meagher's counter-argument is devastating and breathtaking in its brilliance. So when I compare James DiEugenio's new book, RECLAIMING PARKLAND: TOM HANKS, VINCENT BUGLIOSI, AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION IN THE NEW HOLLYWOOD, to Meagher's masterpiece, that is the highest compliment I can pay to a book on the assassination. The great public service DiEugenio provides us today is to do a relentless and deeply knowledgeable autopsy on another one of several attempts to replicate and rescuscitate the discredited Warren Report. This is the thoroughly specious, monstrously long, arrogant, and mendacious work by former prosecutor Bugliosi entitled RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY. That ridiculous yet pernicious book, first published in 2007 and later whittled down to more readable dimensions, ostensibly served as the basis for the lamentable 2013 movie PARKLAND, a dishonest and shoddy attempt to rewrite Oliver Stone's impressive JFK, which was attacked for the wrong reasons. Critics of Stone claim he falsified evidence to exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald, when he was presenting and dramatizing actual evidence to replace the falsified "so-called evidence" (as Oswald himself called it) used by the Warren Report. Bugliosi, like Gerald Posner and other overrated fabricators, has tried again to hoodwink the public into believing the phony conclusions of the original Report. These disinformation specialists have not succeeded, since as many as eighty percent of the public are sharp enough to disbelieve the official version. What DiEugenio does so well is to patiently read through Bugliosi's grotesque pile of lies and tear it apart piece by piece, showing the contrary and actual evidence that discredits his myriad errors and omissions. His prose, like Meagher's, is lucid, sober, and yet devastatingly mocking in a subtle way. RECLAIMING PARKLAND is a great read and will be even for someone who hasn't tried to climb through Bugliosi's jungle of prose and notes. DiEugenio is one of the most scholarly writers on the assassination. He has digested the wealth of material that has been revealed in the last two decades since the creation of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. And he has made himself familiar with all the other evidence brought forth by independent researchers in books, magazines, journals, and forums (including his own fine magazine, Probe). He writes entertainingly and incisively and is an excellent teacher about the assassination. Any reader will learn a great deal of surprising information from RECLAIMING PARKLAND, on a wide range of important topics concerning the case. This is a book for both newcomers to the case and for seasoned researchers; succeeding in that double mode of address alone is quite a feat. And DiEugenio does a devastating job skewering Tom Hanks and his recent dud of a movie about the assassination, which spends half of its time misrepresenting key facts and the other half leaving out evidence that would discredit itself and show that Oswald was, in fact, innocent. The public is following Sam Goldwyn's dictum: "If people don't want to go see a picture, nobody can stop them." Or as Sam also said, "Go see it and see for yourself why you shouldn't see it." DiEugenio provides disturbing analysis of why filmmakers such as Hanks distort our history and how the CIA and other elements of the U.S. government have managed to get Hollywood to cooperate so thoroughly in that deception. A footnote: For those interested in more of what DiEugenio has to say, go to the Feral House website for parts of RECLAIMING HISTORY that his publisher suppressed, with further background on Bugliosi and Hanks and a section on the legend created about Oswald's non-visit to Mexico. Seehttp://feralhouse.com/killing-jfk-th...iversary-game/

I am glad Bill and Chris are doing more research on Evelyn King. It would be good to hear more from her if she would want to talk, although I certainly understand her reasons for privacy.

Gene, Thanks for your good words. Yes, the study of police activities surrounding both the JFK and RFK murders is telling. While there are some indications of CIA connections in Dallas (relationships between major American police departments and intelligence agencies were common), the most prevalent pattern of this kind that one sees in Dallas is the extensive interaction between the DPD and Army Intelligence. Peter Dale Scott did much of the excavation of that relationship. I have followed and pursued these leads further in my book.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/26/5681800/videotape-of-president-ford-testifying.html Previously unseen video of Warren Commission member Gerald Ford testifying about the attempt by Lynette Fromme to assassinate him in Sacramento, California.

Casey Burchby covers INTO THE NIGHTMARE for the SF Weekly (San Francisco): http://www.sfweekly.com/2013-08-28/culture/joseph-mcbride-into-the-nightmare-jd-tippitt/

The Kindle edition of INTO THE NIGHTMARE is on sale from Amazon.com. Some people may prefer a Kindle to the large trade paperback, but others like to hold the book in their hands. So we've provided both options. I am pleased that both editions are doing well.

Thanks for the good words, Vince. I admire your work a lot. William, I haven't found any connection between Tippit and Matthews. And Robert, as you read further you will see that I revised my view of LBJ over the years.

intothenightmare.com My website for my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE: MY SEARCH FOR THE KILLERS OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AND OFFICER J. D. TIPPIT has now been expanded and updated with much new coverage over the last few weeks, including a video I did on Officer Tippit for Len Osanic's 50 REASONS FOR 50 YEARS series, numerous radio interviews, print interviews and reviews, and news about my appearances in conjunction with the book. It's hard to keep up with all this highly gratifying response, and I've also heard from many readers who identify with my journey as a young person in the 1960s gradually learning, over time, how our country really works, as I've investigated these events for decades.

Gene, I am glad you are digging into this area as well. We all need to keep our research going indefinitely. More and more will be learned that way, despite the passage of time. The scholarship on the assassination and related issues must never end.

Gene, I am glad you are interested in the neglected Tippit case. I write a great deal in INTO THE NIGHTMARE about all the questions you raise.

My episode on the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit is now running on 50 REASONS FOR 50 YEARS, the YouTube series hosted by Len Osanic, with video by Jeff Carter: I also will be on Len's Black Op Radio show (blackopradio.com) tonight, August 15, for the last of my four-part series of interviews on my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE: MY SEARCH FOR THE KILLERS OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AND OFFICER J. D. TIPPIT.