Stu Wexler

I am confused why someone could not simply have a change of heart from what they did decades before. Larry and I wrote about just such a person in our MLK assassination book: Tommy Tarrants. Went from self-described top terrorist for the White Knights of the KKK to an anti-racist evangelist. A key question is did Veciana stike you as being evasive or mendacious re: his personal account of the JFK assassination (meeting Oswald)? Stu

https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Other-Means-Unfinished/dp/1541758544

His specialty is the Civil War which makes the comment that all of his named assassins-- including JOHN WILKES BOOTH-- that much more galling. Booth was part of a conspiracy with at least 7 other people that almost decapitated the executive branch. And there are some scholars who wonder if it was backed by the Confederate Secret Service. I never know how that one gets by-- all the way to Allen Dulles.

The thing that I have always wanted explicated vis a vis Jones Harris were reports, in more than one book I've read (I think TMWKTM was one), that he favored a theory where the Japanese were somehow involved on November 22nd. I have never heard that clarified, justified, etc. and have never heard anyone else subscribe to the same theory. Wonder if anyone else knows more?

I would point out my students that debates about the greatest presidents often revolve around how said president handled fundamental challenges, crises and emergencies. The more daunting the challenge met the more credit goes to the POTUS. But I would also point out that that type of analysis, when *comparing* presidents, often intrinsically involves the same counterfactual question: "would someone else have done X if they had been president instead of [fill in the blank with FDR or Lincoln or Washington, etc.]" We can try and deep dive into the counterfactual but it is often, at the end of the day, impossible to answer. With one exception. JFK. Facing a existential crisis for the entire world, JFK performed in ways we can safely say almost no other person would have done at the time. How can we say it? Because several people in the same room with him not only ran for president, but served as president (or VP) or was floated as a presidential candidate. And with the exception of maybe Stevenson and RFK -- who at times was also too hawkish for comfort-- every darn one of them expressed support for a response that we know would have led to nuclear war. JFK saved the world when many others of his stature would have ended it. Stu

The reason I desperately want to see Lifton's work is, beyond some of the wild assertions he has made and did make the last few years, researchers I respect quite a bit who were "in the know" said the information he had on Oswald and Oswald's associations was possibly game changing. Apparently he even found very important nuggets within the original WC material, which is hard to imagine this late in the game. I hope we get to see it soon.

Something that Tony Summers heard when he was doing his work for Not In Your Lifetime-- a possible reason for covering up the photos, even if they showed Oswald, were the *other people* in the same photos.

Ben. I think you did a nice summary. And I have long been on the side of C2. My guess (look who bought/gave Sirhan the gun) is that he was protecting family. But I would absolutely say-- tell us what you *really* know and we will commute.

I don't know if people appreciate the courage he showed. He was one of the premiere forensic pathologists of his age. When every other pathologist-- including close friends and mentors-- fell in line, he risked his reputation to keep the case alive, often openly challenging them. This was rare even beyond forensic pathology-- almost every expert in every relevant field, especially at that level of prestige, avoided this case as taboo or reflexively supported the official version. A huge loss but a life well lived.

The point made by Wagner is, to me, the best argument why Oswald had to be closer to some element of the DP plotting than many want to acknowledgr. A complete unwitting dupe scenario would raise all sorts of issues as a far as risks to conspirators. But I do not have the same type of personal commitment to insisting on his absolute innocence as some others do. I am more open to direct involvement than 95% of CTs, although I favor a fake plot wherein he was told to wait for a call in the lunch area, etc., while a "message" was sent to JFK, only to find out later that the plot was not as fake as he thought. But I admit there is some speculation there. I do think, building on Wagner's point, that the absolute key for researchers is to find out who was in a position to influence Oswald's actions in the month of Nov, 1963, who among said individuals had motive, means and opportunity re JFK, and then develop any evidence on said person(s). So I agree, in some ways, with Wagner. In fact, my choice for our biggest problem is a combo of the Chris Matthews, Gerald Posner argument that echoes some of his: I think we have to posit a conspiracy theory that accounts for the motorcade dispute developing to go past the TSBD and Oswald getting the job in the TSBD. [I have my answers, and they do not involve Ruth P being any kind of even quasi-witting conspirator.] But I am CT based on physical evidence, and based on Oswald's and Ruby's background. So I would just offer as the "problem for LNs" a very broad argument, one that Tink Thompson gave in 67 in SSID. Why does this case become more bewildering, with more questions, when we tug on any major thread the more we look? Why is it that in every major aspect of this case, from medical evidence to Oswald's background/file handling, the Oswald-alone theory coheres less rather the more we look? To believe the pure LN theory I have to believe a bunch of odd or unique developments (like a jet effect or a neuromusclar spasm or that Oswald dodged photo surveillance by sheer happenstance in Mexico City, etc.) that are not nearly as instrumental or odd as if I posit some sort of CT. So for example: if you dig into LHO, you find out from multiple sources that he kind of liked or admired JFK. It is not impossible that somehow he had a sudden change of heart. But if we dig even further we find out that, in places like New Orleans, there are people in his orbit who absolutely despised JFK. Etc. I have taught classes on the history of major crimes. I co-wrote a book with Larry Hancock which I believe solves the MLK case (the only critic of which is someone who said he could completely counter the book months before we even published it, misrepresented our discussion of James Earl Ray's motivations, failed to address 98% of the evidence we offered to the point that the names of our top suspects and witnesses are all but entirely ignored-- Martin Hay, ironically.**) Yet no case-- absolutely none-- presents the kind of fundamental questions about everything from the validity of the fundamental evidence to the life history of the key suspects, as JFK. ** Much more can and would he said if Jim D. would allow for counter-reviews or comments on his reviews. His policy on this allows for one-sided hatchet jobs. **

My father, a liberal JFK supporter his whole life, switched from a government to Castro-did-it theory once the Castro plots were detailed in the Church hearings and report. He especially was concerned with the timing of the Cubela plot and the famous exchange of the poison pen. He believed whether or not the Kennedy's ordered it, that Castro could have interpreted it that way and it as a betrayal (of the normalization talks) and, assassinating Castro as not only a response but as a hail mary to save his own life/regime. It was almost the only thing topic that could consistently get us into sometimes heated arguments. He was very effective at making the case. Our assertion that Castro would never risk something so dangerous was met with two points. First, every group who has been accused of the assassination was taking a huge risk, possibly to their own survival or future, something we almost always underestimate when analyze motives in this case (risk-reward). Castro would have been more desperate, on the other hand, than the mafia/CIA etc. becausd the risk of not doing something would be to his life directly. Second, and more importantly, he would point out that, if one looked closely at the Cuban Missile Crisis, they would see that the only party more reckless than Castro were the Joint Chiefs. My main point in response to him was that Castro was nothing if not crafty. And he never would have touched or involved Oswald in any way. That is not risky-- that is *gratuitously* risky. He had double agents within the exile movement, for instance, who he could have blamed for the crime. My father's response would be to argue for a hardliner rogue type plot within Cuba. I voiced serious skepticism any G2 agent would take a risk like that without approval. But I think the thing that gave my father the most pause was the material presented by James Bamford. I think anyone who reads The Puzzle Palace's section on the NSA intercepts and surveilance of Castro post Nov 22nd would have a hard time sticking with the theory. Stu

Is he claiming Oswald was part of an RFK assassination plot vs Castro? I think that goes too far in linking to RFK. But I absolutely think that Oswald may have gotten caught up in a Castro assassination plot and that helps explain some/most of what happened in Mexico City and parts of what happened in New Orleans. I think Garrison proposed that at one point. And I believe David Kaiser thinks it is a distinct possibility. That has been where I have been at for some time.

Has anyone in any of these legacy groups ever grappled with the very clear and alarming evidence that the CIA misled JFK about the prospects for the invasion fully knowing it would likely fail? Or, with that in mind, the fact that overtly committing air power after would be a clear violation of international law and norms? I keep waiting for them to shift the blame to where it belongs as we have known this for at least 20 years now (the latter point since 1961). Stu

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/21494/jack-davis-oral-history?ctx=e8763525cd7e0f4ac6afd77f9c0ca7ff1cdc9547&idx=0 You can also go to the 50m mark, so just a few minutes in, and he describes it quite clearly-- it being Oswald sitting down next to him (Davis.)

See description