John Simkin

Namebase entry for Abraham Bolden: http://www.namebase.org/main1/Abraham-Bolden.html Duffy,J. Ricci,V. The Assassination of John F. Kennedy. 1992 (79-80) Fensterwald,B. Coincidence or Conspiracy? 1977 (560-2) Groden,R. Livingstone,H. High Treason. 1990 (14, 157-8) Hepburn,J. Farewell America. 1968 (300-1) Lobster Magazine (Britain) 1994-#27 (26) Marrs,J. Crossfire. 1990 (242-3) Scott,P.D. Deep Politics. 1993 (308) Summers,A. Conspiracy. 1981 (428) Thomas,K. Popular Alienation: A Steamshovel Press Reader. 1995 (276-7) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbolden.htm

John, At the time of Josefa's death, wasn't she married to James Moss? Moss I believe had a curious ability to know where to drill for oil. James She was but they did not marry until 1955. What can you tell me about Moss? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjohnsonJ.htm

Abraham Bolden was born into a poor family in East St. Louis, Illinois. After graduating from Lincoln University he spent four years as an Illinois State Trooper. His record was so outstanding that in 1959 President Dwight Eisenhower appointed him to the US Secret Service. Based in Chicago, he won "two commendations for cracking counterfeiting rings". In 1961 President John F. Kennedy appointed Bolden as part of the Secret Service White House detail. According to Jim Marrs (Crossfire), Bolden was personally selected by Kennedy "in an attempt to integrate the previously all-white Secret Service detail". Bolden spent only three months working for Kennedy. He complained about the "separate housing facilities for black agents on southern trips". At a meeting with James Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, Bolden criticized the "general laxity and the heavy drinking among the agents who were assigned to protect the President". As a result of these complaints, Bolden was sent back to the Chicago office and assigned to routine anti-counterfeiting duties. Bolden claimed that in October, 1963, the Chicago Secret Service office received a teletype from the Federal Bureau of Investigation warning that an attempt would be made to kill President Kennedy by a four-man Cuban hit squad when he visited the city on 2nd November. Armed with high-powered rifles, the men were from "a dissident Cuban group". According to investigative journalist Edwin Black, the Secret Service arrested two suspects, however, they were eventually released. Abraham Bolden later discovered that this information was being kept from the Warren Commission. When he complained about this he was warned "to keep his mouth shut". Bolden decided to travel to Washington where he telephoned Warren Commission Counsel Lee Rankin. Bolden was arrested and taken back to Chicago where he was charged with discussing a bribe with two known counterfeiters. He was eventually found guilty of accepting a bribe and spent six years in prison. When he tried to draw attention to his case, he was placed in solitary confinement. Sam DeStefano, one of the men who accused Bolden of this crime, was murdered in 1973. DeStefano was close to Sam Giancana, Charles Nicoletti and Richard Cain. It is believed that Cain murdered DeStefano. Soon afterwards, Cain himself was murdered. In his book, Ultimate Sacrifice, Lamar Waldron claims that according to a CIA memo, mobsters in Chicago were involved in framing Bolden on the bribery charges.

I have assumed that the US will eventually elect to power a president with some understanding of world events and he/she will bring the troops back home.

Interesting article by Maggie Brown about Teachers' TV: http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/co...1703305,00.html Maggie Brown Monday February 6, 2006 The Guardian There is a group of viewers whose idea of a good television programme is Demonstrating Physics and Demonstrating Chemistry. For these are the most popular programmes in the specialised world of Teachers' TV. Tomorrow marks the first anniversary for this experimental service, which is freely available on digital television and broadband and funded by the government. As it enters its second year of broadcasting, the first annual report raises some significant questions. Is Teachers' TV worth the £20m a year that the Department for Education and Skills pumps in? Are enough educationalists watching this niche channel for the investment, and if they are, does it make them change their habits and has it improved children's education? And if it is such a good idea, then why does it only target teachers? Could it be applied to other public groups feeling alienated, for example nurses? Businessman and philanthropist Sir Paul Judge, who is chairman of Teachers' TV's high-powered independent board, describes it as "unique development" which has got off to a "promising start". Richard Graham, head of communications at the DfES, who thought up the channel, says there are "quite a few things to celebrate. It's up and running, and a commendable achievement. But there's still a lot to do. It is early days." Scary experiments It is fair to say that Teachers' TV inverts much television wisdom, not least by eschewing Channel 4-style attention-seeking titles. The Demonstrating strands are real science programmes to show teachers how to do scary experiments in a classroom to keep children who are more used to Sky One's Brainiac hooked. In the popularity stakes, the science shows are followed closely by the channel's guru, John Bayley, a shrewd middle-aged expert teacher and consultant, who, in a regular slot called Ask Bayley, goes into classrooms, picks on good and bad practice in filmed lessons and then discusses them. In the past 12 months, the service, designed as a "window on the classroom", has filmed 2,500 teachers, 500 support staff, and 1,000 schools in England. There is a debate now, says Nigel Dacre, chief executive of Education Digital Management which runs the London-based channel, about whether Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should have also services which are tailored to their curricula. Attracting enough viewers is tricky, however. The annual report says: "Marketing is an area the board of governors gave a far lower rating ... The challenge is to convert awareness into more extensive viewing" - which is an issue that every digital channel faces. Teachers' TV was created for 842,000 head teachers, teachers, teaching assistants and governors, of which 573,000 have some sort of digital access. A modest 88,000 of this workforce watches at least five minutes each month, according to Ipsos MORI research. That represents 21% of the targeted audience. In fact far more non-professionals are watching Teachers' TV, already up to a quarter of a million each month, far out-numbering teaching professionals. There is a "hard core" of 32,000 committed viewers, but as Dacre says, this is only year one. The channel hopes to reach 25% this year. But another 55,000 programmes are downloaded or watched each month on broadband. (Around 750 current and past programmes are freely available). This aggregates to 612,000 programmes watched a month, a cost of £2.70 per view. The board sees this as good value compared with formal training: the figure will fall as more watch. Research on the programmes scored them for relevance and on a scale of 0-10 they averaged six. Four out of ten professionals said Teachers' TV had encouraged them to improve their careers . Dacre says the biggest change, since getting government go-ahead in July 2004, has been the growth of broadband. "It is shaping everything we do." Andrew Bethell, director of programmes, has organised the schedule around 15 minute programmes, clearly divided into three zones, primary, secondary and general. This timespan also works well on the web. The company owns all the rights and the 15 independent producers who make the programmes, who are all education specialists, receive a production fee averaging £30-40,000 per hour. Bethell is exploring new genres, and more provocative, challenging and entertaining strands, for example to boost viewing during school holidays. One is The Pupil Panel - kids on teachers - and a satirical talk show is being piloted. So how does Teachers' TV seem from the classroom? Bayley says: "Over the past year newly qualified teachers tell me they watch. I think it's gone down big with the professional teacher training agencies. The 15 minute programme is a smashing idea. Teachers adore watching other teachers. It has got to get into the middle-aged group of teachers, teachers of 15 or 20 years' standing." Its popularity among non-teachers points to something else. Anyone with a child at school might well be very interested in the way Teachers' TV takes you inside the largely closed world of school classrooms. Adult channels Bayley says: "I think parents are beginning to watch it. So are children. Children surf the channels at night and I am forever meeting children who say they've seen me. I am wondering if Teachers' TV could do more for parents." Fiona Millar, the Guardian Education columnist who has presented The Parent Guide on the channel, agrees and wonders whether it should have been called something broader, for example the Education Channel. Dacre says that while providing more general interest programmes, the channel has to remain focused on its central mission, but the question is not going to go away. He faces two big issues. Teachers' TV is in dispute with BSkyB over the decision to move the channel from documentaries on the EPG to the specialist category, next to the adult channels, and it has appealed to Ofcom. Bayley's anecdotal evidence that children are watching the channel has relevance here. Second, in a bid to increase its reach it is angling for a dedicated Freeview slot, arguing that this is the digital service most attractive to middle-aged viewers of modest means, ie teachers. Ofcom has to decide how to allocate the "digital dividend" of switchover. It is certainly doing something fresh, catching the eye of people in Qatar, Mauritius and Hungary, who have asked if they can broadcast it. The DfES is setting up a committee to consider what happens next, adding that there has also been interest from Australia and the USA. And there is icing on the cake for three shareholders in the operating consortium - Education Digital, owned by Brook Lapping (70%), ITV plc (20%) and the Institute of Education. As it scored 79.3% against key performance indicators, there is a bonus payment of £1.384m. http://www.teachers.tv/

A good example of our changing culture and decline in academic standards concerns the decision to close down the magazine, Smash Hits. Aimed at 13-14 year old girls, it was started 28 years ago. Sales have declined over the last ten years despite a great deal of money used to promote it (cover gifts, TV advertising, expensive redesigns, retail promotions, etc.) Emap, the company that published the magazine, decided to carry out some research into why it no longer sold. They discovered that youngsters no longer “read” magazines: they just look at the pictures and captions. They are only interested in buying magazines where the main emphasis is on the pictures.

I thought members of the Forum might be interested in this exchange on the subject of the CIA and democracy. John, please name a "democratic" government the CIA toppled. (Tim Gratz) It is not just the democratically elected governments that were toppled by CIA interference, Tim. [Although that is a long list.] It is also the democratically elected governments that weren't allowed to transpire, due to CIA interference. [Also a lengthy list.] Nor should you fixate overmuch on CIA perfidy in the prevention of democracy around the globe, because your nation's gunboat diplomacy predates by more than a century the establishment of CIA. [Try starting with the quashing of the Haitian revolution in 1804 and work your way forward chronologically.] CIA is merely the latest in a long list of covert foreign policy instruments. Previously, when peasants wished to be paid more for harvesting their nutmeg, bananas, coffee, sugar, etc., the US foreign policy instrument used to stifle such aspirations in the Western Hemisphere was the US Marines. However, since you'd prefer to dwell exclusively upon CIA interference in other countries' democratic aspirations, let's have a quick look at a partial list, shall we? Italy - 1947 to present Philippines - 1948-54 [at least] Iran - 1953 Guatemala - 1954 Haiti - 1957 Iraq - 1959/1963/1968 [belgian] Congo - 1961 Dominican Republic - 1961 Ecuador - 1961 Canada - 1963 Brazil - 1964 British Guyana - 1964 Britain - 1960s [Harold Wilson years] Indonesia - 1965 Peru - 1965 Greece - 1967 Oman - 1970 Chile - 1970-1975 Australia - 1975 El Salvador - 1981 Honduras - 1983-89 Nicaragua - 1980s Panama - 1989 Venezuela - 2002 Though the list is incomplete, it should at least give you a starting point for filling in the massive blind spot you have about your own country's history of interfering with the political aspirations of other countries. (Robert Charles-Dunne) You make a good distinction that these efforts were made during the intensity of the Cold War. Do you think that during WWII the allies would have been correct to overthrow non-democratic governments favorable to the Nazis? Perhaps the Vichy government in France or the Quisling government in Norway comes to mind. (Tim Gratz) Since your country chose to sit out the first half of that war, one is hard pressed to understand your point. Did the Vichy regime suddenly become anathema to the US only once it was involved in WW II?(Robert Charles-Dunne) When one is engaged in a life-and-death struggle with a murderous dictatorship intent to destroy your democracy, it is important that one minimize the influence of the dictatorship. (Tim Gratz) Which is precisely why so many people around the world labour so hard to minimize US influence throughout the globe. Its record of "exporting democracy" is woeful, as itemized above.(Robert Charles-Dunne) I agree with you that different standards should apply when one is not in a war but I would argue that we are now engaged in a war with terrorists. (Tim Gratz) You're always at war with somebody. It's just that your government would prefer that its own citizens didn't know it, which is why the covert option is always favoured over direct US military intervention. Hence, CIA's ongoing utility in conducting wars that are never declared, coups that are never acknowledged, murders that didn't officially happen. (Robert Charles-Dunne) I would be interested in your views on what ethical constraints should have been applied against, say, GB during WWII. John I will have to look it up but my source for the proposition that Arbenz supporters killed his opponent was a reputable historical book. On what basis do you believe the allegation was CIA propoganda? Do you propose the CIA assassinated a right-wing military officer to make way for the election of a Commie-lover? Get real. Just on a cui bono theory, who was the most likely suspect in the murder of Arbenz's opponent? (Tim Gratz) Operating on the dubious assumption that you are sincere about wanting to know the history of your nation's murderous involvement in the governments of other nations, I suggest you start here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/ The record disclosed there is based solely upon the documentation generated by your own government. Read it and puke. (Robert Charles-Dunne)

Revised figures: IES Parque de Lisboa (Spain) 140 days at €263 = €36.820 Spartacus Educational (UK) 140 days x €310 euros = €45,400 Spanish Lycée in Neuilly sur Seine (France) 140 days at €250 = €35,000 I will not be able to fill in the application form until each member sends me the daily costs of their involvement in the project plus the number of days they wish to do. The only way to accurately to find out your daily costs is by asking your employer.

Revised figures: IES Parque de Lisboa (Spain) 140 days at €263 = €36.820 Spartacus Educational (UK) 140 days x €310 euros = €45,400 Spanish Lycée in Neuilly sur Seine (France) 140 days at €250 = €35,000 I will not be able to fill in the application form until each member sends me the daily costs of their involvement in the project plus the number of days they wish to do. The only way to accurately to find out your daily costs is by asking your employer.

No we did not. You were the only person to argue this (quoting CIA black propaganda as evidence). As I pointed out, Dean Acheson accepted the Guatamela had carried out democratic elections and via Truman ordered the CIA to bring an end to its attempt to overthrow the Arbenz government. When Dwight Eisenhower took power he gave the go ahead for the CIA and United Fruit to overthrow Arbenz. Joe McCarthy was then used to smear Acheson and other liberal Democrats as being "pro-communist". http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5945

No we did not. You were the only person to argue this (quoting CIA black propaganda as evidence). As I pointed out, Dean Acheson accepted the Guatamela had carried out democratic elections and via Truman ordered the CIA to bring an end to its attempt to overthrow the Arbenz government. When Dwight Eisenhower took power he gave the go ahead for the CIA and United Fruit to overthrow Arbenz. Joe McCarthy was then used to smear Acheson and other liberal Democrats as being "pro-communist". http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5945

Guatemala in 1954 is another obvious example. Greece is another country where the CIA backed a right-wing military coup in 1967. We also now know that the CIA attempted to destabilize the Harold Wilson government (1964-1970) and (1974-76). This was a joint CIA/MI5 operation. We also know that the Strategic Service Unit (1945-47) and the CIA (post 1947) were involved in a black propaganda campaign and illegal funding of opposition parties in an attempt to prevent left-wing governments being elected in Western Europe after the war. When left-wing governments were elected, such as in the UK in 1945, the American intelligence agencies, attempted to bribe leading politicians and trade union leaders to move to the right. This strategy was very successful and is the reason why the Clement Atlee government was far less radical in the last couple of years of its existence.

Guatemala in 1954 is another obvious example. Greece is another country where the CIA backed a right-wing military coup in 1967. We also now know that the CIA attempted to destabilize the Harold Wilson government (1964-1970) and (1974-76). This was a joint CIA/MI5 operation. We also know that the Strategic Service Unit (1945-47) and the CIA (post 1947) were involved in a black propaganda campaign and illegal funding of opposition parties in an attempt to prevent left-wing governments being elected in Western Europe after the war. When left-wing governments were elected, such as in the UK in 1945, the American intelligence agencies, attempted to bribe leading politicians and trade union leaders to move to the right. This strategy was very successful and is the reason why the Clement Atlee government was far less radical in the last couple of years of its existence.

Interesting article in the Guardian today about Silvio Berlusconi. Tristram Hunt Monday February 6, 2006 The Guardian In typically vulgar style, Silvio Berlusconi committed himself last week to sexual abstinence until the Italian general election on April 9. Unfortunately, Mrs Berlusconi's well-earned break promises to come at the expense of European politics. For a determined Berlusconi could well win himself another term in office. Some 15 months ago the global progressive community headed to America in a forlorn attempt to unseat President Bush. From Europe, Canada and Asia thousands of angry activists joined the Democrat campaign. Even the Guardian got in on the act by targeting the voters of Clark County, Ohio. Now, with greater effort, the same campaigning enthusiasm needs to be directed towards Italy - as with the US elections, as much for our sakes as for theirs. In the run-up to the 2001 Italian poll, the Economist listed a litany of charges Berlusconi was under investigation for. Famously, the normally reserved magazine concluded he was "not fit to lead the government of any country, least of all one of the world's richest democracies". Although Berlusconi responded with a libel claim, which is so far unresolved, his record in office has only served to confirm their verdict. Above all there has been the systematic abuse of the legislature for his own ends. Deploying his substantial majority in parliament, in 2003 he altered the law to give high-ranking state officials (such as the prime minister) legal exemptions. More recently, he has further attempted to cow prosecuting authorities with an attack on judicial independence. The usually pliant President Ciampi called the legislation "blatantly unconstitutional". Berlusconi's serial misuse of the political system ranges from the parochial to the constitutional. He overhauled the planning system to cover up the environmental damage his gargantuan villa had inflicted on the Sardinian coastline. And six months before the April poll he introduced a wide-ranging series of electoral reforms. These would have the effect of denying the opposition an outright victory as well as returning Italy to the worst years of PR instability. The rest of the article can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1702938,00.html

Tim Gratz has always been quick to defend the long history of American presidents (usually Republican) using the CIA to destabilize and overthrow democratic governments. That was of course during the Cold War. According to Tim, Ronald Reagan won the war against communism (what about China?) and that now Republicans like George Bush can promote the idea of democracy. After all, that is why American troops are in Iraq. The problem with this policy is that the people of virtually every country in the world, does not want what George Bush wants. Democracy is in fact bad news for Bush. Recently, democratic elections in Iran and Palestine have caused Bush serious problems. The same is true of democratic elections that have taken place in countries all over South America (Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) In Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated the more moderate, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. In Palestine, Hamas swept to power. Everybody knows that an anti-American government will come to power in Iraq once US troops are removed from the country. In the old days, Republican presidents sent in the troops if the CIA was unsuccessful at manipulating “democratic” elections. After Iraq, this is no longer possible. As the recent cases of CIA torturing prisoners have illustrated, covert activities are much more difficult in our modern world. What should George Bush do next?

Tim Gratz has always been quick to defend the long history of American presidents (usually Republican) using the CIA to destabilize and overthrow democratic governments. That was of course during the Cold War. According to Tim, Ronald Reagan won the war against communism (what about China?) and that now Republicans like George Bush can promote the idea of democracy. After all, that is why American troops are in Iraq. The problem with this policy is that the people of virtually every country in the world, does not want what George Bush wants. Democracy is in fact bad news for Bush. Recently, democratic elections in Iran and Palestine have caused Bush serious problems. The same is true of democratic elections that have taken place in countries all over South America (Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.) In Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated the more moderate, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. In Palestine, Hamas swept to power. Everybody knows that an anti-American government will come to power in Iraq once US troops are removed from the country. In the old days, Republican presidents sent in the troops if the CIA was unsuccessful at manipulating “democratic” elections. After Iraq, this is no longer possible. As the recent cases of CIA torturing prisoners have illustrated, covert activities are much more difficult in our modern world. What should George Bush do next?

“Trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory – that attractive rainbow, that rises in shadows of blood – that serpent’s eye, that charms to destroy – he plunged into war.” 2006: Harold Pinter on George Bush and Iraq? No. 1848: Abraham Lincoln on James Polk and Mexico.

On 14th April, 1948, Josefa had an illegitimate child (Rodney Moss). He died, aged 40, in 1989.

Dan is a member of the Forum so maybe he will tell us.

One of the most controversial aspects of Billie Sol Estes' "confession" is the claim that LBJ was behind the death of his sister, Josefa Johnson. Josefa Johnson was born in 1912. She was a student at San Marcos and after marrying early was divorced in 1937. Three years later she married a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army. The marriage ended in divorce in 1945. Josefa took a keen interest in politics and helped her brother in his successful 1948 senatorial campaign. She had a reputation for wild behaviour and was said to work for Hattie Valdez's private club. Josefa was also an alcoholic and was admitted to hospital several times with health problems. It was rumoured that Josefa Johnson had affairs with John Kinser and Mac Wallace. Kinser opened a golf course in Austin. According to Barr McClellan, the author of Blood, Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK, Kinser asked Josefa if she could arrange for her brother to loan him some money. Johnson interpreted this as a blackmail threat (Josefa had told Kinser about some of her brother's corrupt activities). On 22nd October, 1951, Mac Wallace went to Kinser's miniature golf course. After finding Kinser in his golf shop, he shot him several times before escaping in his station wagon. A customer at the golf course had heard the shooting and managed to make a note of Wallace's license plate. The local police force was able to use this information to arrest Wallace. Wallace was charged with murder but was released on bail after Edward Clark arranged for two of Johnson's financial supporters, M. E. Ruby and Bill Carroll, to post bonds on behalf of the defendant. Johnson's attorney, John Cofer, also agreed to represent Wallace. On 1st February, 1952, Wallace resigned from his government job in order to distance himself from Lyndon B. Johnson. His trial began seventeen days later. Wallace did not testify. Cofer admitted his client's guilt but claimed it was an act of revenge as Kinser had been sleeping with Wallace's wife. The jury found Wallace guilty of "murder with malice afore-thought". Eleven of the jurors were for the death penalty. The twelfth argued for life imprisonment. Judge Charles O. Betts overruled the jury and announced a sentence of five years imprisonment. He suspended the sentence and Wallace was immediately freed. According to Bill Adler of The Texas Observer, several of the jurors telephoned John Kinser's parents to apologize for agreeing to a "suspended sentence, but said they did so only because threats had been made against their families." Josefa Johnson died of a cerebral hemorrhage on 25th December, 1961. Despite state law, no autopsy was conducted. Twenty-three years later the lawyer, Douglas Caddy, wrote to Stephen S. Trott at the U.S. Department of Justice. In the letter Caddy claimed that Billie Sol Estes, Lyndon B. Johnson, Mac Wallace and Cliff Carter had been involved in the murders of several people including Josefa Johnson.

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the book. It is very difficult to get hold of. James M. Day, the author of Captain Peoples, Texas Ranger: Fifty Years a Lawman (1980) has just published a new book, Oilmen and Other Scoundrels. I have ordered it in the hope that it looks at LBJ's relationship with the oil industry. He is also author of The Black Giant: A History of the East Texas Oil Field and Oil Industry Skulduggery (2003).

Seven copies of this book are available from Abebooks: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchRe...t&x=44&sortby=3

Message from Jeff Dahlstrom Question: Have any of your fellow researchers read, reviewed, evaluated, and/or commented on a book pubished recently by the American Free Press written by Michael Collins Piper titled Final Judgement: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination? I have recently ordered a copy of this book which is also billed as "America's #1 Banned Book". I can tell you that this book is not available in any library. It is not sold at Barnes & Noble or Borders Books nor can they even order a copy for their clients. So the billing of this book as "America's #1 Banned Book" has some merit to this reader and writer. I have scoured and searched both "JFK Lancer" and "JFK Online" (John Simkin's Education Forum on JFK), and have found absolutely no reference to this book or it's theories about the JFK assassination. I have not yet read this lengthy and well researched book yet but I understand that part of the thesis of the author is that the Israeli Mossad played a role in the assassination over JFK's opposition to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion's desire to obtain nuclear weapons to defend Israel.

Former Military Assassin And Green Beret In Vietnam Wins Federal Libel Case Backed By CIA And Pentagon By Greg Szymanski 2-5-6 Col. "Dangerous" Dan Marvin, once asked to assassinate a military officer at Bethesda Naval Hospital holding damaging pictures of the JFK autopsy, has "stuck it big time" to the Pentagon brass. With a recent federal court victory this week revealing hit squads and assassinations are accepted military policy, Col. Marvin fought off a long and costly legal battle for libel concerning statements made in his controversial 2003 book, The Expendable Elite. After hearing evidence, the jury quickly decided in Col Marvin's favor after only deliberating two hours, coming back with a decision that essentially quashed any attempts by the Pentagon in calling him a xxxx by what was printed in his book. "The most difficult part of the whole trial was that the Pentagon bribed and coerced some of my men to lie on the stand about what really happened in Vietnam," said Col. Marvin this week on Greg Szymanski's radio show, The Investigative Journal, where he emphasized the importance of the trial verdict, saying it was "an ultimate victory for the truth and for the American people." "Originally, years ago when I started working on the book, I made tape recordings of the statements of my men in order to back up my story. We played these tape recordings to the jury and they believed I was telling the truth and not fabricating anything like the government contended." For rest of story go to: http://www.arcticbeacon.com/6-Feb-2006.html

Doug, is there any legal chance of the investigation of the Henry Marshall murder being reopened?