Jon G. Tidd

Sandy, I don't believe Marina's husband was working for any intelligence agency. Nonetheless, the fact Marina's husband got a job at the Texas School Book Depositary is extremely suspicious. It's too convenient. It supports the idea he acted spontaneously in shooting JFK. I work backward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. What led up to that? Quite some planning, I believe. Then I work forward. JFK was killed on Elm Street. Why hasn't the truth of his killing been told? The elegant solution is that Oswald did it, acting alone. I believe, and I could be wrong, the elegant solution is seductive. But it asks for suspension of belief.

Paul, The NOLA photos in which I'm interested are the photos of June. As someone else has written, June knew who was taking her photograph, given her pose and attitude.

Sandy, Thanks.

Paul, Here's the point of my question: When was JFK first struck? From where? By what? I'll leave it at that. The debate here is based mostly on opinions, not facts. Let's have verifiable facts.

Facts are paramount. To all here: What are the verifiable facts?

Peter Dale Scott made a big deal of drug-running in "Deep Politics", a terrific book IMO. Did drug-running have something to do with JFK's murder? I don't know. I do know first-hand that drugs poured into South Viet Nam. The drugs came from the "Golden Triangle", or whatever. A lot of American G.I.s got hooked on pure heroin. A lot of money was made in South Viet Nam and the U.S. from those drugs. Drugs played a big role, a huge role, in America's effort in Viet Nam. There have been books written that assert the Bushes got into the drug game. There even has been at least one book asserting JFK dabbled with LSD. Drugs were an important commercial item throughout the 1960s. I believe it's possible, just possible, JFK was killed so that the drug trade could flourish in S.E. Asia. Possible.

Paul, Welcome back.

Lance, A PMO today (2016) states on its face that it's negotiable in the U.S. That was not true in the early 1960s. You'll note I did not write that PMOs were subject to the UCC, so the cases you cite are inapposite. If you wish to study PMOs, how they were processed in the early 1960s, the one-endorsement rule, and the function of bank stamps, I recommend you check out the 1967 Cornell Law Review Article, "Legal Aspects of Postal Money Orders," by John D. O'Malley.

Ron, Who do you think ordered the hit on JFK?

DVP, You make good points about the framing of Oswald and the cover-up. How can one believe the U.S. Government and the Texas government went to such lengths to pin the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit on Oswald? You plead for simplicity. You make good points. You are a conservative who believes in government. I find that odd.

Roy, Thanks. I regret this diary thread has died.

Lance, By about 1962, there was a long-established procedure for the processing of bank items. This procedure was reflected in Articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Article 3 dealt with "commercial paper", which were and are negotiable instruments. Article 4 dealt with bank deposits. The same articles exist today, hardly unchanged from 1962. Postal money orders (PMOs) were considered by the courts in the early 1960s not to be negotiable instruments. Today they are considered negotiable instruments. The change is one of form, not substance. In the early 1960s, PMOs were not negotiated as they were transferred from one bank to another; but the fact they weren't negotiated was based on the one-endorser rule. In fact, in substance, PMOs were handled by all banks as negotiable instruments because of the fact a bank stamp wasn't considered an endorsement, even though it functioned like one. The bank stamp was critical; it's what allowed a transferor bank to be paid by a transferee bank. The A. Hidell PMO was not stamped by First National Bank of Chicago (First). First therefore did not get paid by the Chicago Fed for the A. Hidell PMO...unless you or someone else produces bank statements to the contrary. Lance, I respect that you are a member of the Arizona Bar. I extend every professional courtesy to you. But I think you stray from your training and experience when you post on this blog.

Ron, From what I know and also from what I observed in Viet Nam, the CIA's top officers were oriented toward the USSR and Cuba, while for the CIA Viet Nam was pretty much a young person's game. The CIA had a large, broad operation in Viet Nam. The mafia bigwigs, from what I've read, were interested in Cuba, not Viet Nam. The drug profits from Viet Nam went mainly to the CIA, not to the mafia. The Army was very much oriented toward Viet Nam. Certainly the Air Force, Navy, and Marines played large roles in Viet Nam. Insiders like Bundy and Harriman were on top of both Cuba and Viet Nam, but by the fall of 1963, their focus had shifted toward Viet Nam. The anti-Castro Cubans pretty clearly had no interest in Viet Nam. Middle Eastern countries affected by JFK's policies and death had no stake in either Cuba or Viet Nam. That's how I see the players oriented in the fall of 1963. I don't see much overlap between the interest groups.

Martin, I'll begin with a question. If you or anyone else here wants more, please just ask. I don't want to bore anyone. The question is, what is "intelligence"? Not human IQ. But military intelligence. That is U.S. Army intelligence. Naval and Air Force intelligence are similar. Not to be ignored. Intelligence is output not input. Intelligence is a product for consumers. Still with me, Martin? Good. Question for you, Martin: Based strictly on what I've written, what is "intelligence"?

We'd know for sure if we knew for sure why JFK was killed. The answer's clearly no if the plotters wanted Castro overthrown and Cuba "liberated". The answer's clearly yes if the plotters wanted a vastly expanded American commitment in South Viet Nam. The answer is also clearly yes if the plotters, for whatever reason(s), simply wanted JFK dead. I subscribe to this view, but only this view. The three views presented here divide the anti-Warren Commission group into three bitterly divided camps. Pretty clearly, the plotters didn't care what LBJ was going to do as president. No one in power, except some senators, opposed LBJ's domestic or foreign policy. LBJ might have felt the sting of anti-war protests; but those were not barbs launched by the power elite. The mafia and anti-Castro exiles, together with their CIA bedmates, were invisible by the fall of 1965. In early November 1965, the First Air Cav tangled with NVA regulars in the Ia Drang Valley. That battle made Cuba distant and forgotten history for TV-tuned Americans. So who won from the killing of JFK? IMO, it wasn't the army, and it certainly wasn't the CIA. Sure, many Americans rejoiced at JFK's death. I observed some of them. IMO, those who won from JFK's killing continue to profit from his death today.

Roy, Did you ever serve in the U.S. military? If so, in which branch, when, and where? Thanks.

Thanks, Lance. What's your practice area?

DVP, Let's talk gut level. On Sunday, November 24, I went into a University of Illinois campus pharmacy to cash a $20 check. On the pharmacy TV i saw Ruby shoot Oswald. Up to that point, my gut was that Oswald killed JFK. On that day, my mind changed. That was 1963. The assassination weekend. Was your mind ever changed?

When Nagell entered the bank in El Paso, he was not an active duty army officer. He had left the army in the wake of a head injury. There is no proof he was in the employ of the CIA. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. Nagell had been injured in the head. He knew about military intelligence operations. So, based on these facts, how does anyone here come to the conclusion Nagell was reliable and therefore had access to secret information? I want to know. I want to know because if I'm some intelligence service's case officer in early 1963, I want to know if I should recruit him for some purpose. Everyone here knows all about intelligence operations, I know. So please respond, based on your training and experience as a military intelligence officer in a war zone.

Jim, I agree entirely that the 50th anniversary misdeeds in Dallas had nothing to do with the FBI or DOJ as a whole. The power elite in Dallas were and are perfectly capable of those misdeeds. I interpreted your 50th anniversary comment as meaning the national information stage, over which the MSM presides. As for Apple and Comey, I find it interesting that Apple's pleading invokes the First Amendment. The pleading claims the FBI is trying to compel "speech". I have no proof whatsoever the FBI has tried to compel or inhibit the speech of the MSM. Based on the magistrate's order against Apple and Comey's taking to the court of public opinion, however, I believe the FBI (i.e., the DOJ) feels confident based on institutional experience that it can trample constitutional rights, including especially First and Fourth Amendment rights.

Jim, I'm betting the 2017 releases, if any, will provide information pointing toward a cover-up but nothing conclusive either as to the assassination or as to the framing of Oswald.

Not only did First National Bank of Chicago screw up. So did the FRB of Chicago. Once again, DVP: Merely show through a bank statement that First credited Klein's for a $21.45 deposit in mid-March 1963 (i.e., the A. Hidell PMO), and I'll shut up permanently. Forever. A bank statement.

The media did what it did on the fiftieth because the media barons know that to challenge the Warren Commission conclusions is to challenge the Department of Justice. It was the DOJ that was at the center of the cover-up and still is. I'm rooting for Apple. Comey is a worthless human being, IMO; and I suspect the American public (minus BillGates) has the same basic view.

Sandy, I wouldn't recognize Nagell if I tripped over him. My comment is based on my experience and training as a U.S. Army counter-intelligence officer who served a year in Viet Nam. I know military intelligence first-hand. Nagell never would have been recruited by army M.I. He was too unreliable. I know a tiny bit, just a tiny bit, about the CIA in Viet Nam. Just a tiny bit. Let's just say Nagell had nothing to offer. Nothing.

Scott @post #102. It puzzles me that Harry Holmes took the lead in finding the PMO. I can only figure that Harry was trying to please J.E. Hoover.