John Simkin

I agree. This was the only excuse that LBJ could come up with after he decided not to go along with the Castro did it theory being pushed by the FBI and the CIA. It is complete nonsense of course. There was no way that the Soviets would have launched a nuclear war if the US invaded Cuba. It is for the same reason that the US did not launch a nuclear attack when the Red Army marched into Hungary in 1956. It was all to do with sphere of interest policy. It this policy was not kept, the Cold War would have quickly become a Hot War (and I mean hot). This provides the key clue to why LBJ launched a cover-up. It makes no sense at all unless you consider what might have happened following an invasion of Cuba. The whole world would have demanded to see the evidence for the charge that Castro organized the assassination of JFK. The only evidence for this was evidence manufactured by the FBI and the CIA. Anyone with any political understanding of the Cold War knew that it was not in the political interests of Castro to kill JFK. Questions would have been asked about LBJ’s willingness to believe this story. Was he in someway involved in the assassination? Why was it important that he became president in November, 1963? People would have begun to look closely at the Bobby Baker scandal that had been emerging at that time. Don B. Reynolds testimony about LBJ and the General Dynamics TFX contract, given in a closed session of the Senate Rules Committee on the day of the assassination would have become public. Even if LBJ was not guilty of organizing the assassination, most people would have believed this was the case. LBJ was a shrewd politician who always kept risks to the minimum. His safest course was to force Hoover and McCone to come up with the lone gunman theory. Then it would be case-closed and he would then be in a position to use his power to cover-up the Bobby Baker scandal. The clue to this concerns the first person they had to kill after the assassination. E. Grant Stockdale on 2nd December, 1963.

Interesting article about football and copyright law: http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...1671699,00.html With the season of comfort, joy and compulsive over-eating almost upon us it is sad to report that the troubling case of the Watford Two still rumbles on. Ian Grant and Matthew Rowson argue they are guilty of nothing more than the words in the title of their Watford fanzine website, which Grant, 35, a web designer, launched in December 1994. The internet was then in its rapid ascendant; Watford, it would be fair to say, were not. Grant saw a band play in Brighton and decided its name encapsulated perfectly the Watford fan's existence: Blind, Stupid and Desperate. Rowson, 32, a statistician by profession and lifelong Watford fan, began to contribute to www.bsad.org seven years ago and the pair, co-editors now, spend a difficult-to-justify amount of time maintaining the site's fond, ironic chronicling of life with the Hornets. They make no money from it; in fact it costs them £60 for an internet server. They have produced a book and some T-shirts but donated the proceeds to charity or, when the club was in financial crisis in 2002, to the supporters' trust. So when, at the beginning of this season, the site received what Grant and Rowson felt were threatening legal letters demanding the removal of offensive content they were shocked. They refused, their server was contacted and BSaD was taken off the internet until Grant and Rowson backed down. The heinous material that caused the problems? Watford FC's fixtures for 2005-06. "We were extremely surprised and did feel bullied," Rowson says. "We do the fanzine for the love of writing about football, with about 1,000 regular hits weekly. We never thought the outside world was even aware of us." That was reckoning without the keen commercial enforcers at DataCo. This is a company owned by the Premier and Football Leagues, whose job is to charge for publication of the fixture lists, as well as the increasing volume of other data, including match statistics, to which the clubs claim copyright. The operation makes £7m-£8m for English and Scottish professional clubs, paid by 22,000 newspapers, bookmakers, websites and broadcasters here and worldwide. The fee is standard: £266 plus VAT to print the fixtures of one English club. Newspapers printing the fixtures of all clubs, plus a delivery fee, pay around £6,000 plus VAT to DataCo. BSaD, oblivious, printing their own club's forthcoming fixtures, were asked for £266 plus VAT or told they must take them down. "It was farcical," Rowson says. "With all the time and money I'm already spending on the fanzine, can you imagine me telling my wife I'm about to spend £266 for the right to print Watford's fixtures? It was never going to happen."

An article in today's Guardian suggests that Bush's poll-ratings have gone up since it was announced that he had ordered illegal spying on the American public (approval ratings have gone up from 39% to 47%). The same thing happened when Blair was trying to get the 90 day without charge legislation through Parliament. The problem is that most American and British citizens are unconcerned by the idea of their freedoms being taken away. In fact, it makes Blair and Bush more popular because they believe they are taking action to protect them from terrorism. As Eric Fromm pointed out a long time ago, if you are brought up in an authoritarian system, you create a fear of freedom. http://allpsych.com/personalitysynopsis/fromm.html

There is a good article about this in today's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,...1671653,00.html It is known as the Google dance, a delicate struggle between technicians at the world's largest internet search engine and the spin doctors who manipulate the worldwide web for commercial ends. Every day one group tries to prevent the other from abusing Google's index of more than 8bn web pages. The stakes are high. As Britain's online shoppers spend £150m every day in the run-up to Christmas, the value of a high ranking on Google is potentially worth millions to retailers, website owners and criminals alike. Web search has become the focus for a legion of marketers over the past decade, and their tactics - known as search engine optimisation (SEO) - are the basis of a multibillion pound worldwide industry. Most are legitimate businesses, but some so-called "black hat" SEOs use unethical strategies to boost their clients. To test the effectiveness of these tactics, the Guardian created a spoof site and tried to force it up Google's rankings. Over one week, a number of tricks - some similar to those used by black-hat firms - were used to successfully push it to the top. The spoof site was set up to promote eco-friendly flip-flops, a bogus product promising zero harmful emissions. The simple page featured a disclaimer to make the nature of the experiment clear, and a picture of the goods. At the start of the experiment, there were more than 11,500 results for "eco-friendly flip-flops" on Google, and the spoof site did not feature. Within two days of creating the site, Google's spider - the program that explores the web - had discovered the site and included it in its main index, but it appeared within the lowest 100 pages. The first attempt to boost the ranking was a series of basic instructions intended to manipulate Google, including overloading the page with words that would improve the site's ranking, and adding invisible data intended to boost it even further. This had little effect, however, and the spoof site remained static in Google's index. Another trick was then used to mimic black-hat behaviour. A second site was created which contained a large number of links to the first. Because Google rates the authority of a site partly by how many times they have been linked to, this ploy can makes a site appear popular. Within hours, the effect was apparent - the spoof site was now the top result in our test search, trumping the other 11,500 sites within days. Our experiment was small scale and limited in scope, but in the real world the value of success is higher than ever. Black-hat companies offer a range of services at different prices, all aimed at unfairly manipulating search engines. One website found by the Guardian offered customers the chance to download a program to spam Google for $99 (£56), while another - posing as a legitimate SEO -charged several thousand pounds. Commercial power Customers trust the results of search engines, which rely on advertising to generate profit and have much to gain from keeping the results clean and everything to lose if they fail. Almost a fifth of all visits to online shopping sites are the direct result of an internet search, according to data monitor Hitwise - and more than half of those come straight from Google. This places an astonishing level of commercial power in the hands of one company. Google says it takes this very seriously, but it is an almost impossible task given the amount of information concerned.

I am not sure our young teachers could cope with this freedom. After all, over the last 20 years they have been trained to do as they are told. We were trained very differently in the 1960s and 1970s. I suspect there would be complete chaos if the government did away with the National Curriculum, Schemes of Work, League Tables, etc. As Eric Fromm pointed out a long time ago, if you are brought up in an authoritarian system, you create a fear of freedom. http://allpsych.com/personalitysynopsis/fromm.html http://www.tamilnation.org/sathyam/west/fromm.htm

John Stockwell's In Search of Enemies (1978) and The Praetorian Guard: The US Role in the New World Order (1991). http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKstockwellJ.htm Victor Marchetti's The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (1973) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmarchetti.htm For the FBI read William Turner's Hoover's FBI: The Men and the Myth (1970) and Rearview Mirror: Looking Back at the FBI, the CIA and Other Tales (2001). William is a member of this Forum and will be willing to answer your questions. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKturnerW.htm

This is what West Ham fans think of it: http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54681 The BBC website has this article about Di Canio and his former team-mate Shaka Hislop: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...utd/4550506.stm Shaka Hislop has hit out at his former team-mate Paolo di Canio after the Italian was fined for showing a fascist salute while playing for Lazio. Hislop said their friendship was over after Di Canio made the gesture in a game at Livorno and has not apologised. Hislop said: "Paolo never impressed me as that kind of person when he was here at West Ham. "When it is someone you thought was a friend it has a longer-lasting effect. I am very disappointed by it." Di Canio was suspended for one match and fined for aiming the salute at supporters, which he insists has "nothing to do with political ideologies." "I will always salute that way because it gives me a sense of belonging to my people," he said recently. But Hislop is disgusted by Di Canio's explanation for his straight-armed salute. He said: "He got on well with my wife and my kids and to see him making headlines for his actions disappoints me greatly because of what those gestures mean and the wider effect of it. "Paolo was certainly someone I considered a friend who I liked a lot, so I am very disappointed." Di Canio was backed by Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, who believes the 37-year-old striker is simply misunderstood. He said: "Di Canio is an exhibitionist. His salute didn't have any significance. He's a good lad."

There have been several exciting developments on the Forum over the last few days. Alfred C. Baldwin has joined the Forum and has agreed to answer questions about his involvement in the Watergate Scandal. As you probably know, in the past, he has always refused to give interviews to those investigating the scandal. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5670 Last night Lee Israel answered some important questions on the death of Dorothy Kilgallen: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5421 This included the following exchange: John Simkin: In your book you make a lot of Kilgallen’s relationship with the man you call the "Out-of-Towner". In fact, you imply that he was in some way involved in her death. Is it correct that the man’s name is really Ron Pataky? Lee Israel: Yes. John Simkin: Did you find any evidence that Ron Pataky was working for the CIA? Lee Israel: No. Only that he dropped out of Stanford in 1954 and then enrolled in a training school for assassins in Panama or thereabouts. John Simkin: Do you believe that Ron Pataky murdered Dorothy Kilgallen? Lee Israel: He had something to do with it. We also have had some very important authors joining the Forum and answering questions about their books. This includes Peter Dale Scott, Alfred W. McCoy, Lamar Waldron, Joan Mellen, Dick Russell, Joe Trento, Gerald McKnight, G. Robert Blakey, Josiah Thompson, Jim Marrs, William Turner, Don Bohning, William Pepper, Larry Hancock, Matthew Smith, Nina Burleigh and William Reymond. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=204 Alfred W. McCoy will also agreed to answer questions on his new book that will be published in January: A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. This will be a very important book and I am sure members will want to discuss it with the author. You can pre-order here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0...9035198-3170338

(1) You point out that one of the Warren Commission’s senior counsels, “Albert Jenner, was a Chicago attorney with a history of representing figures, such as Allen Dorfman, from Ruby’s milieu… Jenner in 1963 was counsel for General Dynamics” (page 20). This is very interesting. I am convinced that there is a link between the JFK assassination and the General Dynamics TFX contract. Fred Korth had been forced to resign over this scandal at the beginning of November, 1963. According to author Seth Kantor, Korth only got the job as Navy Secretary after strong lobbying from LBJ. As well as the $7 billion contract the TFX to General Dynamics, Korth was also responsible for dealing out lucrative contracts to the Texas oil industry. As you know, on the day that JFK was assassinated, Don B. Reynolds told the Senate Rules Committee that he saw a suitcase full of money which Bobby Baker described as a "$100,000 payoff to Johnson for his role in securing the Fort Worth TFX contract". Do you know what happened to Don B. Reynolds after LBJ recruited Jack Anderson to mount a smear campaign against him? What happened to the Senate investigation into the TFX contract? Did anybody ever follow-up the information provided by Reynolds? (2) You rightly point out that Silvia Odio’s “whose story of meeting Oswald in Dallas is one of the most provocative and revealing stories about Oswald” (page 118). Have you heard about the recent testimony of Angel Murgado who claims he was Angelo and that Leopoldo was Bernardo De Torres (Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, 2005). Have you come across the names of Angel Murgado and Bernardo De Torres during your research into the assassination? (3) In your book you link Irving Davidson with Carlos Marcello, Clint Murchison, J. Edgar Hoover, Bobby Baker and Lyndon Johnson (pages 217-222). You also quote John H. Davis as saying that Davidson was “the representative of all that Jack and Bobby fought against – Trujillo, Hoffa’s Teamsters, the Somozas’ Nicaragua, the Texas rich, the CIA, Castro, Nixon, the mob”. Are you aware that according to a report by Anne Buttimer, Chief Investigator for the Assassination Records Review Board (12th July, 1995), Gene Wheaton claimed that Davison was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. He also named Carl Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero as being involved in the plot. Have you come across the names of Wheaton, Jenkins and Quintero during your research into the assassination? (4) In your book you point out that JFK’s secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, claimed that RFK was investigating Bobby Baker for tax evasion (page 220). Did you know that according to Senator Carl Curtis (Forty Years Against the Tide) RFK was leaking information about LBJ and Baker to Republican members of the Senate committee investigating the scandal (Carl Curtis, John Williams and Hugh Scott)? (5) In your book you mention Bobby Baker, Fred Black, Ed Levenson and Benny Sigelbaum and others involved in the Serve-U-Corporation. According to William Torbitt (Nonmenclature of an Assassination Cabal ), Edward Grant Stockdale was president of Serve-U-Corporation. However, this is wrong, Eugene Hancock, held this position. He was a business associate of Stockdale. Have you ever come across the name of E. Grant Stockdale. He committed suicide (or was murdered) on 2nd December, 1963. He did this after returning from a meeting with Bobby and Edward Kennedy.

I have corrected the mistakes you have pointed out. I have also added your statement to your web page: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbaldwinA.htm I also have a few questions that hopefully you will answer. (1) What work were you doing between 1966 and 1972? (2) Did you know James W. McCord before he recruited you in 1972? (3) Were you an active supporter of Richard Nixon's before 1972? (4) Did you know any of the following before 1972: Anthony Ulasewicz, Douglas Caddy, Carmine Bellino, Tim Gratz, Jack Caulfield, E. Howard Hunt, Lou Russell, Donald Segretti and G. Gordon Liddy? (5) Did you do any work for Operation Gemstone or Operation Sandwedge before the Watergate break-in? (6) Are you aware of the real reason why the Watergate offices were burgled? (7) It became your job to eavesdrop the phone calls. I believe that over a 20 day period you listened to over 200 phone calls. Could you explain the sort of information that McCord was looking for. (8) Gordon Liddy later claimed that the real reason for the second break-in was “to find out what O’Brien had of a derogatory nature about us, not for us to get something on him.” Is that your understanding of the situation as well? (9) On 17th June, 1972, Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, Bernard L. Barker and James W. McCord returned to O'Brien's office. It was your job to observe the operation from his hotel room. I believe that when you saw the police walking up the stairwell steps you radioed a warning. However, Barker had turned off his walkie-talkie and you were unable to make contact with the burglars. Is that correct? (10) Is it true that when E.Howard Hunt arrived at your hotel room he made a phone call to Douglas Caddy?

Interesting document. The date is very important considering what we know about the AMWORLD project. It seems that even after the death of JFK, he was still in favour of negotiation rather than overthrow. It would seem he did not take seriously the idea that Castro was behind his brother's death.

Maybe the Grand Jury should take a look at the cover-up of the JFK assassination. Here is an exchange between myself and Lee Israel, the author of Kilgallen, yesterday: John Simkin: In your book you make a lot of Kilgallen’s relationship with the man you call the "Out-of-Towner". In fact, you imply that he was in some way involved in her death. Is it correct that the man’s name is really Ron Pataky? Lee Israel: Yes. John Simkin: Did you find any evidence that Ron Pataky was working for the CIA? Lee Israel: No. Only that he dropped out of Stanford in 1954 and then enrolled in a training school for assassins in Panama or thereabouts. John Simkin: Do you believe that Ron Pataky murdered Dorothy Kilgallen? Lee Israel: He had something to do with it. See also: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpataky.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKkilgallen.htm

Yes. He says his mother lay dying of leukemia for months so she couldn't have been Kilgallen's source on anything but side effects of medication that was scarcely available then. It was totally irrelevant. I didn't drop the name Judith Campbell Exner, either. Yes, I did know that. I also knew that when Kilgallen visited New Orleans and Dallas, the poor ambassador was preoccupied with his dying wife. Yes. No. Only that he dropped out of Stanford in 1954 and then enrolled in a training school for assassins in Panama or thereabouts. He had something to do with it. Thank you for this very important information about Ron Pataky. Have you spoken to him lately? He does not answer my emails. He has also taken down his website on his artwork. This is worth looking at: http://www.scumpa.com/pipermail/cool/1993-...ber/001612.html Did you know he was a great fan of Gordon MacRae? http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-review...6915034-7891368

Worth looking at the following: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/gar...ry/contents.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/gar...ckman_0001a.htm

A former CIA operative sent me an article recently. The article had been written by David Atlee Phillips and had appeared in the Columbia Journalism Review (January, 1987). The CIA operative was a friend of Phillips and thought he had been badly treated by people like myself on my web page on him and on the Forum. He thought that the article showed he was innocent of several charges made against him. In the article Phillips claimed that he had been libelled by several journalists and authors. His complaints fell into two categories: (1) The claim made by William F. Pepper, Donald Freed and Fred Landis that he had been involved in the cover-up of the murder of former Chilean foreign minister Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington in 1976. (2) The claim made by Gaeton Fonzi, Anthony Summers and Jack Limpert (a friend of Phillips), that he used the pseudonym “Maurice Bishop” and that he met Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas shortly before the assassination of JFK. In the article Phillips how he successfully sued the people involved in the Orlando Letelier case. However, his attempts to sue Jack Limpert (editor of the Washingtonian) ended in failure. He says that after taking legal advice he decided not to sue Fonzi and Summers. In November, 1985, Phillips discovered that Henry Hurt was going to repeat Fonzi’s allegations in his book, Reasonable Doubt. Phillips wrote to Henry Holt, the president of Hurt’s publishers. Interestingly, he did not threaten legal action. Instead he asked if he could be allowed “to have 2,000 words somewhere in the book to refute the allegations”. Holt refused and the book was published with the claim that he used the pseudonym “Maurice Bishop” and that he met Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas shortly before the assassination of JFK. Although Phillips’ CIA friend thought this article cleared him of the allegations made against him. A close reading of the article suggests that he was probably innocent of the Letelier cover-up but guilty of the claims made by Fonzi. This also raises the issue of the Letelier story. Was this another example of what Victor Marchetti has described as a “limited hangout”. To quote Marchetti: 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.

Please post your questions here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5671

Joan Mellen is the best person to contact about this. I am sure she would have obtained this information during her research for her book, Farewell to Justice. She can be contacted via this Forum. See this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5015

Victor Marchetti has described this type of CIA operation a “limited hangout”. To quote Marchetti: 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. We will probably never find out who masterminded the assassination of JFK - or why. There are too many powerful special interests connected with the conspiracy for the truth to come out even now, 15 years after the murder. But during the next two months, according to sensitive sources in the CIA and on HSCA, we are going to learn much more about the crime. The new disclosures will be sensational, but only superficially so. A few of the lesser villains involved in the conspiracy and its subsequent coverup will be identified for the first time - and allowed to twist slowly in the wind on live network TV. Most of the others to be fingered are already dead. But once again the good folks of middle America will be hoodwinked by the government and its allies in the establishment news media. In fact, we are being set up to witness yet another coverup, albeit a sophisticated one, designed by the CIA with the assistance of the FBI and the blessing of the Carter administration. A classic example of a limited hangout is how the CIA has handled and manipulated the Church Committee's investigation of two years ago. The committee learned nothing more about the assassinations of foreign leaders, illicit drug programs, or the penetration of the news media than the CIA allowed it to discover. And this is precisely what the CIA is out to accomplish through HSCA with regard to JFK's murder. In August, 1978, Marchetti published an article about the assassination of in the liberty Lobby newspaper, Spotlight. In the article Marchetti argued that the HSCA had obtained a 1966 CIA memo that revealed that E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming had been involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. Marchetti's article also included a story that Marita Lorenz had provided information on this plot. Later that month Joseph Trento and Jacquie Powers wrote a similar story for the Sunday News Journal. The HSCA did not publish this CIA memo linking its agents to the assassination of JFK. Hunt now decided to take legal action against the Liberty Lobby and in December, 1981, he was awarded $650,000 in damages. Liberty Lobby appealed to the United States Court of Appeals. It was claimed that Hunt's attorney, Ellis Rubin, had offered a clearly erroneous instruction as to the law of defamation. The three-judge panel agreed and the case was retried. This time Mark Lane defended the Liberty Lobby against Hunt's action. Lane eventually discovered Marchetti’s sources. The main source was William Corson. It also emerged that Marchetti had also consulted James Angleton and Alan J. Weberman before publishing the article. As a result of obtaining of getting depositions from David Atlee Phillips, Richard Helms, G. Gordon Liddy, Stansfield Turner and Marita Lorenz, plus a skillful cross-examination by Lane of E. Howard Hunt, the jury decided in January, 1995, that Marchetti had not been guilty of libel when he suggested that JFK had been assassinated by people working for the CIA. Gary Buell posted this very interesting information when I raised this issue before: Members who have looked at Joseph Trento's new book "The Secret History of the CIA" know that it contains material of interest concerning the assassination, mostly from the perspective of James Jesus Angleton of the CIA. What it does not contain is anything about the alleged memo re Howard Hunt in Dallas which Trento had written about in an article in the Sunday News Journal, August 20, 1978, and which is reproduced in Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. So I thought I would ask him about it. What follows is our correspondence via e-mail: Gary Buell: I am currently reading your fascinating new book. My particular interest is the JFK assassination and the information you received from Angleton deserves careful consideration. I think that there was one serious omission in your book in that regard. That is the lack of any mention of the memo that Angleton showed you concerning Howard Hunt's alleged presence in Dallas on 11/22/63. Many researchers believe that was an Angleton disinformation ploy of some sort but whether the memo was genuine or not I do not see how the reader can be expected to evaluate Angleton's views on the assassination without considering this material. I believe you yourself once speculated that he may have been attempting to obscure his own role in sending Hunt to Dallas. And, if I am not mistaken did you not also once suggest that Hunt may have been sent to Dallas by a KGB mole? Did you ever discuss this memo or its contents again with Angleton before his death? Joe Trento: I left it out because Hunt's role had been so discussed. My view is that Hunt's presence was more an embarrassment then anything significant. That's how Angleton treated it. Lane made much more of this then I believe it deserved. Gary the real question is it was Angleton's disinformation or someone trying to force the CIA's hand by demonstrating employees had come to Dallas. The original manuscript did include the material but the publisher could not publish a 1,000 page book. Gary Buell: Thanks for the prompt reply. I am not real clear on your answer. If it was Angleton's disinformation to what end? And was Hunt in Dallas or not and who sent him? If I recall your original article (which I did read quoted in Lane's book)you refer to sources at the HSCA admitting having this memo, which was later denied. The whole thing is confusing, particularly your coment about someone trying to force the CIA's hand. I mean Angleton was behind this in one way or another. I would be most interested in reading the section of your book on this that was cut for space, if you are agreeable. Joe Trento: For contractual reasons I cannot give you the cut material to read. But to clarify the Angleton matter: I was originally tipped off by an assassination committee employee. They contacted me because I had written about Angleton and had access to him. They showed me a copy of the memo about Hunt being in Dallas. I called Angleton and he said he was aware of the memo and may even have a copy. He didn't. But a close friend of his did - and that friend said Angleton had entrusted to him. I read that copy, they matched. Jim did this sort of thing in an effort to get sensitive documents out during the months after his firing in 1974. I suspect Jim felt the document and Hunt story would come out anyway so he orchestrated the leak through me and the committee. The committee denial came because the document was never in the official group of documents they received. Jim told me he thought Hunt's presence was meaningless. He first claimed the reason the committee had the memo was because someone wanted to demonstrate he and Helms were covering up. I am convinced that the memo as written while Angleton did his internal probe to see what the Agency had done or not done and they ran across this business with Hunt and realized they had a potential public relations problem if the information got out. I never was told or got the impression that it was anything very significant - just very interesting. Did Jim tell me the truth on this? The answer is yes and no. I think Lane used this and other events to keep himself as part of the story. The reality is that all of this sideshow stuff diverted folks from looking at what the Soviet's did with LHO in Russia. I suspect at the time of the leak that's what Angleton and friends did not want researchers or reporters looking at. Gary Buell: Thank you for your lengthy reply which answers some questions and raises others. So the HSCA did have the memo but could not confirm its authenticity because it was not officially turned over - that is interesting. To my knowledge this memo has never turned up in the archives of the committee or ever been acknowledged. I wonder if it still exists. Re-reading your original article you seem to have placed a great deal more importance on the memo at that time. You cite unamed CIA investigators who theorize that Oswald was working for US Intelligence and turned by the KGB. And that Hunt was in Dallas on the orders of a high-level CIA official who was in reality a KGB mole and who ordered Hunt to kill Oswald. Do you think Angleton sent Hunt to Dallas? If this were a movie then Angleton would turn out to be the mole but in real life I think that is far-fetched. What is your take on all this now? Was the memo authentic? Did Angleton send Hunt to Dallas and, if not, who did? If he was in Dallas at all. And what was his mission? Was Oswald a double- or triple agent? Joe Trento: Angleton thought very little of Hunt so I doubt that they ever had much to do with each other. I suspect that the CIA successfully cited national security considerations regarding some of the JFK/ Soviet stuff. We had a number of sources from the CIA office of Security who offered a variety of theories. As far as it not showing up in the committee records, I suspect an agreement was made between the CIA and the Chairman. I would have never heard except from my staff sources. One possibility is they wanted to do something with it in the hearings and the members were against it, I may have been used as a trial balloon. At the time my colleague and I wrote the piece I suspected everyone's motives. Considering what I know now of the other screw ups the CIA and FBI perpetuated in this case the memo reflected potential public relations problem. Gary Buell: Thanks for the reply. Obviously the CIA was able to cover-up this "public relations problem", thanks, as you said, to Blakey. Let me ask a few direct questions: 1. Do you think Hunt was in Dallas? If so, any idea who sent him and on what mission? Or are we left simply with speculation? The most fascinating speculation was that he was sent by the KGB mole. 2. Do you think there was a high-level mole in the CIA? If this is in the book, I apologize as I am still reading it. Can we rule out Angleton? Helms? You have been very gracious thus far and I realize that you cannot correspond endlessly with every reader. Joe Trento: I think Hunt must have been in Dallas - perhaps not even on CIA business. Probably coming back from Mexico. I think the idea that a mole ordered him to Dallas was far fetched. You would have to assume he was competent and could carry out what the mole wanted. I don't think Helms or Angleton were moles. But it is clear that there were at least mid-level moles. Finish the book. You might want to get my previous book (with Bill Corson and Susan Trento Widows.) I believe that Carl Jenkins was a limited hangout in 1986. In doing so he undermined the testimony of Gene Wheaton and enabled Ted Shackley to sue Daniel Sheehan. In his autobiography, Spymaster (2005), Shackley attacks those people who have suggested that the CIA were involved with the drug trade. However, he does not mention the fact that he won a libel case against Daniel Sheehan. In fact Sheehan does not get a mention in the book. Nor does Carl Jenkins.

Victor Marchetti has described this type of CIA operation a “limited hangout”. To quote Marchetti: 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. We will probably never find out who masterminded the assassination of JFK - or why. There are too many powerful special interests connected with the conspiracy for the truth to come out even now, 15 years after the murder. But during the next two months, according to sensitive sources in the CIA and on HSCA, we are going to learn much more about the crime. The new disclosures will be sensational, but only superficially so. A few of the lesser villains involved in the conspiracy and its subsequent coverup will be identified for the first time - and allowed to twist slowly in the wind on live network TV. Most of the others to be fingered are already dead. But once again the good folks of middle America will be hoodwinked by the government and its allies in the establishment news media. In fact, we are being set up to witness yet another coverup, albeit a sophisticated one, designed by the CIA with the assistance of the FBI and the blessing of the Carter administration. A classic example of a limited hangout is how the CIA has handled and manipulated the Church Committee's investigation of two years ago. The committee learned nothing more about the assassinations of foreign leaders, illicit drug programs, or the penetration of the news media than the CIA allowed it to discover. And this is precisely what the CIA is out to accomplish through HSCA with regard to JFK's murder. In August, 1978, Marchetti published an article about the assassination of in the liberty Lobby newspaper, Spotlight. In the article Marchetti argued that the HSCA had obtained a 1966 CIA memo that revealed that E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming had been involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. Marchetti's article also included a story that Marita Lorenz had provided information on this plot. Later that month Joseph Trento and Jacquie Powers wrote a similar story for the Sunday News Journal. The HSCA did not publish this CIA memo linking its agents to the assassination of JFK. Hunt now decided to take legal action against the Liberty Lobby and in December, 1981, he was awarded $650,000 in damages. Liberty Lobby appealed to the United States Court of Appeals. It was claimed that Hunt's attorney, Ellis Rubin, had offered a clearly erroneous instruction as to the law of defamation. The three-judge panel agreed and the case was retried. This time Mark Lane defended the Liberty Lobby against Hunt's action. Lane eventually discovered Marchetti’s sources. The main source was William Corson. It also emerged that Marchetti had also consulted James Angleton and Alan J. Weberman before publishing the article. As a result of obtaining of getting depositions from David Atlee Phillips, Richard Helms, G. Gordon Liddy, Stansfield Turner and Marita Lorenz, plus a skillful cross-examination by Lane of E. Howard Hunt, the jury decided in January, 1995, that Marchetti had not been guilty of libel when he suggested that JFK had been assassinated by people working for the CIA. Gary Buell posted this very interesting information when I raised this issue before: Members who have looked at Joseph Trento's new book "The Secret History of the CIA" know that it contains material of interest concerning the assassination, mostly from the perspective of James Jesus Angleton of the CIA. What it does not contain is anything about the alleged memo re Howard Hunt in Dallas which Trento had written about in an article in the Sunday News Journal, August 20, 1978, and which is reproduced in Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. So I thought I would ask him about it. What follows is our correspondence via e-mail: Gary Buell: I am currently reading your fascinating new book. My particular interest is the JFK assassination and the information you received from Angleton deserves careful consideration. I think that there was one serious omission in your book in that regard. That is the lack of any mention of the memo that Angleton showed you concerning Howard Hunt's alleged presence in Dallas on 11/22/63. Many researchers believe that was an Angleton disinformation ploy of some sort but whether the memo was genuine or not I do not see how the reader can be expected to evaluate Angleton's views on the assassination without considering this material. I believe you yourself once speculated that he may have been attempting to obscure his own role in sending Hunt to Dallas. And, if I am not mistaken did you not also once suggest that Hunt may have been sent to Dallas by a KGB mole? Did you ever discuss this memo or its contents again with Angleton before his death? Joe Trento: I left it out because Hunt's role had been so discussed. My view is that Hunt's presence was more an embarrassment then anything significant. That's how Angleton treated it. Lane made much more of this then I believe it deserved. Gary the real question is it was Angleton's disinformation or someone trying to force the CIA's hand by demonstrating employees had come to Dallas. The original manuscript did include the material but the publisher could not publish a 1,000 page book. Gary Buell: Thanks for the prompt reply. I am not real clear on your answer. If it was Angleton's disinformation to what end? And was Hunt in Dallas or not and who sent him? If I recall your original article (which I did read quoted in Lane's book)you refer to sources at the HSCA admitting having this memo, which was later denied. The whole thing is confusing, particularly your coment about someone trying to force the CIA's hand. I mean Angleton was behind this in one way or another. I would be most interested in reading the section of your book on this that was cut for space, if you are agreeable. Joe Trento: For contractual reasons I cannot give you the cut material to read. But to clarify the Angleton matter: I was originally tipped off by an assassination committee employee. They contacted me because I had written about Angleton and had access to him. They showed me a copy of the memo about Hunt being in Dallas. I called Angleton and he said he was aware of the memo and may even have a copy. He didn't. But a close friend of his did - and that friend said Angleton had entrusted to him. I read that copy, they matched. Jim did this sort of thing in an effort to get sensitive documents out during the months after his firing in 1974. I suspect Jim felt the document and Hunt story would come out anyway so he orchestrated the leak through me and the committee. The committee denial came because the document was never in the official group of documents they received. Jim told me he thought Hunt's presence was meaningless. He first claimed the reason the committee had the memo was because someone wanted to demonstrate he and Helms were covering up. I am convinced that the memo as written while Angleton did his internal probe to see what the Agency had done or not done and they ran across this business with Hunt and realized they had a potential public relations problem if the information got out. I never was told or got the impression that it was anything very significant - just very interesting. Did Jim tell me the truth on this? The answer is yes and no. I think Lane used this and other events to keep himself as part of the story. The reality is that all of this sideshow stuff diverted folks from looking at what the Soviet's did with LHO in Russia. I suspect at the time of the leak that's what Angleton and friends did not want researchers or reporters looking at. Gary Buell: Thank you for your lengthy reply which answers some questions and raises others. So the HSCA did have the memo but could not confirm its authenticity because it was not officially turned over - that is interesting. To my knowledge this memo has never turned up in the archives of the committee or ever been acknowledged. I wonder if it still exists. Re-reading your original article you seem to have placed a great deal more importance on the memo at that time. You cite unamed CIA investigators who theorize that Oswald was working for US Intelligence and turned by the KGB. And that Hunt was in Dallas on the orders of a high-level CIA official who was in reality a KGB mole and who ordered Hunt to kill Oswald. Do you think Angleton sent Hunt to Dallas? If this were a movie then Angleton would turn out to be the mole but in real life I think that is far-fetched. What is your take on all this now? Was the memo authentic? Did Angleton send Hunt to Dallas and, if not, who did? If he was in Dallas at all. And what was his mission? Was Oswald a double- or triple agent? Joe Trento: Angleton thought very little of Hunt so I doubt that they ever had much to do with each other. I suspect that the CIA successfully cited national security considerations regarding some of the JFK/ Soviet stuff. We had a number of sources from the CIA office of Security who offered a variety of theories. As far as it not showing up in the committee records, I suspect an agreement was made between the CIA and the Chairman. I would have never heard except from my staff sources. One possibility is they wanted to do something with it in the hearings and the members were against it, I may have been used as a trial balloon. At the time my colleague and I wrote the piece I suspected everyone's motives. Considering what I know now of the other screw ups the CIA and FBI perpetuated in this case the memo reflected potential public relations problem. Gary Buell: Thanks for the reply. Obviously the CIA was able to cover-up this "public relations problem", thanks, as you said, to Blakey. Let me ask a few direct questions: 1. Do you think Hunt was in Dallas? If so, any idea who sent him and on what mission? Or are we left simply with speculation? The most fascinating speculation was that he was sent by the KGB mole. 2. Do you think there was a high-level mole in the CIA? If this is in the book, I apologize as I am still reading it. Can we rule out Angleton? Helms? You have been very gracious thus far and I realize that you cannot correspond endlessly with every reader. Joe Trento: I think Hunt must have been in Dallas - perhaps not even on CIA business. Probably coming back from Mexico. I think the idea that a mole ordered him to Dallas was far fetched. You would have to assume he was competent and could carry out what the mole wanted. I don't think Helms or Angleton were moles. But it is clear that there were at least mid-level moles. Finish the book. You might want to get my previous book (with Bill Corson and Susan Trento Widows.) I believe that Carl Jenkins was a limited hangout in 1986. In doing so he undermined the testimony of Gene Wheaton and enabled Ted Shackley to sue Daniel Sheehan. In his autobiography, Spymaster (2005), Shackley attacks those people who have suggested that the CIA were involved with the drug trade. However, he does not mention the fact that he won a libel case against Daniel Sheehan. In fact Sheehan does not get a mention in the book. Nor does Carl Jenkins.

Victor Marchetti has described this type of CIA operation a “limited hangout”. To quote Marchetti: 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. We will probably never find out who masterminded the assassination of JFK - or why. There are too many powerful special interests connected with the conspiracy for the truth to come out even now, 15 years after the murder. But during the next two months, according to sensitive sources in the CIA and on HSCA, we are going to learn much more about the crime. The new disclosures will be sensational, but only superficially so. A few of the lesser villains involved in the conspiracy and its subsequent coverup will be identified for the first time - and allowed to twist slowly in the wind on live network TV. Most of the others to be fingered are already dead. But once again the good folks of middle America will be hoodwinked by the government and its allies in the establishment news media. In fact, we are being set up to witness yet another coverup, albeit a sophisticated one, designed by the CIA with the assistance of the FBI and the blessing of the Carter administration. A classic example of a limited hangout is how the CIA has handled and manipulated the Church Committee's investigation of two years ago. The committee learned nothing more about the assassinations of foreign leaders, illicit drug programs, or the penetration of the news media than the CIA allowed it to discover. And this is precisely what the CIA is out to accomplish through HSCA with regard to JFK's murder. In August, 1978, Marchetti published an article about the assassination of in the liberty Lobby newspaper, Spotlight. In the article Marchetti argued that the HSCA had obtained a 1966 CIA memo that revealed that E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming had been involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. Marchetti's article also included a story that Marita Lorenz had provided information on this plot. Later that month Joseph Trento and Jacquie Powers wrote a similar story for the Sunday News Journal. The HSCA did not publish this CIA memo linking its agents to the assassination of JFK. Hunt now decided to take legal action against the Liberty Lobby and in December, 1981, he was awarded $650,000 in damages. Liberty Lobby appealed to the United States Court of Appeals. It was claimed that Hunt's attorney, Ellis Rubin, had offered a clearly erroneous instruction as to the law of defamation. The three-judge panel agreed and the case was retried. This time Mark Lane defended the Liberty Lobby against Hunt's action. Lane eventually discovered Marchetti’s sources. The main source was William Corson. It also emerged that Marchetti had also consulted James Angleton and Alan J. Weberman before publishing the article. As a result of obtaining of getting depositions from David Atlee Phillips, Richard Helms, G. Gordon Liddy, Stansfield Turner and Marita Lorenz, plus a skillful cross-examination by Lane of E. Howard Hunt, the jury decided in January, 1995, that Marchetti had not been guilty of libel when he suggested that JFK had been assassinated by people working for the CIA. Gary Buell posted this very interesting information when I raised this issue before: Members who have looked at Joseph Trento's new book "The Secret History of the CIA" know that it contains material of interest concerning the assassination, mostly from the perspective of James Jesus Angleton of the CIA. What it does not contain is anything about the alleged memo re Howard Hunt in Dallas which Trento had written about in an article in the Sunday News Journal, August 20, 1978, and which is reproduced in Plausible Denial by Mark Lane. So I thought I would ask him about it. What follows is our correspondence via e-mail: Gary Buell: I am currently reading your fascinating new book. My particular interest is the JFK assassination and the information you received from Angleton deserves careful consideration. I think that there was one serious omission in your book in that regard. That is the lack of any mention of the memo that Angleton showed you concerning Howard Hunt's alleged presence in Dallas on 11/22/63. Many researchers believe that was an Angleton disinformation ploy of some sort but whether the memo was genuine or not I do not see how the reader can be expected to evaluate Angleton's views on the assassination without considering this material. I believe you yourself once speculated that he may have been attempting to obscure his own role in sending Hunt to Dallas. And, if I am not mistaken did you not also once suggest that Hunt may have been sent to Dallas by a KGB mole? Did you ever discuss this memo or its contents again with Angleton before his death? Joe Trento: I left it out because Hunt's role had been so discussed. My view is that Hunt's presence was more an embarrassment then anything significant. That's how Angleton treated it. Lane made much more of this then I believe it deserved. Gary the real question is it was Angleton's disinformation or someone trying to force the CIA's hand by demonstrating employees had come to Dallas. The original manuscript did include the material but the publisher could not publish a 1,000 page book. Gary Buell: Thanks for the prompt reply. I am not real clear on your answer. If it was Angleton's disinformation to what end? And was Hunt in Dallas or not and who sent him? If I recall your original article (which I did read quoted in Lane's book)you refer to sources at the HSCA admitting having this memo, which was later denied. The whole thing is confusing, particularly your coment about someone trying to force the CIA's hand. I mean Angleton was behind this in one way or another. I would be most interested in reading the section of your book on this that was cut for space, if you are agreeable. Joe Trento: For contractual reasons I cannot give you the cut material to read. But to clarify the Angleton matter: I was originally tipped off by an assassination committee employee. They contacted me because I had written about Angleton and had access to him. They showed me a copy of the memo about Hunt being in Dallas. I called Angleton and he said he was aware of the memo and may even have a copy. He didn't. But a close friend of his did - and that friend said Angleton had entrusted to him. I read that copy, they matched. Jim did this sort of thing in an effort to get sensitive documents out during the months after his firing in 1974. I suspect Jim felt the document and Hunt story would come out anyway so he orchestrated the leak through me and the committee. The committee denial came because the document was never in the official group of documents they received. Jim told me he thought Hunt's presence was meaningless. He first claimed the reason the committee had the memo was because someone wanted to demonstrate he and Helms were covering up. I am convinced that the memo as written while Angleton did his internal probe to see what the Agency had done or not done and they ran across this business with Hunt and realized they had a potential public relations problem if the information got out. I never was told or got the impression that it was anything very significant - just very interesting. Did Jim tell me the truth on this? The answer is yes and no. I think Lane used this and other events to keep himself as part of the story. The reality is that all of this sideshow stuff diverted folks from looking at what the Soviet's did with LHO in Russia. I suspect at the time of the leak that's what Angleton and friends did not want researchers or reporters looking at. Gary Buell: Thank you for your lengthy reply which answers some questions and raises others. So the HSCA did have the memo but could not confirm its authenticity because it was not officially turned over - that is interesting. To my knowledge this memo has never turned up in the archives of the committee or ever been acknowledged. I wonder if it still exists. Re-reading your original article you seem to have placed a great deal more importance on the memo at that time. You cite unamed CIA investigators who theorize that Oswald was working for US Intelligence and turned by the KGB. And that Hunt was in Dallas on the orders of a high-level CIA official who was in reality a KGB mole and who ordered Hunt to kill Oswald. Do you think Angleton sent Hunt to Dallas? If this were a movie then Angleton would turn out to be the mole but in real life I think that is far-fetched. What is your take on all this now? Was the memo authentic? Did Angleton send Hunt to Dallas and, if not, who did? If he was in Dallas at all. And what was his mission? Was Oswald a double- or triple agent? Joe Trento: Angleton thought very little of Hunt so I doubt that they ever had much to do with each other. I suspect that the CIA successfully cited national security considerations regarding some of the JFK/ Soviet stuff. We had a number of sources from the CIA office of Security who offered a variety of theories. As far as it not showing up in the committee records, I suspect an agreement was made between the CIA and the Chairman. I would have never heard except from my staff sources. One possibility is they wanted to do something with it in the hearings and the members were against it, I may have been used as a trial balloon. At the time my colleague and I wrote the piece I suspected everyone's motives. Considering what I know now of the other screw ups the CIA and FBI perpetuated in this case the memo reflected potential public relations problem. Gary Buell: Thanks for the reply. Obviously the CIA was able to cover-up this "public relations problem", thanks, as you said, to Blakey. Let me ask a few direct questions: 1. Do you think Hunt was in Dallas? If so, any idea who sent him and on what mission? Or are we left simply with speculation? The most fascinating speculation was that he was sent by the KGB mole. 2. Do you think there was a high-level mole in the CIA? If this is in the book, I apologize as I am still reading it. Can we rule out Angleton? Helms? You have been very gracious thus far and I realize that you cannot correspond endlessly with every reader. Joe Trento: I think Hunt must have been in Dallas - perhaps not even on CIA business. Probably coming back from Mexico. I think the idea that a mole ordered him to Dallas was far fetched. You would have to assume he was competent and could carry out what the mole wanted. I don't think Helms or Angleton were moles. But it is clear that there were at least mid-level moles. Finish the book. You might want to get my previous book (with Bill Corson and Susan Trento Widows.) I believe that Carl Jenkins was a limited hangout in 1986. In doing so he undermined the testimony of Gene Wheaton and enabled Ted Shackley to sue Daniel Sheehan. In his autobiography, Spymaster (2005), Shackley attacks those people who have suggested that the CIA were involved with the drug trade. However, he does not mention the fact that he won a libel case against Daniel Sheehan. In fact Sheehan does not get a mention in the book. Nor does Carl Jenkins.

Maybe this is why Google is thinking of banning Blogs from its database. I think they might also have banned Forums.

Dave Perry has sent the following message: An attempt was made to convene a Grand Jury back in 1992 by the late Joe West. And West's "basis for legal action" was much more succinct and to the point than Kelly's. The District Attorney is the one responsible for submitting the evidence to the Grand Jury that is made up of ordinary citizens. If they feel the evidence warrants an indictment they will issue one. West's petition was filed in the Dallas County District Court and handled by Thomas Keever - Assistant District Attorney for Dallas County. See No. 92-10500-H Joe H. West v. Dr. Jeffrey J. Barnard in his official capacity as a Dallas County Medical Examiner. The petition failed in part because claiming one is a "researcher" with appropriate evidence and proving it are two different things. Barnard countered by denying each and every allegation contained in West's 11 page petition. Barnard demanded "strict proof thereof" and West could not provide it.

I have to admit that Jack Anderson used to be one of my heroes. I knew he worked along side Drew Pearson when he became the first journalist to take on Joseph McCarthy. However, after reading his two volumes of autobiography: Confessions of a Muckraker (1979) and Peace, War and Politics (1999) I realised that I had made a mistake about Anderson. The truth is that in the late 1940s Anderson and McCarthy became very close. As he points out in his autobiography, Confessions of a Muckraker, "Joe McCarthy... was a pal of mine, irresponsible to be sure, but a fellow bachelor of vast amiability and an excellent source of inside dope on the Hill." McCarthy began supplying Anderson with stories about suspected communists in government. Drew Pearson refused to publish these stories as he was very suspicious of the motives of people like McCarthy. In fact, in 1948, Pearson began investigating J. Parnell Thomas, the Chairman of the House of Un-American Activities Committee. It was not long before Thomas' secretary, Helen Campbell, began providing information about his illegal activities. On 4th August, 1948, Pearson published the story that Thomas had been putting friends on his congressional payroll. They did no work but in return shared their salaries with Thomas. Called before a grand jury, Thomas availed himself to the 1st Amendment, a strategy that he had been unwilling to accept when dealing with the Hollywood Ten. Indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud the government, Thomas was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months in prison and forced to pay a $10,000 fine. Two of his fellow inmates in Danbury Prison were Lester Cole and Ring Lardner Jr. who were serving terms as a result of refusing to testify in front of Thomas and the House of Un-American Activities Committee. Despite this set-back, McCarthy continued to provide Anderson with a lot of information. In Confessions of a Muckraker, Anderson points out: "At my prompting he (McCarthy) would phone fellow senators to ask what had transpired this morning behind closed doors or what strategy was planned for the morrow. While I listened in on an extension he would pump even a Robert Taft or a William Knowland with the handwritten questions I passed him." In return, Anderson provided McCarthy with information about politicians and state officials he suspected of being "communists". Anderson later recalled that his decision to work with McCarthy "was almost automatic.. for one thing, I owed him; for another, he might be able to flesh out some of our inconclusive material, and if so, I would no doubt get the scoop." As a result Anderson passed on his file on the presidential aide, David Demarest Lloyd. On 9th February, 1950, McCarthy made a speech in Salt Lake City where he attacked Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, as "a pompous diplomat in striped pants". He claimed that he had a list of 57 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party. McCarthy went on to argue that some of these people were passing secret information to the Soviet Union. He added: "The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government we can give." The list of names was not a secret and had been in fact published by the Secretary of State in 1946. These people had been identified during a preliminary screening of 3,000 federal employees. Some had been communists but others had been fascists, alcoholics and sexual deviants. As it happens, if McCarthy had been screened, his own drink problems and sexual preferences would have resulted in him being put on the list. Drew Pearson immediately launched an attack on Joe McCarthy. He pointed out that only three people on the list were State Department officials. When this list was first published in 1946, Gustavo Duran and Mary Jane Keeney had both resigned from the State Department. The third person, John Service, had been cleared after a prolonged and careful investigation. Pearson also pointed out that none of these people had been members of the American Communist Party. Anderson asked Pearson to stop attacking McCarthy: "He is our best source on the Hill." Pearson replied, "He may be a good source, Jack, but he's a bad man." On 20th February, 1950, Joe McCarthy made a speech in the Senate supporting the allegations he had made in Salt Lake City. This time he did not describe them as "card-carrying communists" because this had been shown to be untrue. Instead he argued that his list were all "loyalty risks". He also claimed that one of the president's speech-writers, was a communist. Although he did not name him, he was referring to David Demarest Lloyd, the man that Anderson had provided information on. Lloyd immediately issued a statement where he defended himself against McCarthy's charges. President Harry S. Truman not only kept him on but promoted him to the post of Administrative Assistant. Lloyd was indeed innocent of these claims and McCarthy was forced to withdraw these allegations. As Anderson admitted: "At my instigation, then, Lloyd had been done an injustice that was saved from being grevious only by Truman's steadfastness." McCarthy now informed Anderson that he had evidence that Professor Owen Lattimore, director of the Walter Hines Page School of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University, was a Soviet spy. Pearson, who knew Lattimore, while accepting he held left-wing views, he was convinced he was not a spy. In his speeches, McCarthy referred to Lattimore as "Mr X... the top Russian spy... the key man in a Russian espionage ring." On 26th March, 1950, Pearson named Lattimore as McCarthy's Mr. X. Pearson then went onto defend Lattimore against these charges. McCarthy responded by making a speech in Congress where he admitted: "I fear that in the case of Lattimore I may have perhaps placed too much stress on the question of whether he is a paid espionage agent." McCarthy then produced Louis Budenz, the former editor of The Daily Worker. Budenz claimed that Lattimore was a "concealed communist". However, as Anderson admitted: "Budenz had never met Lattimore; he spoke not from personal observation of him but from what he remembered of what others had told him five, six, seven and thirteen years before." Pearson now wrote an article where he showed that Budenz was a serial xxxx: "Apologists for Budenz minimize this on the ground that Budenz has now reformed. Nevertheless, untruthful statements made regarding his past and refusal to answer questions have a bearing on Budenz's credibility." He went on to point out that "all in all, Budenz refused to answer 23 questions on the ground of self-incrimination". Owen Lattimore was eventually cleared of the charge that he was a Soviet spy or a secret member of the American Communist Party and like other victims of McCarthyism, he went to live in Europe and for several years was professor of Chinese studies at Leeds University. Despite the efforts of Jack Anderson, by the end of June, 1950, Drew Pearson had written more than forty daily columns and a significant percentage of his weekly radio broadcasts, that had been devoted to discrediting the charges made by Joseph McCarthy. Joe McCarthy now told Anderson: "Jack, I'm going to have to go after your boss. I mean, no holds barred. I figure I've already lost his supporters; by going after him, I can pick up his enemies." McCarthy, when drunk, told Assistant Attorney General Joe Keenan, that he was considering "bumping Pearson off". On 15th December, 1950, McCarthy made a speech in Congress where he claimed that Pearson was "the voice of international Communism" and "a Moscow-directed character assassin." McCarthy added that Pearson was "a prostitute of journalism" and that Pearson "and the Communist Party murdered James Forrestal in just as cold blood as though they had machine-gunned him." Over the next two months McCarthy made seven Senate speeches on Drew Pearson. He called for a "patriotic boycott" of his radio show and as a result, Adam Hats, withdrew as Pearson's radio sponsor. Although he was able to make a series of short-term arrangements, Pearson was never again able to find a permanent sponsor. Twelve newspapers cancelled their contracts with Pearson. Joe McCarthy and his friends also raised money to help Fred Napoleon Howser, the Attorney General of California, to sue Pearson for $350,000. This involved an incident in 1948 when Pearson accused Howser of consorting with mobsters and of taking a bribe from gambling interests. Help was also given to Father Charles Coughlin, who sued Pearson for $225,000. However, in 1951 the courts ruled that Pearson had not libeled either Howser or Coughlin. Only the St. Louis Star-Times defended Pearson. As its editorial pointed out: "If Joseph McCarthy can silence a critic named Drew Pearson, simply by smearing him with the brush of Communist association, he can silence any other critic." However, Pearson did get the support of J. William Fulbright, Wayne Morse, Clinton Anderson, William Benton and Thomas Hennings in the Senate. In October, 1953, Joe McCarthy began investigating communist infiltration into the military. Attempts were made by McCarthy to discredit Robert Stevens, the Secretary of the Army. The president, Dwight Eisenhower, was furious and now realised that it was time to bring an end to McCarthy's activities. The United States Army now passed information about McCarthy to journalists who were known to be opposed to him. This included the news that McCarthy and Roy Cohn had abused congressional privilege by trying to prevent David Schine from being drafted. When that failed, it was claimed that Cohn tried to pressurize the Army into granting Schine special privileges. Drew Pearson published the story on 15th December, 1953. Some figures in the media, such as writers George Seldes and I. F. Stone, and cartoonists, Herb Block and Daniel Fitzpatrick, had fought a long campaign against McCarthy. Other figures in the media, who had for a long time been opposed to McCarthyism, but were frightened to speak out, now began to get the confidence to join the counter-attack. Edward Murrow, the experienced broadcaster, used his television programme, See It Now, on 9th March, 1954, to criticize McCarthy's methods. Newspaper columnists such as Walter Lippmann also became more open in their attacks on McCarthy. The senate investigations into the United States Army were televised and this helped to expose the tactics of Joseph McCarthy. One newspaper, the Louisville Courier-Journal, reported that: "In this long, degrading travesty of the democratic process, McCarthy has shown himself to be evil and unmatched in malice." Leading politicians in both parties, had been embarrassed by McCarthy's performance and on 2nd December, 1954, a censure motion condemned his conduct by 67 votes to 22. McCarthy also lost the chairmanship of the Government Committee on Operations of the Senate. He was now without a power base and the media lost interest in his claims of a communist conspiracy. As one journalist, Willard Edwards, pointed out: "Most reporters just refused to file McCarthy stories. And most papers would not have printed them anyway." McCarthy was only defeated because brave journalists like Drew Pearson stood up to him. Anderson played no part in this. In fact, for several years, he provided information to help McCarthy.

(1) The most controversial aspect of your book is the inclusion of Angel Murgado’s testimony concerning the meeting at Sylvia Odio’s apartment. On reflection, do you think Murgado was telling you the truth? (2) How close do you think Jim Garrison got to the truth concerning the events surrounding the assassination of JFK?

Bill Kelly has posted an article on the Forum about the possibility of obtaining a grand jury in order to investigate the assassination of JFK. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5634 I have started a thread where I have asked researchers to put forward evidence that would justify the case being reopened. As a result of your own research, what evidence is currently available that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only one responsible for killing JFK? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659