John Simkin

Maybe he was just a French cook? I was amazed to hear that Spurs stayed at a London hotel for a local derby. This picture of the man responsible for Spurs' meal has just been released.

Maybe he was just a French cook? I was amazed to hear that Spurs stayed at a London hotel for a local derby. This picture of the man responsible for Spurs' meal has just been released.

The problem with the 07:15 flight is that I would have to get a taxi to Gatwick. It will be a greater problem for those who have to travel a longer distance that I do to the airport.

Galbraith published The Culture of Contentment in 1992. It is his most important book and identified something that has come to do terrible harm to the democratic system. Galbraith pointed out that around 50% of Americans take little interest in politics. As they rarely vote, they are ignored by politicians. The two major political parties in the United States therefore concentrate on those who do vote (the "better off classes"). This group tend to demand that taxes are kept low and that they are used on programmes that help the "contented classes" themselves. As a result, only a small percentage of government revenues are spent on helping the underclass or repairing America's crumbling infrastructure.

I would prefer to go on the following: Wednesday: Depart 13.45 arrive 16.30 BA7953 Sunday: Depart 17:05 arrive 17.50 BA7955 Is that ok with British members? It might be a good idea for the associates to go on the same Sunday flight (it will help Richard with his organization of the conference). Maybe the associates could also arrive together on the Thursday.

Craig Roberts has agreed to answer questions about his book, Kill Zone A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza.

In fact, if you look at the background of Ben Bradlee and Bob Woodward, it could be argued that all the Washington Post reports on Watergate was an example of a "limited hangout". Of course Felt was one of Woodward's informants. However, he was never one of the important ones. The information that really got Nixon came from Richard Ober and Alexander Butterfield.

John, Does Ayers say anything specific about what info Anderson didnt use?? The relevant passage in the letter is: "I left the military and the CIA after the death of JFK because l felt in my guts that some of those I was serving with were involved in the murder of the President. What I have learned in the years since has reinforced that instinctive perception. I cannot understand why you did not continue with your discovery efforts." The suggestion is that it was the information on CIA operatives at JMWAVE that Anderson did not follow-up. That makes sense, Anderson never exposed any information that the CIA did not want to come out. Anderson was the expert on what Victor Marchetti called the "limited hangout". "A "limited hangout" is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."

1. I do not believe James Files fired from the grassy knoll.

This article by Scott Pearson is well worth reading: http://www.assassinationweb.com/pearson1.htm In fact, you will find a series of articleson Posner here: http://www.assassinationweb.com/issue1.htm

Bradley Ayers, letter to Jack Anderson (1st March, 1995) It will be twenty-four years next month since I sat in your living room , identified a photograph of John Rosselli and answered the rest of your test questions about his personality, dress, drink and activities. You needed someone to verify Rosselli's contention that, despite his admitted mobster-Mafia connections, he had served honorably with the CIA in the secret war against Cuba following the Bay of Pigs and, in fact, was a key player in the Castro assassination plots. I responded to your detailed questioning to your satisfaction because I had been with JMWAVE, the CIA's Miami station in 1963 and 1964. In so doing, as a former Army officer and CIA operative, I was torn by conflicting emotions. At that time no one who had been on the inside with the Agency had ever gone public. Nevertheless, my Catholic sense of integrity prevailed. I came to Washington and became your source because I trusted you and felt you were on your way to making revelations far more significant than the CIA-Mafia connection and the plans to kill Castro. Had there been conspiracies in the murders of the Kennedy's, I believed you would uncover the truth and expose the perpetrators. I left the military and the CIA after the death of JFK because l felt in my guts that some of those I was serving with were involved in the murder of the President. What I have learned in the years since has reinforced that instinctive perception. I cannot understand why you did not continue with your discovery efforts. It was very difficult for me to leave the life to which I had devoted a dozen years - the only life l really knew from age 18. And, although I have made a pretty lousy civilian, I do not regret making the moral decision I did. I still feel a sense of purpose and have a keen sense of the historical significance of my experience. Civilian life has and continues to be difficult, somewhat because of what I shared with you so many years ago. Despite the obstacles and distractions, f have persevered in my effort to make known that information from my service with the CIA that I believed was rplevant to the Kennedy assassination and that I felt the American people had a right to know. Naively, I wrote a book, THE WAR THAT NEVER WAS, which was published in 1976, expecting that my manuscript would make a contribution to the growing body of evidence pointing to a conspiracy in the President's death. I have recently learned that the managing editor at the publishing house was on the CIA payroll, intercepting and censoring books that might be damaging to the Agency. I will be sixty years old in a few days. Physically, I am much the same as I was in 1971; 1501bs, trim and hard as nails, ready to run six miles at the drop of a hat, positive in attitude and direction. Still a professional soldier in mind, spirit and body, I await with enthusiasm my next "mission," whatever my God has in mind for me. One of the tasks I am determined to complete is to place the information I possess into the hands of those who may use it in the pursuit of truth and justice. I still have faith in you. In the spirit of your mentor, you must press on. For that reason and no other, I am compelled to place the accompanying documents in your hands - for whatever purpose they may serve. Regardless of what you may think or others may say, I was motivated by the same honorable purpose when I became your source twenty-four years ago.

Craig Roberts was a U.S. Marine sniper. In 1994 he wrote a book, Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza. Here are two passages which I believe reading in some detail. I would be especially interested in hearing the views of other members of the Forum on this subject. (1) Unlike Oswald, who failed to qualify on the rifle range in Boot Camp, and who barely qualified "Marksman"-the lowest of three grades-on a later try, I was a trained and combat-experienced Marine sniper. I had spent a year in Vietnam, during which time I had numerous occasions to line up living, breathing human beings in the crosshairs of my precision Unertl scope and squeeze the trigger of my bolt-action Model 70 Winchester and send a .30 caliber match-grade round zipping down range. Here I was, a professional police officer and writer, looking down at the most famous ambush site in history through the eyes of a sniper. A strange feeling came over me. A feeling of calm, dampening my anger. The trained investigator inside me surfaced and took over my emotions. I began to scrutinize what my senses were absorbing. First, I analyzed the scene as a sniper. In the time allotted, and in the distance along the street in which the rounds had impacted the target from first report to final shot, it would take a minimum of two people shooting. There was little hope that I alone, even if armed with the precision equipment I had used in Vietnam, would be able duplicate the feat described by the Warren Commission. So if I couldn't, I reasoned, Oswald couldn't. Unless he had help. I looked at the engagement angle. It was entirely wrong. The wall of the building in which the windows overlooked Dealey Plaza ran east and west. By looking directly down at the best engagement angle-which was straight out the window facing south-I could see Houston Street. Houston was perpendicular to the wall and ran directly toward my window. This is the street on which the motorcade had approached and would have been my second choice as a zone of engagement. My first choice was directly below the window, at a drastic bend in the street that had to be negotiated by Kennedy's limousine. It would have to slow appreciably, almost to a stop, and when it did, the target would be presented moving at its slowest pace. The last zone of engagement I would pick would be as the limo drove away toward the west-and the Grassy Knoll. Here, from what I could see, three problems arose that would influence my shots. First, the target was moving away at a drastic angle to the right from the window, meaning that I would have to position my body to compete with the wall and a set of vertical water pipes on the left frame of the window to get a shot. This would be extremely difficult for a righthanded shooter. Second, I would have be ready to fire exactly when the target emerged past some tree branches that obscured the kill zone. Finally, I would have to deal with two factors at the same time: the curve of the street, and the high-to-low angle formula-a law of physics Oswald would not have known. Even if I waited for the target to pass the primary and secondary engagement zones, and for some reason decided to engage instead in the worst possible area, I still had to consider the fact that Oswald made his farthest, and most difficult shot, last. I estimated the range for this shot at between 80 and 90 yards. It was this final shot that, according to the Warren Commission, struck Kennedy's head. As an experienced sniper, something else bothered me. Any sniper knows that the two most important things to be considered in selecting a position are the fields of fire, and a route of escape. You have to have both. It is of little value to take a shot, then not be able to successfully get away to fight another day. Even if the window was a spot that I would select for a hide, I had doubts about my ability to escape afterwards. According to what little I had read, the elevator was stuck on a floor below at the time in question, and only the stairway could have been used as a means of withdrawal. And there were dozens of people-potential witnesses-below who would be able to identify anyone rushing away from the scene. Not good. But Oswald was not a trained or experienced military sniper. He was supposed to be little more than some odd-ball with a grudge. And for whatever reason, had decided to buy a rifle and shoot the President of the United States. Or so the Warren Commission would have us believe. (2) Knoll and the Picket Fence, which I had purposely saved for last. I walked up the slope and around the fence, arriving in a parking lot that was bordered on the northwest by train tracks. I walked the length of the fence, stopping at a spot on the eastern end. I looked over the fence at Elm Street and froze. This is exactly where I would position myself if I wanted the most accurate shot possible considering the terrain I had explored. It had some drawbacks-it was close to witnesses, and prone to pre-incident discovery-but the advantages far outweighed the disadvantages for a determined assassin. The target vehicle would be approaching instead of moving away, thereby continually decreasing the range; the shot would be almost flat trajectory, making the down-angle formula a mute point; the deflection (right/left angle) would change little until the car passed a freeway sign on the north curbline; and finally, it offered numerous escape route possibilities. Behind me, to the north and west, was a parking lot full of cars, a train yard full of boxcars, and several physical terrain features to use as cover during withdrawal. It was by far the best spot. Looking almost due east, across the grassy open park-like Plaza, I could see two multi-story office-type buildings approximately the same height as the Depository. The roof tops of either building would be excellent firing positions for a trained rifleman with the proper equipment, and would be the places I would select if I wanted the best possible chance of not being detected in advance. Without going to the roofs of each, I could not determine the accessibility of escape routes. But for firing platforms, they were ideal. Then, considering the possibility of multiple-snipers (which meant a conspiracy), I had to ask myself how I would position the shooters to cover the kill zone in front of the Grassy Knoll? My military training once again took over. I would use an area within the Plaza that would afford the best kill zone for either a crossfire or triangulated fire. Simply put, I would position my teams in such a way that their trajectory of fire converged on the most advantageous point to assure a kill. In the military, single snipers are seldom used. Normally, the smallest sniper team consists of two men, a sniper and his spotter/security man. Even in police SWAT teams, a marksman has an observer who is equipped with a spotting scope or binoculars to help pick and identify targets and handle the radio communications. In this case, I would position at least one team behind the Picket Fence (more if I wanted to secure the rear against intruders), another on one or both of the two office buildings (which I later found to be the Dallas County Records Building and the County Criminal Courts Building), and possibly a team on a building across the street north of the Records Building known at the time as the Dal-Tex building. I would have never put anyone in the School Book Depository with so many locations that were much more advantageous unless I needed diversion. If I did, it would be a good place for red herrings to be observed by witnesses.

Here is one document that researchers might be interested in seeing. Bradley Ayers, letter to Jack Anderson (1st March, 1995) It will be twenty-four years next month since I sat in your living room , identified a photograph of John Rosselli and answered the rest of your test questions about his personality, dress, drink and activities. You needed someone to verify Rosselli's contention that, despite his admitted mobster-Mafia connections, he had served honorably with the CIA in the secret war against Cuba following the Bay of Pigs and, in fact, was a key player in the Castro assassination plots. I responded to your detailed questioning to your satisfaction because I had been with JMWAVE, the CIA's Miami station in 1963 and 1964. In so doing, as a former Army officer and CIA operative, I was torn by conflicting emotions. At that time no one who had been on the inside with the Agency had ever gone public. Nevertheless, my Catholic sense of integrity prevailed. I came to Washington and became your source because I trusted you and felt you were on your way to making revelations far more significant than the CIA-Mafia connection and the plans to kill Castro. Had there been conspiracies in the murders of the Kennedy's, I believed you would uncover the truth and expose the perpetrators. I left the military and the CIA after the death of JFK because l felt in my guts that some of those I was serving with were involved in the murder of the President. What I have learned in the years since has reinforced that instinctive perception. I cannot understand why you did not continue with your discovery efforts. It was very difficult for me to leave the life to which I had devoted a dozen years - the only life l really knew from age 18. And, although I have made a pretty lousy civilian, I do not regret making the moral decision I did. I still feel a sense of purpose and have a keen sense of the historical significance of my experience. Civilian life has and continues to be difficult, somewhat because of what I shared with you so many years ago. Despite the obstacles and distractions, f have persevered in my effort to make known that information from my service with the CIA that I believed was rplevant to the Kennedy assassination and that I felt the American people had a right to know. Naively, I wrote a book, THE WAR THAT NEVER WAS, which was published in 1976, expecting that my manuscript would make a contribution to the growing body of evidence pointing to a conspiracy in the President's death. I have recently learned that the managing editor at the publishing house was on the CIA payroll, intercepting and censoring books that might be damaging to the Agency. I will be sixty years old in a few days. Physically, I am much the same as I was in 1971; 1501bs, trim and hard as nails, ready to run six miles at the drop of a hat, positive in attitude and direction. Still a professional soldier in mind, spirit and body, I await with enthusiasm my next "mission," whatever my God has in mind for me. One of the tasks I am determined to complete is to place the information I possess into the hands of those who may use it in the pursuit of truth and justice. I still have faith in you. In the spirit of your mentor, you must press on. For that reason and no other, I am compelled to place the accompanying documents in your hands - for whatever purpose they may serve. Regardless of what you may think or others may say, I was motivated by the same honorable purpose when I became your source twenty-four years ago.

Memorandum from Christopher Barger to Tim Wray (undated): The purpose of this memo is to give you background on who Brad Ayers is and the story he tells. His story is accepted to differing degrees, depending on who one talks to, but the basics of his story check out, according to our research. Ayers was an infantry officer in the U.S. Army during the early 1960's, specializing in paramilitary training. In early 1963, (records checks indicate it was in early April) Ayers was "loaned" by the Army to the CIA, which assigned him to the JMWAVE station. Ayers' job was to train Cuban exiles and prepare them for an invasion of Cuba. This much of his story is borne out by checks of his military and CIA files. From here, the veracity of Ayers' claims are less easy to discern. He claims to have seen many figures at JMWAVE who were not there, according to the official record; these include Johnny Roselli and William Harvey (former Task Force W /SAS chief for CIA, who was removed from that position by Kennedy after Harvey overstepped his authority after the Missile Crisis). Ayers also claims to have gone on several raiding missions with his proteges, and to have come under fire from Castro's forces in the summer of 1963. This is significant because according to the official record, all government sanctioned action against Castro had ceased by that point. Ayers says that many of his colleagues at the JMWAVE station built up a strong resentment of President Kennedy, and says that he believes several of them to have played roles in the assassination. Foremost among these, he says, was David Morales, the operations officer for CIA in Miami. The HSCA interviewed Ayers, and performed searches for his records. In doing so, they discovered five sealed envelopes in his file, which HSCA staff was not allowed access to. The envelopes have ben the source of some speculation among those in the research community who believe Ayers' story. On May 12, I interviewed Ayers at his home outside of St. Paul, Minnesota. At that point, the questions were based on information obtained from open sources only, as few of the staff had their clearances yet.

For those people who have the 1976 edition of Bradley Ayers' The War That Never Was, you might be interested in this list of pseudonyms: Ted Morley (Ted Shackley) Dave (David Morales) Keith Rarndall (Gordon Campbell) Turk McPhail (Rip Robertson) Perry (Dewey Simpson) Julio (Felix Rodriguez) Harold (William Harvey) Connors (James O'Connell) Bob (Bob Wall)

On 12th December, 1986, Daniel Sheehan submitted to the court an affidavit detailing the Irangate scandal. He also claimed that Thomas G. Clines and Ted Shackley were running a private assassination program that had evolved from projects they ran while working for the CIA. Others named as being part of this assassination team included Rafael Quintero, Richard Secord, Felix Rodriguez and Albert Hakim. It later emerged that Gene Wheaton and Carl E. Jenkins were the two main sources for this affidavit. Six days after the publication of Sheehan's affidavit, William Casey underwent an operation for a "brain tumor". As a result of the operation, Casey lost the power of speech and died, literally without ever talking. On 9th February, Robert McFarlane, another person involved in the Iran-Contra Scandal, took an overdose of drugs. In November, 1986, Ronald Reagan set-up a three man commission (President's Special Review Board). The three men were John Tower, Brent Scowcroft and Edmund Muskie. Richard L. Armitage was interviewed by the committee. He admitted that he had arranged a series of meetings between Menachem Meron, the director general of Israel's Ministry of Defence, with Oliver North and Richard Secord. However, he denied that he discussed the replenishment of Israeli TOW missiles with Meron. Armitage also claimed that he first learned that Israel had shipped missiles to Iran in 1985 when he heard William Casey testify on 21st November, 1986 that the United States had replenished Israel's TOW missile stocks. According to Lawrence E. Walsh, who carried out the official investigation into the scandal (Iran-Contra: The Final Report), claims that Armitage did not tell the truth to the President's Special Review Board. "Significant evidence from a variety of sources shows that Armitage's knowledge predated Casey's testimony. For instance, a North notebook entry on November 18, 1986, documents a discussion with Armitage about Israel's 1985 arms shipments to Iran - three days before Armitage supposedly learned for the first time that such shipments has occurred." Walsh also adds that "classified evidence obtained from the Government of Israel... and evidence from North and Secord show that during the period Meron met with Armitage, Meron was discussing arms shipments to Iran and Israel's need for replenishment. Secord and North, on separate occasions, directed Meron to discuss these issues with Armitage." The report implicated Oliver North, John Poindexter, Casper Weinberger and several others but did not mention the role played by Bush. It also claimed that Ronald Reagan had no knowledge of what had been going on. The House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran was also established by Congress. The most important figure on the committee was the senior Republican member, Richard Cheney. As a result George Bush was totally exonerated when the report was published on 18th November, 1987. The report did state that Reagan's administration exhibited "secrecy, deception and disdain for the law." Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on 16th March, 1988. North, indicted on twelve counts, was found guilty by a jury of three minor counts. The convictions were vacated on appeal on the grounds that North's Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated by the indirect use of his testimony to Congress which had been given under a grant of immunity. Poindexter was also convicted of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. His convictions were also overturned on appeal. When George Bush became president he set about rewarding those who had helped him in the cover-up of the Iran-Contra Scandal. Bush appointed Richard L. Armitage as a negotiator and mediator in the Middle East. Donald Gregg was appointed as his ambassador to South Korea. Brent Scowcroft became his chief national security adviser and John Tower became Secretary of Defence. When the Senate refused to confirm Tower, Bush gave the job to Richard Cheney. Later, Casper Weinberger, Robert McFarlane, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams and Alan D. Fiers, Jr., who had all been charged with offences related to the Iran-Contra scandal, were pardoned by Bush.

JFK Assassination Resources Assassination of JFK E-Books http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4100 Assassination of JFK Websites http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6712 Assassination of JFK Newspaper Archive http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6766

KennedyAssassinationArchive.com, a free archive sponsored by NewspaperARCHIVE.com, contains historic newspapers about the assassination of America's 35th president. Find newspaper articles from 1963 that detail the assassination of President Kennedy, the capture of Lee Harvey Oswald and Oswald's murder just 48 hours later. http://www.kennedyassassinationarchive.com/

Scowcroft played an important role in the Iran-Contra cover-up. In November, 1986, Ronald Reagan set-up a three man commission (President's Special Review Board) to investigate Iran-Contra. The three men were John Tower, Brent Scowcroft and Edmund Muskie. The report implicated Oliver North, John Poindexter, Casper Weinberger and several others but did not mention the role played by George H. W. Bush. It also claimed that Ronald Reagan had no knowledge of what had been going on. The House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran was also established by Congress. The most important figure on the committee was the senior Republican member, Richard Cheney. As a result George H. W. Bush was totally exonerated when the report was published on 18th November, 1987. The report did state that Reagan's administration exhibited "secrecy, deception and disdain for the law." When George H. W. Bush became president he set about rewarding those who had helped him in the cover-up of the Iran-Contra Scandal. Bush appointed Richard Armitage as a negotiator and mediator in the Middle East. Donald Gregg was appointed as his ambassador to South Korea. Brent Scowcroft became his chief national security adviser and John Tower became Secretary of Defence. When the Senate refused to confirm Tower, Bush gave the job to Richard Cheney. Casper Weinberger, Robert McFarlane, Duane R. Clarridge, Clair E. George, Elliott Abrams and Alan D. Fiers, Jr. were charged and convicted but they were all pardoned by Bush.

Two years before the Iraq War in 2003, Tony Blair moved the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook, to the post of leader of the commons. Cook was known to be against US expansionism (he claimed he wanted to follow an ethical foreign policy). History has been repeated by Blair’s decision to move the foreign secretary Jack Straw to the post of the leader of the commons.

Two years before the Iraq War in 2003, Tony Blair moved the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook, to the post of leader of the commons. Cook was known to be against US expansionism (he claimed he wanted to follow an ethical foreign policy). History has been repeated by Blair’s decision to move the foreign secretary Jack Straw to the post of the leader of the commons.

Sven-Goran Eriksson has named Theo Walcott in his 23-man England squad for this summer's World Cup in Germany. Walcott, 17, is one of four strikers in Eriksson's squad, along with Wayne Rooney, Michael Owen and Peter Crouch. Two of the strikers Rooney and Owen are injured and Crouch rarely scores goals. Apparently, Arsene Wenger has recommended that Eriksson should take Walcott. Yet Wenger has been unwilling to pick him for Arsenal. When Eriksson was asked about the logic of picking two injured strikers and a player who has never played a game in the premiership, he replied it was not a logical decision but was based on “instinct”. In the past Eriksson has made it clear he is not keen on picking people who have not had experience of the Champions League. This is why he has been reluctant to play strikers who play for small clubs like West Ham and Charlton, even though they have scored lots of goals in the premiership (Harwood and Bent). Yet here he is picking someone who has never been considered good enough to play in the premiership.

In a Cuban television documentary broadcast on November 26, 1993, Escalante said that the JFK plot was far-reaching. He named the triggermen as three Chicago mobsters (Lenny Patrick, David Yaras, and Richard Cain), and two Cuban exiles (Eladio del Valle and Herminio Diaz Garcia), but said that many in the CIA and elsewhere knew what was going to happen. I assume Escalante got this story from his interview with Tony Cuesta. Any views on this? Does anyone know what any of these five people were doing on the day of the assassination?

Thank you for doing that. It makes no sense at all that Scott would lie about this incident when the police already had possession of his film. I see that Mel Ayton has disappeared from this Forum since he made this accusation. He clearly is not keen to enter into a discussion with you about these issues.

Angela V. John is Professor of History at the University of Wales. She has published extensively on women’s employment in nineteenth and earl twentieth century Britain and was one of the founders of the international journal, Gender & History. Books by Angela V. John include: By the Sweat of Their Brow (1984), Unequal Opportunities: Women's Employment in England, 1800-1918 (1986), Coal Mining Women: Victorian Lives and Campaigns (1987), Lady Charlotte; A Biography of the Nineteenth Century (1989), Our Mothers' Land : Chapters In Welsh Women's History, 1830-1939 (1991), Elizabeth Robins: Staging a Life, 1862-1952 (1995) and War, Journalism and the Shaping of the Twentieth Century: the Life and Times of Henry W. Nevinson (2006) (1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become a historian? (2) How do you decide about what to write about? Is this a political decision? (3) Have you any opinions on how gender issues should be taught in the history classroom? (4) Your two biographies have been about people (Elizabeth Robins and Henry W. Nevinson) who were involved in the struggle for universal suffrage? Is that a coincidence? (5) Unfortunately, very few history teachers are aware of the existence of Elizabeth Robins and Henry Nevinson. Yet both are extremely important in understanding the struggle for democracy. Have you any views on why they have been largely ignored by historians?