W. Tracy Parnell

First, you are again promoting the idea, with no evidence to back it up, that the actor Steve Landesberg was somehow connected to LHO and the assassination. My articles demonstrate this to be not the case. On the Roosevelt Hotel, I quote from my article “John Armstrong and His Evolving Landesberg Theory”: The FBI simply did something that Armstrong doesn’t believe ever happens in the real world-they made a mistake and sent agents to the wrong Roosevelt Hotel. However, I located a document at the Mary Ferrell website that reveals why they went to New Orleans. One FBI report of the Rizzuto interview clearly says the hotel was in New York. But another report doesn’t mention the location although “NYC” was written in sometime later. Because “Regan” was ostensibly from Memphis, someone at the FBI, apparently working from the second document without the New York reference, assumed that the Roosevelt Hotel was in Memphis as well. So, they checked Memphis first. The document goes on to say that no Roosevelt Hotel was in Memphis and then states the following: Believe Rizzuto may have meant New Orleans. New Orleans division requested to check records Roosevelt Hotel in effort to identify Regan and to check other logical sources. So, although careful work by the FBI could have avoided this mistake, there certainly is a reasonable explanation behind it. More reasonable than believing the FBI went to New Orleans because they were trying to avoid a proper investigation when the record shows an extensive investigation up until the point Rizzuto was exposed. On Earl Perry from the same article: The Armstrong team has been trying to sell the idea for some time that when the FBI found Earl Eugene Perry, who they say was from El Paso, Texas, they should have immediately focused in on him to the exclusion of all others. First, they mention that this Perry was the only one on “active duty”. But that is meaningless in this instance since the “Perry” that Rizzuto claimed to know was from 1956 and could be out of the service by 1963. And there would be no reason to limit the search to active duty personnel. Secondly, there is no evidence that Earl Eugene Perry was from El Paso. When I asked Armstrong’s supporters for their source on this, I was referred again and again to the statement by agent J. Richard Nichols who contacted Major Robert Whitebread. But that report says absolutely nothing about Perry being from El Paso, Texas, and only says he was stationed at Barstow, California. The only person who said Perry was from El Paso was Rizzuto [Landesberg the student with mental problems] and he never said it was Earl Eugene Perry, only Earl Perry. The claims by Armstrong and his supporters that the FBI was trying to shut down their investigation regarding El Paso are false as well. The FBI called every “Perry” in the 1963 El Paso phone book attempting to find information. They located a Colonel James Perry who indeed had a brother named Earl. But Colonel Perry’s brother had never lived in El Paso. Once again, Armstrong and his supporters have attempted to twist the evidence but the facts are clear-there was no Earl Perry from El Paso and the FBI conducted a complete investigation.

Amazing that Jim Hargrove is still promoting this stuff that was debunked two years ago: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-hoaxster-and-conspiracy-theorists.html http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/armstrong-evolving-landesberg-theory.html

If you look at the evidence, there is a progression of LHO''s ability. When he arrived in Russia, he could barely communicate. By 1963, he could speak Russian pretty well. Nothing mysterious here. If I ever get the time, I would like to do an article n this. But Jim Hargrove got me interested in Veciana debunking that turned into a major project. Not that many people care about H&L anymore anyway.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/07/veciana-and-cia.html I just finished an update on the article (scroll down to "Documents Show Veciana’s True CIA Relationship") To sum up, Morley is correct that Veciana was approved by the CIA for sabotage operations. However, the evidence shows he was never used in this capacity and shortly after he was working with Army Intelligence. Veciana’s connections to Army Intelligence were known as far back as the HSCA investigation and should have been explored more fully. It is possible that Fonzi’s focus on the CIA, based on his own assassination theories, diverted attention away from this aspect of Veciana’s biography. In any case, the real story of Veciana’s anti-Castro career bears little resemblance to the one that is told in Trained to Kill.

But Phillips wasn't "spooked" when he first saw Veciana. As Fonzi admitted in the book: Quote On: I had thought I would be able to tell, keen observer that I deemed myself, if Phillips had exhibited even the slightest hint of having recognized Veciana. Not only did Phillips not display that hint, but his eyes had moved on and off of Veciana so quickly-in the flash of a brief handshake-that it was almost as if Veciana was a nonentity. Quote off: What Fonzi said was Phillips became nervous. From my article: During the conference luncheon, Veciana folded his arms across his chest and studied Philips intently, staring at the former agent to the point of making him nervous. Over the years, Fonzi and Veciana have repeatedly cited Phillips’ alleged nervousness as proof he was hiding something. However, Fonzi himself offered the obvious explanation for this unease in an HSCA memo. “But maybe I would have gotten nervous also if some guy was just sitting there with his arms folded staring at me like Veciana was doing with Phillips.” But as Fonzi admitted, there was no reaction from Phillips upon first meeting Veciana. And Fonzi understood and offered an explanation as to why Phillips might have been nervous thereafter.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKphillips.htm As far as Phillips saying he didn't remember Veciana's name, Veciana was not exactly a household name anymore by 1976 when the meeting took place. Ross Crozier, who everyone is quick to use as a source that thought Phillips went by the name Bishop, also said that Phillips may have forgotten Veciana's name because of his drinking. If they had reminded Phillips that Veciana was a co-founder of Alpha 66, he would have certainly remembered. I refer to this as meeting as an ambush because that's what it was-they were trying to catch Phillips off guard. But even so, Fonzi admitted he didn't see any recognition of Veciana by Phillips. He would have had to have been quite an actor indeed not to show any reaction to seeing the man that he allegedly spent 12 years "running" in schemes to kill Castro suddenly show up at a CIA function. As for charging him with perjury-it was their word against his and they had no audio recording or other proof. They don't charge people with perjury on that type of evidence. Anyway, thanks for the link to the interview, I hadn't seen that before.

Your reading of the book is different than mine. Fonzi said: I had thought I would be able to tell, keen observer that I deemed myself, if Phillips had exhibited even the slightest hint of having recognized Veciana. Not only did Phillips not display that hint, but his eyes had moved on and off of Veciana so quickly-in the flash of a brief handshake-that it was almost as if Veciana was a nonentity. All parties involved say that Phillips and Veciana talked. For a full report on the Reston incident see: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/07/veciana-and-cia.html

My first question would be when he made the claim. If it was recently, which I assume it was, I would say it doesn't hold much weight. As far as unsound reasoning, you better tell that to Harold Weisberg who was a former OSS man. He said Phillips would never have met with 2 assets in public. Do I deny Phillips was Bishop? My take is this-we have heard the "evidence" for Phillips as Bishop. Let's look at the other side of things. And if you check out my website, I have 10 articles showing the problems with Veciana's story. The bottom line is this-short of a "smoking gun" in the 2017 documents that ties Phillips to Oswald, the Veciana allegations go nowhere. After all, we know both men wanted to get rid of Castro so if they were working together it wouldn't be shocking. But Oswald is what makes the story irresistible to many and maybe Veciana realized that would be the case.

OK, thanks Larry. I'll check out the book before I comment further and get up to speed.

Which is exactly why I believe Veciana's story of Phillips meeting him and LHO together in a public place is nonsense. Phillips would have never exposed himself like that. BTW Larry, you have to be nice to me-I just ordered your book :).

It was allegedly $253,000 in a suitcase.

Remember, there is no independent confirmation for the $250,000. It is just his word and as I show at my site, what he is saying now doesn't match what he said in the early versions of his story. So I would be skeptical.

Correct. I am just pointing out alternatives.

In this article, I look at the evidence that Veciana worked for the CIA per Morley and other critics: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/07/veciana-and-cia.html

Any number of possible explanations. It could simply be a typo. As Sandy suggested, it could be an attempt to avoid creditors. Or it could be for some other unknown reason that would benefit Marguerite. It isn't an either-or situation-in other words this had to be immediately explained or there were two Oswalds.

Like the entire H&L theory, this "update" is complete nonsense. Marguerite and LHO left New Orleans and moved to Texas in July 1956. Marguerite never returned. The "fact" that she moved to New Orleans is based, like so much of the H&L theory, mostly on mistaken eyewitness reports. People like Mrs. Logan Magruder and Mrs. Benny Comenge were just giving their best estimate as to when they saw Marguerite-they didn't keep a diary or anything. For a discussion of Paul's Shoe Store see: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/pauls-shoe-store.html For Marguerite's addresses see: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/marguerites-addresses.html

Well, I think we are at a point of diminishing returns here and we will have to let the readers decide for themselves. I will admit that I have never undertaken a meticulous study of the testimony regarding the abuse and perhaps I should do that for myself at some point but have not previously because it is obvious that the abuse occurred.This apparently started as a means to gain control over her once they returned to the US. It apparently stopped when he felt he could no longer get away with it. You even admit that it occurred one time and that is all it takes to be an abused individual regardless of your attempts at semantics. There is also mental abuse which obviously happened when you consider the account in Marina & Lee. And as I mentioned before, he could have slapped her with an open hand any numbers of times and not left a mark. So the answer to the original question posed by this thread is a definite yes.

He took them to pick up Marina's things and then drove her to the Fords.

They all saw exactly the same bruise in exactly the same place and described it in exactly the same way? I think you're having a bad dream Sandy. BTW, how do you explain the extensive discussion of the abuse in Marina & Lee? Or have you even read it? You are in denial I'm afraid. The abuse doesn't prove LHO killed JFK anyway so I am a little surprised that you are so adamant about this subject. BTW, if LHO merely slapped Marina, it wouldn't necessarily leave a bruise. Again, try telling the judge that you are not abusing your wife you're just slapping her.

Yes I have a theory. It is obviously a typo.

Chris, I honestly didn't know if you were referring to GDM's testimony concerning his confrontation of LHO or something else. Turns out it was something else. In later years, GDM became concerned that he might have influenced LHO's killing of JFK and this caused him to become depressed and mentally unbalanced or at least contributed to it. This, along with the doubtless influence of conspiracy theories, accounts for some of the things in his book. I think more weight should be given to his WC testimony than to what he said in later years in a manuscript.

It is not surprising to me that Klienlerer was the only one to witness the abuse firsthand. LHO could hardly be expected to go around in public slapping Marina around-that was bound to attract attention. The abuse he witnessed occurred at the Hall's home indoors where no one else could see. On this occasion LHO lost his temper and slapped her. He wasn't worried about Klienlerer who was admittedly afraid of him. If Klienlerer said anything it was his word against LHO's. But while only Klienlerer saw the abuse, several others including Marguerite saw the bruises. Marguerite confronted LHO who told her to mind her own business. Marina may have said LHO wasn't violent at one point, but the book Marina & Lee says otherwise. To sum up, plenty of evidence LHO abused Marina.

What happened was that Marina left LHO and went to stay at Anna Meller's house. The date is uncertain but it was possibly on Monday, November 5, 1962. Probably the next Sunday the 11th, a meeting was arranged between Marina and LHO at the de Mohrenschildt's place. Marina did not want to go back with LHO and the De Mohrenschildts drove them to the Elsbeth apartment to get her things where the scene you mention occurred. This is all documented by Marina's biographer in Marina & Lee. So de Mohrenschildt was a key player in the incident. Now, you might say that McMillian can't be trusted because she is "CIA." But Marina, while she now believes in conspiracy, has not taken back anything in the book.

Careful Sandy. This type of speculation and deviation from the Armstrong doctrine could get you excommunicated. Seriously, there is an answer-the theory is nonsense.

Well, off the top of my head I don't remember "the whole tale." Let's do it this way-what part of his story don't you find credible.