John Simkin
-
Posts
15,705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by John Simkin
-
-
Could those who have volunteered to join the project add the biographies of the participants at:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=624
I have also had several private emails from people willing to join the project. If you have not done so already, please add your comments to this thread.
-
Thank you for posting this excellent article. It might not have told us very much about the assassination of JFK but it provides an excellent insight into what it must be like to be the child of a much hated historical figure.
It also gives us information that helps explain Marina Oswald’s comments about the assassination. See for example this thread and interview:
-
Mike Davies, senior research analyst at Butler Group, says: "The free internet model - back to the idea of the egalitarian, hippy web - is gone. It's a business environment now. If you want high-value services, you pay for them." Clare Hart, CEO of the giant news retrieval service Factiva, agrees: "People are sick of wasting their time when about 50% of web searches turn up unsatisfactory results."
These are just two of the quotes taken from an interesting article by Kate Bulkley in this week’s Media Guardian. I can understand why Davies and Hart want to believe this but it is just not true. As someone who spends a large part of my working day researching historical information via the web, I know that if used properly, search-engines come up with the goods 95% of the time. When they don’t, they invariably give you enough leads to find the information offline.
-
This is an interesting story that does not appear in any of the books I have on Franklin D. Roosevelt. The nearest thing to this in British history was when MI5 attempted to overthrow Harold Wilson in 1968. The plan was to replace him with a government led by Lord Mountbatten. Also involved in the plot was Cecil King, chairman of International Publishing Corporation. There is no evidence that Mountbatten had agreed to head the new government. The plot was foiled and King was ousted from his job. The story is told in Peter Wright’s book, Spycatcher. The government tried to halt publication of the book but after it appeared in Australia in 1987 it gave up the fight.
Wright, who was heavily involved in the plot, admits that MI5 tried to destabilize the Wilson government between 1964-70. This included smearing left-wing members of the government. This resulted in one Labour MP committing suicide (Bernard Floud). It was also successful in making sure that Wilson did not do anything too left-wing (like condemning US policy in Vietnam).
MI5 tried again to destabilize Wilson’s government when he returned to power in 1974. This was probably one of the main reasons Wilson resigned in 1976. His replacement, James Callaghan, was much more to M15’s liking and he was allowed complete freedom to introduce what became known as monetarism. (Margaret Thatcher was only continuing policies started by Callaghan).
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JkingC.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSwright.htm
-
I have several responses to my posting yesterday on several forums about Marina. Several researchers say she is currently unwilling to talk about the case. What comes out of her interview with Oprah Winfrey is her unwillingness to say she lied to the Warren Commission. Maybe she has been threatened with legal action if she admits she did this? However, what is clear from those like Adele Edisen and Jack White who have spoken to her, is that she does not believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy.
-
You do mean EMMELINE Pankhurst, don't you? not to get confused with EMILY Wilding Davison of Derby Martyrdom fame
Emily is short for Emmeline. All her friends (and her critics) called her Emily. Emily Wilding Davison was also Emmeline.
-
On May 1 10 countries join the EU. Over the next two weeks the Guardian newspaper will be profiling the new members and exploring what enlargement means for the union. I will be interested to hear from Europeans about what the think about EU enlargement.
-
If Marina N. Porter has lied, she holds within her the key witness testimony that would turn the JFK case around once and for all. She claims not only that she took the backyard photos, she also claims Lee confessed to her that he shot at Gen. Walker and that he intended to attend an event where Richard Nixon was present, carrying his hand gun (there never was an event where Nixon was supposed to speak in New Orleans at that time).
Marina Oswald did speak with Oprah Winfrey in 1996, on the thirty-third anniversary of the assassination, to explain her current belief in Oswald's innocence.
A transcript of the interview can be found here:
-
Let us add another living key witness to the list: Buell W. Frazier. He also lives in the Dallas Ft. Worth area.
Better still. Invite Marina Oswald and Buell W. Frazier to join the forum so that they can be questioned by members. To important witnesses, Judyth Baker and Adele Edisen are members and are willing to answer questions on what they know.
-
As to Marina Oswald Porter. I do think that she has been honest in her depositions she has given to both the Warren commission and the HSCA, at least when it comes to the photos, the Walker incident and LHO's possessing a rifle. In any case at least since the 90's she has claimed that her former husband is innocent and she would love to do whatever she can to prove him innocent. As far as I know she is still alive and well, living in Flower Mound TX, a "suburb" of Irving or Dallas TX. I recall that she has two phone numbers under her name Marina Porter in Flower Mound TX. I could be mistaken, but I believe it's her in FM. Maybe she's ready for a lie detector test or hypnosis or something so we could establish whether she is speaking the truth. Is anyone down there willing to approach her?
This is a very good point. I have posted your comments on a couple of forums for JFK researchers based in the United States. We also have a few members who have interviewed several witnesses in this case (Jack White, Larry Hancock, Martin Shackelford, Ian Griggs). Hopefully, they will reply to your posting.
-
The BNP (I understand it stands for Bullies, Nazis and Pimps) target their opponents and use fascist tactics of intimidation against them. To treat them as a "normal" political party is naive.
Chapter and verse is available http://www.labournet.net/ukunion/0311/antifas1.html
As Adolf Hitler used to say "either we will trample the corpses of our enemies or they will trample ours." This is not the attitude which leads to a gentlemanly debate.
I am a libertarian socialist (obviously different from Derek’s socialism). I don’t believe freedom of expression should only be limited to those we agree with. As much as I dislike Jean-Marie le Pen’s political views I think he should be allowed to express them in the UK. If his comments break any of our laws than he should be dealt with accordingly. However, it is wrong to prejudge his comments by trying to ban him from the country.
In the past the political left have been the main sufferers from censorship. On some occasions, such as the communist (state capitalist) governments in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc., so-called left wing governments have imposed strict censorship on those who wanted to express alternative political views (including those to the left as well as the right of the government). Derek probably believes these governments were right to do this. However, I don’t. In fact, I think it is the main reason why they degenerated into military dictatorships. Like Jean Philippe I support the idea of open rational debate. I am so confident of my political views that I believe they will win (or be adapted) in any open debate. It always surprises me that those who argue so passionately about politics lack so much confidence about their opinions that they want to censor those who disagree with them.
Anyway, does anyone believe a French fascist like Jean-Marie le Pen will persuade any voters in our country to support the BNP?
-
I think it would also be interesting to look at the group of 'Radical Suffragists', who were mainly based in the northern industrial cities - there was an excellent book by Liddington and Norris, called 'One hand tied behind us' that uncovered these women for the first time. This is what Jill Liddington wrote about her work:Living in the Manchester area in the mid-1970s, I began to uncover the neglected story of the radical suffragists from Lancashire, whose commitment to the Votes for Women campaign sprang from their industrial experience in textile mills and factories and from their involvement in the early labour and trade union movement. These weavers, winders and tailoresses took their grassroots suffrage message to women at the factory gate and the cottage door, to the Women's Co-operative Guilds and trade union branches. Drawing upon little-known archival sources and upon tape-recorded interview with the last surviving daughters of these suffragists, in One Hand Tied Behind Us (1978) Jill Norris and I unearthed the forgotten history of the courageous radical suffragists. It was indeed an instance of the 'digging deeper' that Rowbotham had flagged; and it formed part of a 1970s renaissance of women's history, rooted in both women's liberation and labour history, which gave weight to both sexual difference and to class.
I also wonder if you have got your chronology correct with regard to the WFL and the Arson campaign - The WFL was set up in 1907 by Charlotte Despard, but as far as I can remember and I don't have my books with me at school , the Arson campaign was closer to 1911/12.
Of course, I totally accept your argument that the teaching of womens's struggle to gain the vote should take in the wider picture, but to be honest I wonder how many schools even devote more than a lesson or two to the topic?
Finally, I would (in my best teacherly fashion) ask you to proof read your work more carefully. I have noticed a very important error in your discussion about the leadership of the WSPU!!
You are right to suggest that the Women’s Freedom League (WFL) was established before the start of the arson campaign. In 1907 some leading members of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) began to question the leadership of Emmeline Pankhurst and Christabel Pankhurst. These women objected to the way that the Pankhursts were making decisions without consulting members. They also felt that a small group of wealthy women like Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence were having too much influence over the organisation. This was linked to the decision that the Pankhursts were willing to accepted the limited franchise for women. It was argued that this reflected the interests of the middle-class women in the movement who would benefit from this type of reform. The socialist members of the WSPU were only willing to accept the vote for all women. They were primarily concerned by the condition of working-class women who were being exploited by their lack of political power. They did not think this problem would be solved by giving middle class women the vote (in fact it would probably make the situation worse as middle class women were at this time more conservative than their conservative counterparts).
Therefore in the autumn of 1907, Teresa Billington-Greig, Elizabeth How-Martyn, Dora Marsden, Margaret Nevinson and Charlotte Despard and seventy other members of the WSPU left to form the Women's Freedom League(WFL). Like the WSPU, the Women's Freedom League was a militant organisation that was willing the break the law. As a result, over 100 of their members were sent to prison after being arrested on demonstrations or refusing to pay taxes. However, members of the WFL was a completely non-violent organisation and opposed the WSPU campaign of vandalism against private and commercial property. The WFL were especially critical of the WSPU arson campaign.
The arson campaign began in the summer of 1912 (the first target was a house being built for David Lloyd George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer). Once again, this decision was taken by Emily Pankhurst without consulting the issue with her members (a bit like Tony Blair and the Labour Party). Some leaders of the WSPU such as Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence, disagreed with this arson campaign. When Pethick-Lawrence objected, she was expelled from the organisation. This led to more women leaving the organization and joining the Women’s Freedom League (WFL). Others like Elizabeth Robins showed their disapproval by ceasing to be active in the WSPU.
-
Most textbooks falsely give the impression that it was the suffragettes who got the vote for women. It was in fact the suffragists who played the most important role in this
I would be interested to read your supporting evidence for this statement - I am sure that a historian of your standing would not be so mono-causal - what about the role of the First World War, or the resignation of Asquith?
I did not mean to give the impression that the suffragists were the only factor in women getting the vote. Clearly the role of individual politicians also played an important part in this. So did events such as the First World War (although I believe the impact of this – especially the reward of the vote as a result of women’s contribution to the war effort has been over emphasised).
My point was that the way the information is presented in textbooks distorts the link students make between cause and effect. With so much time spent on the actions of the suffragettes before and war and the role played by Emily and Christabel Pankhurst in the recruitment campaign (something the suffragists refused to do) it is not surprising that students make a link between these events.
My argument is that textbooks should devote more time to the campaign adopted by the suffragists. They should also spend more time at looking at these amazing women who suffered greatly for the stand they made against traditional values.
I do not believe the emphasis placed on the role played by the suffragettes in textbooks has any political dimension. I suspect the real reason is that the suffragettes provide a more exciting and dramatic narrative. Another reason is that the Pankhursts were fascinating women (although I would prefer more time spent on Sylvia than Emily or Christabel). However, I think that there are some fascinating suffragists that would be just as interesting. Here are just a few of the women that could be studied in the classroom: Katharine Glasier, Selina Cooper, Margaret McMillan, Marie Corbett, Margery Corbett-Ashby, Mary Macarthur, Helena Swanwick, Lydia Becker, Isabella Ford, etc.
I also think the textbooks should look at those women who were originally suffragettes but left the movement because of Emily Pankhurst’s decision to launch the arson campaign and to accept the limited franchise (Teresa Billington-Greig, Charlotte Despard, Margaret Nevinson, Hannah Mitchell, Evelyn Sharp, etc. – in other words, the founders of the Women’s Freedom League).
-
Thank you for your detailed response to my questions. You make some good points about the JFK research community. It is true that once researchers have developed a theory they are reluctant to change their mind when new evidence becomes available. This is especially a problem when that evidence undermines a theory that has been published in a book or website. I believe it is important that historians remain open-minded about subjects they feel strongly about. Historians, like politicians, should not be afraid to admit they have changed their mind about a particular issue.
You are to be commended for the tone of your replies. Far too many people involved in this case are quick to make abusive comments about the people they disagree with. I don’t see why we cannot disagree politely with each other. The main objective is to reach the truth. I believe the best way we can achieve this is by having an open, rational debate. It will also set a good example to the students who are reading these pages.
This debate also raises issues about the way history is being written in the age of the internet. In the period following the assassination the mass media was able to largely shape the way people interpreted the death of JFK. Later, the situation changed when large media organizations realised they could make a large amount of money by publishing books about possible conspiracy theories. This has now changed and in recent years conspiracy theorists have had great difficulty getting their books published.
However, more and more people now obtain their information via the internet. When someone goes online for the first-time they often type in their name in a search-engine. Sometimes this gives them a link to a page on my website. (For example, if you type in “Judyth Baker” in Google you get 1,490 pages. John McAdams comes first and I come second.) People often email me to complain about what I have written about them or a close relative). Negotiations usually take place which often involves the submission of documentary evidence. In some cases the web page is changed as a result of these negotiations. In some cases I refuse to change the narrative but I do add their comments to the sources section. You are an example of someone who has persuaded me to change the content of my page on you. As a result, the pages on you contained on McAdams and my pages are very different. They are definitely two very different interpretations of the same story. It is up to the reader to make up their own mind about what really happened. This to be seems very different to the way that history has been written in the past.
I have a few questions I would like to ask.
(1) When did you meet Lee Harvey Oswald for the first time? What were the circumstances of this meeting?
(2) Did Oswald introduce you to Ferrie or was it the other way round?
(3) Did Oswald ever mention David Atlee Phillips by name? Did he give you the names of any of his other CIA contacts?
(4) Did Oswald ever give you any idea of who was behind the plans to assassinate JFK? If so, did he say anything about the reasons for the assassination?
(5) Was the work you did with Dr. Sherman part of an “official” CIA operation or was it being run by “rogue” elements in the agency?
-
For many years I have been concerned about the way the ‘Votes for Women’ issue is presented in school textbooks. I am especially concerned about the impression students might get about the way women got the vote.
Those women who believed it was morally right to use violence in order to get the vote were in a very small minority (the suffragettes). At its peak, the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) only had around 2000 members (Of these, over 1,000 went to prison). This was to fall dramatically in 1913 when it began its arson campaign. Several of its most important figures left at this point. They also disagreed with the WSPU’s new strategy of arguing in favour of a limited franchise (an attempt to get them the support of the Middle Class). This lost them the support of socialists like Sylvia Pankhurst who was fully committed to getting the vote for all women. By 1914 the WSPU only had a few hundred members. It was a broken organization with all of its leaders either in prison or living in exile.
In contrast, the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) was still growing and had over 100,000 members. The suffragists, led by Millicent Fawcett, was this group that the government was really frightened of. It was an organization that refused to resort to violence. In fact, the tactics of the NUWSS were later adopted by Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). The suffragettes were equivalent to the Blank Panthers.
Most textbooks falsely give the impression that it was the suffragettes who got the vote for women. It was in fact the suffragists who played the most important role in this. It is also interesting to compare the different ways that the suffragettes and suffragists behaved during and after the war. The suffragettes campaigned for all out war with Germany whereas the suffragists campaigned for a negotiated peace.
The suffragettes accepted the limited franchise whereas the suffragists continued to fight for equality between the sexes. Suffragettes ended up in the Conservative Party or the British Union of Fascists whereas NUWSS members continued to play an active role in the reform movement via the Liberal and Labour parties.
In schools today we rightly use Martin Luther King as a role model of how you can use peaceful methods to achieve social change. It is strange we do not study Millicent Fawcett and the NUWSS in the same way.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wwspu.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wnuwss.htm
My worry is that history teachers are sometimes guilty of stressing the role played by violence in the way historical change takes place. If so, why do we do that?
-
On April 28 1944 a total of 749 US soldiers and sailors died after three ships involved in a training exercise were ambushed by German torpedo boats just off Slapton Sands near Stokenham on the Devon coast.
The full scale of the tragedy remained hidden for almost 50 years because of a secrecy order issued by General Dwight D Eisenhower, the supreme commander of the allied expeditionary force, who feared news of the disaster could destroy morale or tip off the Germans.
For an article on the subject see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,...1202173,00.html
-
Jean-Marie le Pen has agreed to speak at a dinner for Nick Griffin – fascist leader of the BNP to help raise funds for the European elections in June. There is a campaign by the left in the UK to prevent Le Pen from speaking. They point out that in the Le Pen called the Holocaust “a mere detail of history” and has argued that he believed in the “inequality of races”.
What do people think? Should Jean-Marie le Pen be allowed to speak at the meeting?
-
In a new book on Fidel Castro has just been published. The author, Volker Skierka, is highly critical of Castro’s human rights record. However, he points out that Castro is “almost unique among dictators in not robbing his own people blind…. In fact, he has no interest in the usual trappings of dictatorship.” Skierka argues that in many ways Cuba puts the US to shame when it comes to access to health care for the poor.
What do people think? Is Castro a hero or villain?
-
On BBC tonight there is another good political film called Wag the Dog. Before a Presidential Election, a spin-doctor (Robert De Niro) and a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman), join efforts to "fabricate" a war in order to cover-up a presidential sex scandal.
-
Karyn Kupcinet is another whose death has been linked to the Kennedy assassination. I am not convinced but it is an interesting story.
Irv Kupcinet was a well-known journalist and television talk show host. He knew Jack Ruby in Chicago in the 1940s. According to W. Penn Jones (Forgive My Grief, 1966) Kupcinet kept in contact with Ruby and discovered that he was involved in a plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Jones argues that Kupcinet passed this information on to his daughter Karyn. In his book, Forgive My Grief, Jones reports that "a few days before the assassination, Karyn Kupcinet, 23, was trying to place a long distance telephone call from the Los Angeles area. According to reports, the long distance operator heard Miss Kupcinet scream into the telephone that President Kennedy was going to be killed."
Karyn Kupcinet's body was discovered on 30th November, 1963. Police estimated that she had been dead for two days. The New York Times reported that she had been strangled. Her actor boyfriend, Andrew Prine was the main suspect but he was never charged with the murder and the crime remains unsolved.
Some researchers have claimed that there was a strong link between the death of Kupcinet and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It was argued that the conspirators were trying to frighten Kupcinet from telling what he knew. Irv Kupcinet rejected this idea. He wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times (9th November, 1992): "The NBC Today Show on Friday carried a list of people who died violently in 1963 shortly after the death of President John F. Kennedy and may have had some link to the assassination. The first name on the list was Karyn Kupcinet, my daughter. That is an atrocious outrage. She did die violently in a Hollywood murder case still unsolved. That same list was published in a book years ago with no justification or verification. The book left the impression that some on the list may have been killed to silence them because of knowledge of the assassination. Nothing could be further from the truth in my daughter's case."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKkupcinet.htm
Karyn Kupcinet
-
1. Who was LHO's CIA and mob contact? DeMohrenschildt? Ruby? Phillips?
2. Who put LHO up to shooting at General E. Walker? DeMohrenschildt?
3. Why did LHO agree to bring in the Mannlicher Carcano to work?
4. Why did LHO ask his wife to take the infamous backyard photos?
5. In case LHO knew what was going to go down, how did he expect to interfere and then escape unharmed?
6. Isn't it funny that a "high-society" man in his fifties is the best friend of LHO, who is 24 and unemployed or a laborer?
1. Who was LHO's CIA and mob contact? DeMohrenschildt? Ruby? Phillips? 1. Who was LHO's CIA and mob contact? DeMohrenschildt? Ruby? Phillips?
1. I don’t believe the evidence allows us to answer that question. However, his likely mob contact was Charles (Dutz) Murret. His wife, Lillian Murret, was the sister of Marguerite Oswald, the mother of Lee Harvey Oswald. When Oswald was a child he lived with the Murret family. Oswald returned to the Murret home after arriving back from the Soviet Union in 1962.
In the Warren Commission Murret was portrayed as a steamship clerk. However, the House Select Committee on Assassinations discovered that Murret was an illegal bookmaker. Murret was also an associate of Sam Saia, one of the leaders of organized crime in New Orleans. Saia was also a close friend of Carlos Marcello. Another of Murret's associates, Nofio Pecora, was linked to Jack Ruby. According to a FBI informant in 1979 Marcello admitted having known both Murret and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Murret’s was very unconvincing when interviewed by Albert Jenner on behalf of the Warren Commission. He seemed to be unable to remember very much about his contacts with Oswald. He was not asked about his links to organized crime.
2. Who put LHO up to shooting at General E. Walker? DeMohrenschildt?
2. It is highly unlikely that Oswald did shoot at Walker. There was a witness to the shooting. Kirk Coleman saw two men making their escape, one stopped to place something in the back of his Ford sedan, then they both drove off in different cars. As Oswald could not drive this has raised serious doubts if he could have been involved in this attempt on Walker's life.
The evidence against Oswald mainly came from his wife Marina. She told the FBI: “she "asked him what happened, and he said that he just tried to shoot General Walker. I asked him who General Walker was. I mean how dare you to go and claim somebody's life, and he said "Well, what would you say if somebody got rid of Hitler at the right time? So if you don't know about General Walker, how can you speak up on his behalf?." Because he told me... he was something equal to what he called him a fascist."
Why would Marina implicate her husband in a crime he did not commit? I will answer that in the answer to Q4.
It was very important to the Warren Commission that Oswald had tried to kill Walker. In its report it said that one of the major reasons they believed Oswald was capable of killing Kennedy was “his capacity for violence as evidenced by his attempt to kill General Walker.”
Walker plays an important role in the assassination of Kennedy. Walker was a strong supporter of the far-right John Birch Society. In April 1961 Walker was accused of indoctrinating his troops with right-wing literature. With the agreement of President John F. Kennedy, Defence Secretary Robert S. McNamara relieved Walker of his command and announced an investigation into the affair. Kennedy was accused of trying to suppress the anti-Communist feelings of the military. Walker resigned from the army in protest about the way he had been treated.
One of the soldiers who Walker successfully indoctrinated was Larrie Schmidt. After the leaving the army he settled in Dallas. He was a member of the John Birch Society in Dallas. His brother worked as Walker’s chauffeur. Schmidt later invited Bernard Weissman to Dallas. Weissman was then introduced to Joe Grinnan, another member of the John Birch Society. Grinnan was involved in organizing protests against the visit of John F. Kennedy. Grinnan seemed to know about the visit before it was officially announced to the public. Grinnan suggested that they should place a black-bordered advert in the Dallas Morning News on 22nd November, 1963. The advert cost $1,465. Grinnan supplied the money. He claimed that some of this came from Nelson Bunker Hunt, the son of Haroldson L. Hunt. Weissman was given the task of signing the advert and taking it to the newspaper office.
After the assassination, Walker, Grinnan, Weissman and Schmidt all fled from Dallas.
3. Why did LHO agree to bring in the Mannlicher Carcano to work?
3. It is debateable whether Oswald did take the rifle into work. Only two people saw him take the package into the Texas Book Depository. Wesley Buell Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae Randle.
In September, 1963, Frazier began work at the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. The following month, Ruth Paine, a neighbour of Linnie Mae Randle, told her that Lee Harvey Oswald was going to work at the same building. The two men became friends and Frazier agreed to give Oswald a lift to work when he was staying at Paine's house in Irving.
On 22nd November, 1963, Frazier gave Oswald a lift to the Texas Book Depository. He told the Warren Commission that Oswald took a package into work that day that he claimed contained curtain rods. In his book The Kennedy Conspiracy, Anthony Summers, points out: "Ironically, it was Frazier and his sister who created a slight doubt that Oswald had, in fact, been carrying the murder weapon rather than his "curtain rods." Both insisted Oswald's parcel was a good eight inches shorter than the disassembled Mannlicher-Carcano. Frazier demonstrated this by showing that Oswald could not physically have carried a 35-inch rifle tucked into his armpit with the base cupped in his hand, as Frazier remembered."
Only Jack Dougherty saw Oswald enter the Texas Book Depository on 22nd November, 1963. However, he told the Warren Commission that Oswald was not carrying "anything in his hands" when he arrived that morning.
A group of Dallas Police Department detectives, including Will Fritz, Seymour Weitzman, Roger Craig, Eugene Boone and Luke Mooney searched the Texas School Book Depository soon after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. On the sixth floor they discovered a rifle hidden beneath some boxes. At first the detectives identified it as a 7.65 Mauser. The officers had no doubts about their identification and affidavits were drawn up by Boone and Weitzman, who described the weapon in detail, noting the colour of the sling and the scope. District Attorney Henry M. Wade, in a television interview, referred to the sixth-floor discovery and quoted the weapon as a Mauser, a statement picked up by the press and reported widely.
It was the FBI who announced that the officers had been mistaken. According to them it was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, an Italian bolt-action rifle used in the Second World War. All the detectives agreed to change their mind about the rifle except Roger Craig. He appears to have been the only honest police in Dallas. He also testified at the Warren Commission that he thought shots had been fired from the Grassy Knoll and that he had seen Oswald get into a car soon after the assassination. Craig was forced to resign from the Dallas Police Department and after several attempts to murder him, he took his own life.
The FBI claimed that the rifle had been purchased from Klein's sporting goods in Chicago on 12th March, 1963, by a man using the name, A. J. Hiddell. When Oswald was arrested he was carrying a forged identity card bearing the name Alek J. Hiddell. This is in itself very strange. In Texas at that time it was possible to buy guns in shops without having to show any identification. Why did Oswald buy a rifle with a false name by mail order that could be traced back to him? Once again, Oswald appears to have been set-up as the assassin.
4. Why did LHO ask his wife to take the infamous backyard photos?
4. It is highly unlikely that he did. Yet Marina Oswald told the FBI that she did. Why would she do this if it was untrue? It has to be remembered that by this time Oswald was dead. If he had been alive she could not have been forced to testify against him in court. Marina later claimed that the FBI was threatening to have her deported if she not cooperate with their investigation. Oswald was dead and she was still alive. Understandably she told the FBI what they wanted to hear. This also explains why she told the FBI that her husband had tried to kill Walker.
As you probably know, many researchers believe the photograph is a fake. It also seems strange that Oswald would want to pose for such a photograph. He also sent a signed copy (with the words “hunter of fascists”) of the photograph to DeMohrenschildt. They made several mistakes with this set-up. One concerns the two socialist newspapers he was holding. They reflected the views of two opposing groups: one pro Stalin and one pro Trotsky. It is of course impossible to believe that Oswald would have subscribed to both these newspapers.
5. In case LHO knew what was going to go down, how did he expect to interfere and then escape unharmed?
5. The Warren Commission had problems with this. If the evidence presented by the FBI was true, it would seem that Oswald wanted to be caught. Therefore the WC claimed that Oswald killed Kennedy so that he could make his mark in history. They did not try to explain why Oswald always denied he was responsible (he made the valid point about why would a Marxist murder Kennedy in order that he should be replaced with someone following the same anti-Castro policies). In fact, Oswald correctly claimed he was a “patsy”.
6. Isn't it funny that a "high-society" man in his fifties is the best friend of LHO, who is 24 and unemployed or a laborer?
6. George DeMohrenschildt is a crucial figure in the Kennedy assassination. The son of a wealthy noble, he was born in Russia. Both his parents suffered at the hands of the Bolsheviks. He later claimed he had involved in a pro-Nazi plot to kill Joseph Stalin. De Mohrenschildt reached the United States in 1938. The British intelligence services warned the American government that they suspected that De Monrenschildt was working for German intelligence.
DeMohrenschildt went to work for the Shumaker company in New York. He worked under Pierre Fraiss who was connected with French intelligence. De Mohrenschildt agreed to collect information on people involved in "pro-German activity". In 1939 he went to work for Humble Oil, a company founded by Prescott Bush (George Bush’s grandfather with large investments in Nazi Germany).
After the Second World War De Mohrenschildt settled in Dallas where he worked for the oil millionaire, Clint Murchison. During this period he got to know Jackie Kennedy.
In October, 1962 De Mohrenschildt became friends with Lee Harvey Oswald in Fort Worth. He suggested that Oswald should move to Dallas. In February, 1963 he introduced Marina Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald to Ruth Paine. On 24th April, 1963, Marina and her daughter went to live with Paine. Oswald rented a room in Dallas but stored some of his possessions in Ruth Paine’s garage. Ruth also helped Oswald to get a job at the Texas Book Depository.
As you say, the friendship between De Mohrenschildt and Oswald seems a strange one. De Mohrenschildt was on the extreme right and Oswald was a proclaimed Marxist. Ruth Paine was also on the left and was an active member of the American Civil Liberties Union. (In a phone call that J. Edgar Hoover made to LBJ the day after the assassination, he indicated that the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights organizations were involved in the killing of Kennedy).
In 1963 De Mohrenschildt moved to Haiti. After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, De Mohrenschildt was recalled to America to testify before the Warren Commission. He was asked about the claim of Marina Oswald that he knew about Oswald's attempt to kill General Edwin Walker. After giving evidence he returned to Haiti.
De Mohrenschildt returned to the United States in 1977. He approached Edward Jay Epstein complaining that he was short of money. Epstein offered him $4,000 for an interview. During their talks De Mohrenschildt admitted that in 1962 he had been contacted by J. Walton Moore, who was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency in Dallas. De Mohrenschildt was asked by Moore to find out about Oswald's time in the Soviet Union. In return he was given help with an oil deal he was negotiating with Papa Doc Duvalier, the Haitian dictator. In March 1963, De Mohrenschildt got the contract from the Haitian government. He had assumed that this was because of the help he had given to the CIA.
On 29th March, 1977, Epstein and De Mohrenschildt, broke for lunch and decided to meet again at 3 p.m. George De Mohrenschildt returned to his room where he found a card from Gaeton Fonzi, an investigator working for the Select House Committee on Assassinations. George De Mohrenschildt's body was found later that day. He had apparently committed suicide by shooting himself in the mouth.
You can find further details of all these characters at:
-
Most books about the Kennedy assassination have very little to say about Bernard Weissman. Those that do point out that Weissman placed the anti-Kennedy advert in the Dallas Morning News that appeared on the morning of the assassination. Others refer to the claims made by Mark Lane that Weissman met Ruby and Tippit at the Carousel Club on 14th November, 1963.
Weissman was interviewed by the Warren Commission and he had a very interesting story to tell.
In August, 1961, Weissman joined the U.S. Army and served in Germany where he met Larrie Schmidt. The two men shared an interest in right-wing politics and were both supporters of the John Birch Society. While in Germany the two men discussed the possibility of establishing a right-wing political group when they returned to the United States.
Weissman was discharged in August 1963 but was unable to find work. Short of money, Weissman contacted Larrie Schmidt who was at that time living in Dallas. Schmidt told Weissman about his involvement in the attack on the liberal politician, Adlai Stevenson. According to Schmidt, this had been organized by General Edwin Walker. Schmidt added that his brother was working as General Walker's chauffeur and general aide.
Schmidt invited Weissman to Dallas. Weissman later told the Warren Commission that Schmidt argued: "If we are going to take advantage of the situation, or if you are," meaning me, "you better hurry down here and take advantage of the publicity, and at least become known among these various right-wingers, because this is the chance we have been looking for to infiltrate some of these organizations and become known," in other words, go along with the philosophy we had developed in Munich."
Weissman arrived in Dallas on 4th November, 1963. Soon afterwards Weissman joined an organization called the Young Americans for Freedom. Schmidt also invited Weissman to join the John Birch Society but according to his testimony before the Warren Commission he changed his mind when he discovered too many of them were anti-Semitic (Weissman was Jewish).
Schmidt introduced Weissman to Joe Grinnan of the John Birch Society. Grinnan was involved in organizing protests against the visit of John F. Kennedy. Grinnan seemed to know about the visit before it was officially announced to the public. Grinnan suggested that they should place a black-bordered advert in the Dallas Morning News on 22nd November, 1963. The advert cost $1,465. Grinnan supplied the money. He claimed that some of this came from Nelson Bunker Hunt, the son of Haroldson L. Hunt. Weissman was given the task of signing the advert and taking it to the newspaper office.
The advert attacked Kennedy's foreign policy as being anti-American and communistic. This included the claim that Gus Hall, "head of the U.S. Communist Party praised almost every one of your policies and announced that the party will endorse and support your re-election in 1964". It also attacked Kennedy's domestic policies. Another passage asked why Robert Kennedy had been allowed "to go soft on Communists, fellow-travelers, and ultra-leftists in America."
Weissman was shocked by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and told Schmidt he feared he would be accused of being involved in the killing. He told the Warren Commission he suspected that Kennedy had been killed by supporters of General Edwin Walker and that as a result he would be implicated in the plot. Weissman watched the reports on the assassination in a bar with Schmidt. He told the Warren Commission he felt relieved when he discovered that Lee Harvey Oswald had been arrested for the murder. The Warren Commission did not ask how he knew that Oswald was not a right-winger. Despite this news, Weissman and Schmidt decided to leave Dallas
Mark Lane testified before that Warren Commission that Thayer Waldo, a journalist on the staff of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, had told him that Weissman was involved in a two-hour meeting with Jack Ruby and J. D. Tippit at the Carousel Club on 14th November, 1963. According to Joachim Joesten (How Kennedy Was Killed), "a rich oil man" was also at this meeting. Weissman denied he had ever been to the Carousel Club and had never met Ruby or Tippit.
George Senator told reporters that Jack Ruby had tried to contact Weissman after the assassination. According to Seth Kantor (Who Was Jack Ruby): "He (Ruby) couldn't get to Bernard Weissman. There was no such person in the Dallas phone book. He checked"
From this evidence it seems that Oswald was not the only one being set-up as a patsy in Dallas during November, 1963.
-
Truman Doctrine
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAtrumanD.htm
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s....html#trumandoc
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/s...ge/doctrine.htm
Balfour Conference
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/text_only/p...s/cth/cth11.htm
http://www.norepublic.com.au/source_docume...Declaration.htm
-
I just don’t see how the Coalition can back down from their commitments in Iraq. Granted, aggressive US tactics will do little to win ‘the hearts and minds’ of the Iraqi people, but it is vital that the task is seen through right till the end. The UN should put together the arrangements for the transitional government from 30 June and Coalition forces will still be required to remain in the country for the sake of security. Understandably many Iraqis are losing patience with the Coalition. They see ‘occupation’ not ‘liberation’. Given the history of the area, this is hardly surprising.
However, this is not the time to ‘cut and run’ as many people seem to be suggesting. If this were to happen, Iraq would be left at the mercy of radical armed factions and no doubt face years of upheaval and lawlessness. It is time to get behind the efforts to establish a democratic Iraq. It will be a long and painful process and I certainly don’t always agree with Bush’s modus operandi, but what alternative do we realistically have? Heavy UN involvement in reconstructing the country is a must. Iraqis need to feel valued in their own country. That means providing Iraqis with job and educational opportunities. It will be a long and painful process, but this is not the time to shirk responsibility.
It is true that any withdrawal in Iraq will lead to a large numbers of deaths. That is of course what those who opposed the invasion said would happen. There will also be a lot of deaths while the allied troops remain in Iraq. There is no easy solution to this problem. Nor can we just hand over the problem to the United Nations. They have been fully compromised and are no longer seen as a neutral force.
Democracy, even if it really was what Bush and Blair were trying to impose, will not solve this problem. In fact, it is likely to make the problem worse. Free elections will only reveal just how divided the people in Iraq are. It is bound to result in a bloody civil war that will be similar in scale to what happened in Yugoslavia after the fall of communism. Both countries had unnatural boundaries but this has been disguised by being run as military dictatorships. Democracy is hopefully the long-term answer but it cannot be imposed by an occupying power.
Jean-Marie le Pen
in Political Debates
Posted
You are correct Marco. Members of this forum are not a typical cross-section of the UK population. At the moment people in the UK are currently more concerned about the speeches being made by Islamic fundamentalists.