On 12/3/2017 at 11:27 PM, Joseph McBride said:

Thanks for all the videos, David. You've done us a real service by finding them and posting them.

Just to let you know Joseph McBride;

I bought your book ( through Amazon ) "Two Cheers For Hollywood" for my film and film history loving wife as a Christmas present.

Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not. 

Old man Fritz was not sure about a lot of things just months after 11,22,1963 when questioned by the Warren Commission. His memory ability comes across as noticeably lacking.

That is just one reason to believe much younger and better recall memory Roger Craig in his recounting of being called into Fritz's inner office when Craig says he was on 11,22,1963 and what he saw and heard there, versus Fritz's flat out denial of this.

The most knowledgable gun ( rifle) man in the entire police group present on the TXSBD sixth floor when the rifle was found was Constable Seymour Weitzman.

Roger Craig's statements in his "Two Men In Dallas" interview turned out to be true when Weitzman himself admitted to identifying the rifle as a Mauser right in front of everyone including Fritz.

If Fritz is correct that the ID of the rifle is right on the barrel assembly, then he totally contradicts Weitzman's excuse for misidentifying the rifle...and totally bolster's Craig's statements.

15 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was. 

Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser? 
Mr. FRITZ. I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything. 

"they called it most everything" ???  Really?  So you are saying it was called a "Mauser?"

Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day? 
Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time? 

You know, what Seymour Weitzman called it right in front of you?

Mr. BALL. Yes 

Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not. 
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser? 
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was. 
Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser? 
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not. 
Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing? 
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.

How we wish Fritz would've given these answers to a real attorney in a real trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Mr. FRITZ. That first showup was for a lady who was an eye witness and we were trying to get that showup as soon as we could because she was beginning to faint and getting sick.
In fact, I had to leave the office and carry some ammonia across the hall, they were about to send her to the hospital or something and we needed that identification real quickly, and she got to feeling all right after using this ammonia.

What? He kept some in his desk drawer?

He could find some ammonia right quick, but tape recorders? fuggeddaboutit.

 

 

Steve Thomas

Yup. Those tape recorders were only fer them fancy city slicker type homicide captains.

Good ole country boy Will Fritz had his own way of interviewin suspects and didn't need one. Didn't need a notary present either.

Even though he had "the most important criminal suspect in America's history" in his custody.

"This case is cinched!"

I think the text of this article is important enough to show right here.

Sometimes readers will not take the time to open a link.

NEXT STORY

TRILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS GONE MISSING. THE PENTAGON TO BE AUDITED FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER

ARJUN WALIADECEMBER 14, 2017

  Share on Facebook  Share on Twitter 

 

 

2.0K

SHARES

  We're creating viewer supported news. Become a member!

I'm in!

Secrecy is the backbone of America. According to some historians’ estimates, each year, more than 500 million pages of documents are classified by the United States alone. The United States has also had a history of government agencies existing in secret for years. The National Security Agency (NSA), for example, was founded in 1952, but its existence was hidden until the mid 1960s.

 

 advertisement - learn more

Even more secretive is the National Reconnaissance Office, which was founded in 1960 but remained completely secret for 30 years. On top of that, we’ve had numerous presidents, politicians, and others tell the world a secret government exists that controls both parties and all media, and dictates government policy. The latest to acknowledge this secret group was Vladimir Putin, who described how men provide instruction to the president after they’ve been elected.

The bottom line is that this world of secrecy requires funding. And since these intelligence agencies were completely secret, that funding came from the Black Budget. This money is invested into programs that are completely exempt from disclosure to Congress. When former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer said “thousands of billions of dollars have been spent on projects about which both the Congress and the Commander in Chief have been kept deliberately in the dark,” he wasn’t kidding.

Unfortunately, we don’t hear much about Black Budget programs, or about the people who investigate them. The only mainstream example comes from 2010, when Washington Post journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin spent two years investigating the Black Budget and concluded that America’s classified world has “become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.”

This world, where trillions of unaccounted for dollars are probably ending up, is perhaps getting more attention now because, according to the Pentagon’s news service, “The Defense Department is starting the first agency-wide financial audit in its history.”

According to The Free Thought Project, beginning in 1996 all federal agencies were required by law to conduct regular financial audits, but the Pentagon has never complied. This means that, for the past 20 years, it’s never accounted for the the trillions in taxpayer funds it has spent. In fact, a 2013 investigation by Scot Paltrow for Reuters uncovered that the Pentagon has been “fudging” numbers for a long time, and it’s simply considered to be standard procedure.

 advertisement - learn more

The Reuters article revealed:

Linda Woodford spent the last 15 years of her career inserting phony numbers in the U.S. Department of Defense’s accounts

Every month until she retired in 2011, she says, the day came when the Navy would startdumping numbers on the Cleveland, Ohio, office of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the Pentagon’s main accounting agency. Using the data they received, Woodford and her fellow DFAS accountants there set about preparing monthly reports to square the Navy’s books with the U.S. Treasury’s – a balancing-the-checkbook maneuver required of all the military services and other Pentagon agencies.

And every month, they encountered the same problem. Numbers were missing. Numbers were clearly wrong. Numbers came with no explanation of how the money had been spent or which congressional appropriation it came from. “A lot of times there were issues of numbers being inaccurate,” Woodford says. “We didn’t have the detail … for a lot of it.”

Again, we are talking about huge sums of unaccounted for money going into programs we know absolutely nothing about. It’s not like there haven’t been any Congressional inquires into it, because this has been an ongoing problem for a couple of decades. Even former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated in July 2016 that “The financial systems of the department of defence are so snarled up that we can’t account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that’s believable.” 

That’s a lot of money.

YOUR INBOX WILL NEVER BE THE SAME

Inspiration and all our best content, straight to your inbox.

GET THE BEST

 

We have been warned about this before. President Eisenhower was the first to do so, letting the world know before he ended his presidency that there exists a massive potential for the rise of misplaced power.” His predecessor, John F. Kennedy, did the same, saying that there “is a very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.” He also emphasized that he does not intend to permit this, to the extent that it’s in his control.

What we’re really talking about here are Special Access Programs (SAPs). From these we have unacknowledged and waived SAPs. These programs do not exist publicly, but they do indeed exist. They are better known as ‘Deep Black programs.’ A 1997 U.S. Senate report described them as “so sensitive that they are exempt from standard reporting requirements to the Congress.”

According to Rafael Degennaro, the Director of Audit the Pentagon, over the past 20 years the Pentagon has broken every promise to Congress about when an audit would happen.

They’ve responded by claiming the audit is going to start right away, and will now occur annually.

But can these audits be trusted? After so much controversy, secrecy, and law-breaking, how can we trust these audits will square the books? It’s obvious this money has gone into programs that the world knows nothing about.

NPR is reporting that the Department of Defense’s Office of the Inspector General has “hired independent public accounting firms to conduct audits of individual components — the Army, Navy, Air Force, agencies, activities and more — as well as a departmentwide consolidated audit to summarize all results and conclusions.”  This is according to the official DoD News agency.

How do we know that the U.S. government branch responsible for the audit will not be in “cahoots” with or influenced by the Pentagon, or the tremendous power the Deep State has amassed?

The point is to recognize that our own money has been used to fund projects that nobody really knows anything about, most likely benefitting the few, to the cost of many.

The human race is going through a massive transition, and one part of that transition is becoming aware of the secrecy that’s plagued our world, and the massive potential the human race really has to change it, and create an experience where all life can thrive. This isn’t possible without transparency. Transparency is necessary, as it helps us identify problems so we can begin creating solutions and moving past experiences in our system that no longer resonate with us, the collective.

Doug, I just read the article.

Really interesting back story info that sheds a better and more personal light on the whole E.Howard Hunt/St. John Hunt story.

Their personal relationship as father and son was obviously extremely dysfunctional and complicated.

St. John Hunt seems very much emotionally wounded by and at times even bitter about his lifetime relationship with his father, from childhood and even until his father's death.

From St. John's perspective his father E. Howard Hunt seemed to be a man who was very corrupted by decades of self indulgent, big ego, seductive James Bond type living and lifestyle - E.g. money, beautiful women, exotic travel, fancy cars, fine wine and dining and cigars, higher class country club set social gatherings, etc., etc.

At the expense of being a much more physically and emotionally there for his children father.

If St. John's recounting of his father stuffing $100,000 cash down his pants in the local bank branch safety deposit box room, to avoid any chance of this cash being discovered as E.Hunt knew he was being watched, is true...then Hunt's many public claims that he was always in financial stress during this time could very well have been a diverting charade to hide the fact that he had large amounts of hidden cash available to him.  And if he did, this just adds to the corrupt lying nature image many have always had of him versus his own super patriot - treated so unfairly one he often publicly promoted.

Where did this hidden away $100,000 cash ( equivalent to $500,000 in today's money) come from? Obviously from some corrupt endeavor versus legitimate honest income.

To me E. Howard Hunt was a man who became blinded and swallowed up by the seduction of a true life James Bond existence, that in the end revealed itself to be nothing more than totally self-indulgent and actually meaningless.

3 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Paul, not going down that route with you.

Read my paper, if all that what is in there does not clearly show that Truly was completely full of it then specify were that's the case.

Truly lied during his W.C. testimony and in his statements.

They all lied................

Truly

Baker

Fritz

Shelley

Lovelady

Reid

Bookhout

Hosty

Kelley

Sorrels

Do I need to go on?

Regards James Hosty ( and Gordon Shanklin ) lying:

Hosty shamelessly admitted purposely holding back telling the Warren Commission about his 11/24/1963 destruction of his office's note (or letter or file papers ) on Oswald that were handed to him by Gordon Shanklin with the instruction  "I don't ever want to see this again" ... or these or them? In other words...get rid of it.

When asked years later why he didn't mention this incredibly important Lee Harvey Oswald note/letter/file and it's destruction order and action to the Warren Commission, Hosty said simply "they didn't ask."

They didn't ask?   

They ( the WC ) whose publicly stated whole and sole purpose was supposedly to get at the full truth of the JFK assassination for the sake of every American citizen, wouldn't want or need to know about this mind blowing super important evidential item and destruction information about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Please!

Apparently the full "truth.whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God." oath Hosty took before his Warren Commission testimony didn't register with or apply to him ( over his FBI and pension saving loyalty oath ) regards every relevant thing Hosty knew about Lee Harvey Oswald ( and Hosty KNEW this Oswald file info was relevant ) when asked to reveal such to this so-called highest integrity "august" investigative commission.

Can you imagine how Hosty telling the "full truth" of this Lee Harvey Oswald letter or file evidence destruction to the WC the day of his testimony would have impacted the WC?

They would have been forced to admit and deal with the reality of their one and only main investigative body purposely withholding and destroying important knowledge and evidence from them.

Which would have compromised the entire effort and it's integrity from that point on.

And does any rational person believe that Hosty's evidence destruction and relevant Lee Harvey Oswald information withholding was the only time this was done?

And Gordon Shanklin denying for years that he gave Hosty the Oswald papers destruction order was just another lie. 

Doug, I listened to Roger Stone on the Alex Jones radio show last night where he ( Stone ) was describing his Trump fall prediction and pre-plugging his new book about this Trump demise.

Until just months ago, Roger Stone was advocating for Trump before, up to and throughout his election.

Now he is re-positioning himself as somehow this less connected and loyal to Trump outsider who's new objectivity justifies and validates a book worth buying and reading?

What a shameless, self-serving, unscrupulous ...

You watch...if the Trump fall scenario actually looks like it is going to happen, even Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity and others in the right wing media milieu will turn on Trump. Their huge contract careers mean 10X more to them than loyalty to some failed billionaire blowhard.

Consider what Holland is saying: Oswald was a former defector to Russia who returned to America with a Russian wife, whose uncle was in the Soviet NKVD. Oswald then goes to Mexico City seven weeks before the assassination. There, he reportedly talks to the alleged KGB head of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere, Valery Kostikov. While there, Oswald arranges for a visa that would take him from Cuba to Russia. He then returns to Dallas and gets a job on the President’s parade route about a month in advance of Kennedy arriving there. And somehow, none of that should have been reported by the CIA to the FBI or Secret Service. Even though the CIA had about seven weeks to process it before the assassination. With this, Holland resembles the late Leslie Nielson as Lt. Frank Drebin, telling the spectators, “Nothing to see here!” as the building behind him explodes in flames.

But we would not be dealing with Max Holland if something written by him did not mention the late Mark Lane. Holland found space to actually repeat his ridiculous charge about Lane’s volunteer Kennedy research group being funded by the KGB. If anything shows just how irresponsible Holland is, this phony charge does, because it was effectively demolished by Lane himself. (See “How Max Holland Duped the Daily Beast”) But Holland then extends this to say that it was Earl Warren who decided to take the ideological charge out of Kennedy’s murder by saying he was only a lonely communist and there was no Cuban or Russian control.

Even for Holland, this is pretty bad. As anyone who has read the declassified record of the Warren Commission, it was President Johnson who told Warren that he had to remove Oswald from any sphere of influence by Cuba or Russia, or else nuclear holocaust was threatened. After that pronouncement, Warren was reported leaving the White House in tears. Warren was effectively neutralized after this. He did not want the Warren Commission to perform any kind of active investigation at all. He even ventured that maybe they should not even call any witnesses. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 359) As recently revealed by Bill Davy at a talk at VMI, Warren told a judicial colleague at a conference in Florida that he bitterly resented what Johnson had done to intimidate him. He admitted that the Commission had been a cover-up, and he was ashamed of it. (See “Bill Davy at the VMI Seminar”) One should add that to Gerald Ford’s later conversation with French president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing in 1976, where Ford revealed that there was an organization that killed Kennedy. We already knew that Warren Commissioners John Sherman Cooper, Hale Boggs and Richard Russell publicly defected from that original verdict within just a few years. In fact, as Gerald McKnight revealed in his book, they had to be duped into going along with it in the first place. (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, pp. 317-20) Which means that of the original seven members of the Warren Commission, five of them were either intimidated or conned into going along with the 1964 verdict. This leaves Holland siding with the likes of Allen Dulles and John McCloy, because they are the only two who are left today.

Because of his rigorous use of censorship, Holland can close with both an unwarranted assumption and a large crevice in his argument. Concerning the latter, he does not detail the fact that even to this day, NARA is issuing documents that are heavily redacted, sometimes illegible, with many containing pages that are completely blank, as well as issuing cover pages that have no accompanying report attached. If Holland was not going to detail all of this, then what was the point of his article?

Secondly, he now says that the two-week publicity binge given to the issue was so unwarranted that it reveals something has gone a bit mad with the country. This idea seems swiped from Kurt Anderson’s historically phony article that made the cover of Atlantic Monthly from September 2017. (See “How The Atlantic Monthly and Kurt Andersen Went Haywire”)

To somehow blame the state of America today on the still classified state of the record in the JFK case tells us very little about the former. But it tells us a lot about Max Holland’s JFK mania.

[after Frank is relieved of duty, Ed looks at the newspapers in dismay]

Ed: It's disgusting the way they splash this stuff all over the newspapers! What is journalism coming to? You're laying on top of the queen with her legs wrapped around you. And they call that news. They can't kick you off the force, Frank! It's just not fair!

Frank: I know, Ed. Life isn't always fair. Just think. The next time I shoot someone, I could be arrested.

[he looks through his files and finds a piece of evidence]

Frank: Hey! Look at that. The missing evidence in the Kelner case. My God! He was innocent!

Ed: He went to the chair 2 years ago, Frank.

[Frank defeatedly discards the evidence and all his files into the file cabinet]

Frank: Well, what's the use?

 

You always have to suspect someone ( in this case Max Holland) who spends so much time ( decades ) and expends so much energy and effort saying (and promoting in the national media ) much ado about something that this same person basically says is ... much ado about nothing!" ???

 

Isn't the bigger story here the ominous growth in power and influence of our secret non-transparent intelligence agencies from the 1940's to 1963 and beyond, to the point of competing with our much more transparent constitutional and elective 3 branch government on often equal and sometimes even disadvantaged in their favor terms?

 

And with sometimes competing agendas?

 

Wasn't this power and influence dynamic a major and ever growing concern of JFK during his term as President? 

 

And didn't Bill Clinton once mention this other "secret government" on Jimmy Kimmel's talk show?

 

 

 

Steve, I have read many times and just read again, the McAdam's site Dave Perry essay on Roger Craig and Craig's testimony regards the Dealey Plaza/Ruth Paine cars and Craig's account of being called into Captain Will Fritz's inner office during Fritz's interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald and what he overheard there.

Perry speculates a lot himself in his implying that Roger Craig is not to be believed regards Craig's accounts of these events.

Perry had to acknowledge however, the J.Gary Shaw's book photo showing Craig next to the Dallas PD Homicide and Robbery Bureau office which in the least, verified Craig's claim that he was there in that part of the DPD building when he said he was on 11,22,1963.

Despite this photo adding validation weight to Craig's account, Perry still implies that Fritz's claim of not bringing in Craig to the inner office Oswald interrogation is to be believed OVER Roger Craig's claim that he was.

Does anyone really believe that "This case is cinched" Will Fritz didn't lie about anything regards the DPD JFK investigation? Ask Beull Wesley Frazier ( and I can imagine many others ) what he thought of Will Fritz's honesty and integrity.

If Roger Craig made up his account of being called into Fritz's inner office and what was said there by Fritz and Oswald I must consider Craig to be an extremely creative story teller if not a budding talent impressionist.

Craig's word for word recollection of Fritz's interview questions to Oswald ( and Oswald's specific answers back ) while Craig was present there, rings too true, relative to what most know of Fritz's specific verbal and demeanor style, for me to believe Craig made this up.

Craig even specifically describes Oswald's physical reactions and emotional demeanor during this back and forth between Fritz and Oswald. 

Throwing in extra peripheral observations ( beyond just the word for word verbal exchange)  like Craig's specific descriptions of Oswald's physical movements and emotional demeanor in his recounting of the event, are very hard to keep straight in years of being asked to recollect them as they are much more subjective and abstract than the actual quoted word exchange.

Fritz didn't even have a recorder or notary present during his interviews with Oswald.

He had plenty of time to secure these. I believe this was mind blowing outrageous in so many ways it begs one to seriously question, doubt and suspect Fritz's account of not just his recollection of Craig but the whole episode of interrogating Oswald.

I wouldn't trust or believe Will Fritz any more than I would trust Henry Wade.

You do remember Wade's speaking to the national press the evening of 11,24,1963 where he recited his  "I believe his name is Jack Rubenstein" statement as if he didn't know Jack Ruby personally?

On 8/5/2017 at 8:43 AM, James DiEugenio said:

 

David, that is a very interesting video on Ruth Paine's Chevy Bel Air station wagon you posted.

Is this the car ( according to Sheriff Roger Craig's account in his "Two Men In Dallas" interview ) that Dallas PD Captain Will Fritz was referring to in his asking Lee Harvey Oswald "What about the car?" in his interrogation of Oswald, where upon Oswald responded ( again according to Roger Craig's account )

... "that station wagon belongs to Ruth Paine. Don't try to drag her into this."?

The car Craig said he saw pick up Oswald in Dealey Plaza was described by Craig as a " light green Rambler."

I remember cars of that era. Rambler station wagons did closely resemble Chevy Bel Air wagons.

Craig's account of his seeing Oswald running down a grass incline and jumping into this light green station wagon in Dealey Plaza just minutes after the assassination and his recollection of the car question in Will Fritz's interview of Oswald after Oswald's arrest are staggering in their implications if true.

David, do you believe Roger Craig is telling the truth regards the car and Craig's account of Oswald's Ruth Pain statement to Fritz when Oswald was asked by Fritz "what about the car?"

Watching the video you presented of the Ruth Paine Chevrolet Bel Air station wagon begs a few questions.

There is a picture shown in that video of Ruth Pain standing next to this car in the driveway of her Irving Texas home. I assume this was taken around 1963 as Ruth Paine looks to be the age we see her when she had Marina living with her.

In the picture the car looks to be kind of a "two toned" color with the roof darker than the rest of the car. In the 2016 video this supposedly same car doesn't show the roof to be darker. Is that just 61 years of fading?

Also don't mean to go too far off subject, but Ruth Paine's car and Roger Craig's statements about what he saw on 11,22,1963 and what he claimed to overhear regard's Oswald's comments referring to Ruth Paine's car in the Fritz interrogation of Oswald, are important and intriguing enough to mention IMO.

Obviously LBJ and Meyer couldn't have done anything themselves regards something this big and unprecedented ( even thought it up ) without the approval and creative planning and involvement of the highest power people ( above them both ) who we all know.

The LBJ and Meyer did it story doesn't make sense without this larger context.

LBJ likely knew about the assassination ahead of time and been instructed as to what to do when it came  down.

And Hunt's loyalty and that of his usual accomplices was not to LBJ and Meyer. If Hunt and his team were involved as he claimed...they sure weren't taking orders from LBJ and Meyer and Hoover.

I do see a narrowed primary blame deflection to LBJ and Meyer by Hunt. Away from you know who.

Was that ole covert rascal Hunt being deceptive and loyal to his brotherhood as ever until his last breath? Quite probably based on his long career history.

And again, maybe Hunt was trying to get two birds in the hand with his LBJ/Meyer did it recollection.

Maybe he thought that the big media guys would pay his son big bucks for the rights to this Earth shaking inside story. Giving his son and other children some extra financial means he otherwise was unable to provide for them?

Another thought regards LBJ.  LBJ basically lost it in his final days. And not from simple dementia.

To assign him a personal psychiatrist and guard LBJ from public contact says to me that LBJ was suffering a kind of monumental guilt driven mental breakdown.

To such a degree that with a little bourbon he might just start raving to whoever was close by...all the super corrupt, even murderous things he was involved in.  My guess is this is the true story line with LBJ  in the end.

Look at David Morales in his final boozed up days...telling his friends ( bragging ) how we/they took care of that SOB Kennedy and his brother Bobby.

End of life boozed up lips often tell tales.

Wonder if Johnny Roselli loving Bill Harvey ever said anything while knocking down some hard shots in his final days and hours?

Don't we all agree the near end-of-life "Big Event"JFK assassination confession statement tape by E. Howard Hunt is real?

The main questions regards this LBJ implicating tape however are how much of it was true, the hows and whys and real intent of it's creation and how much of it was edited and whether E. Howard Hunt was coerced or led on or in any other way manipulated in the taping of this.

Regards intent, did E.Howard Hunt purposely come up with this "I was a bench warmer" in the larger operation story (whether false or true) hoping that it's publication might bring in a good amount of money to his son St. John and other children after he died? Money that he did not have otherwise?

Money was always a big issue with E.H.Hunt. He often publicly and bitterly claimed during and after Watergate that he was always in arrears.  And I assume Hunt never got much financial security relief the rest of his life?

E.Howard Hunt's wife Dorothy died suspiciously in that horrific Chicago plane crash and reportedly with $250,000 in cash in her possession. I would like to ask St. John Hunt if he ever heard his father express that he ( E. Howard Hunt ) felt that his wife Dorothy's death was no accident?

If E.H. Hunt believed this, then could his taped confession have been a payback to those people who he thought were responsible for his wife's death, with E.H.Hunt believing that our nation's main stream media would go bananas with this story?

They never did however, and I was always suspicious at how the main stream media barely reported the Hunt tape story.

I thought that E.Howard Hunt's famous status in highest political media story doings for so many years should have warranted much more national media reportage and editorial discussion and commentary.  The story received almost no national media and editorial coverage. It was instead relegated to the front page of the "National Enquirer" along with UFO abduction stories.

So, what do we make of St John Hunt? 

I've tried to put myself in his shoes in his growing up years in the E.Howard Hunt and Dorothy Hunt household. I can only guess what that must have been like but as he got older, St.John Hunt must have become aware that his parents were leading very unusual lives with many secrets. And by the time he helped his dad destroy documents and toss things into a local river, one can imagine St. John himself perhaps being unusually challenged in forming his own sense of morality and personal identity.

Son of a famous political intrigue secret agent provocateur and an agency employed mother who he feels was murdered.  Godson to William F. Buckley.

I tend to believe St. John Hunt generally. He certainly was in one of the closest personal relationship positions one can be to possibly overhear or even be told by his parents at least a few important secrets about highest political intrigue things.

And if what his father stated in his end-of-life JFK assassination confession tape is true, then the failure of our fourth estate to acknowledge, investigate and report such an earth shaking story on a scale it deserved, might be the biggest story of all.

That of a total evicerating of our last and most important constitutional democracy protection institution. Without this, our democracy is gone.

Is St. John Hunt's letter to Caroline Kennedy a sincere expression of true guilt regards his father's professed participation in Caroline's father's death? Was it worthy of being sent regards giving Caroline Kennedy anything of meaning and need on her part?

I am personally just not sure.

Questions for Doug Caddy.

I watched the video of William F. Buckley interviewing E. Howard Hunt on May 12, 1974.

Could you comment on this interview?  Your take on Hunt's comments and Buckley's questions to him? Did Hunt lie in any part of this interview in your opinion?

Hunt specifically named a New York city policeman in an answer to some question posed to him by Buckley. Do you recognize this officers name? Was he known to your NYPD officer Rothstein? Why would Hunt even mention this NYPD officer?

Were you the attorney that Hunt often mentioned he was in arrears with?

Was Hunt as stressed about money in the time you interacted with him as he stated in this interview?

In your opinion, was the back and forth communications of Hunt with the White House and Nixon after his Watergate arrest a blackmail effort on Hunt's part? To get more money?

When Hunt mentioned "other" covert activities he performed for the Nixon administration Buckley asked Hunt about one  "West Coast" operation. But honestly Doug, don't you believe that Hunt and his team carried out so many other covert and illegal domestic operations well beyond that one?

And that if these other operations were revealed in their entirety our whole standard historical view of Nixon and others in the top rungs of power, money and position during that time and their corruption would be even worse than it already is? 

One of abuse of our constitution beyond anything we could imagine?

On 12/7/2017 at 7:26 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Ruby was sent to Dallas from Chicago as a front man to deal with police, politicians and competition as part of a team in an attempt at expansion of territory and power in the late 40's. Not a hit man.  It was partially successful.  They were in competition with people from New Orleans,  I. E. Marcello.  Ultimately they worked together for the benefit of all.  Ruby paid off cops.  Set up high stakes poker games they skimmed.  High dollar bets.  Provided prostitutes.  Marcello provided the racing wire.  Smuggled drugs to and through Dallas.  Fed Ruby some of the prostitutes/dancers.  Check out Civello, Campisi, the Zuroma Club where Henry Wade and Earl Cabbell visited.  They were his bosses.  Who was the first to visit him in jail? 

Ron, agree with your take on Ruby.

In regards to the whole dual ( JFK & Oswald) assassination story, even a great writer of fiction might not be able to dig up such a jewel of crazily colorful dramatic character, background, occupational and psychological make up content as the real life Jack Ruby possessed. 

Simply such a nutty mix of psycho/emotional conflict ( Sigmund Freud himself would have considered Ruby a gift to his study ) along with so many incongruously intersecting personal and professional activities and interactions with others ( average to lowest income working people to highest rung murder ordering mobsters? )  you wouldn't believe it if it wasn't all true! 

On one hand, as many people who knew Jack Ruby personally stated, he was often a rough edged but soft-hearted teddy bear who did thoughtful things for others in need. Offering small amounts of cash, maybe even part time work, buying sandwiches, loaning his car. 

At other times he's pounding the holy crap out of drunk and disorderly patrons of his club ( once he stops in the middle of pounding someone's head into the ground to exclaim "what am I doing?" to witnesses) or anyone who makes derogatory comments about Jews that he overhears. He carries brass knuckles and keeps a gun close in case he really needs to make a point. One of his fingers was partially chewed off in one of these dog fight brawls.

Ruby deals with booze and drugs and people afflicted by these things but does not allow himself to use them. Does he smoke? Not sure.  Ruby lifts weights, hits the gym bag, swims, ice skates and eats quite sensibly which indicates he has a controlled and disciplined sense of his personal physical health.

His mental health is another matter.

Ruby reportedly questions his own sense of his sexual inclinations and image. He has sex with women but seems insecure about long term, co-habitation relationships. 

He reportedly once tells a local newspaper writer he wished he had gotten into a more respectful occupation than strip joint owner.

Ruby certainly is involved with setting up others with willing young stripper type female companionship. And you can be sure Ruby was rewarded in some way. Most likely favors.

My guess is his clientele included those very high up the power position ladder.

Setting up high stakes card games? Probably.

Gun running? Same.

Ruby did know and even interacted with some of the highest Mafia figures. Lewis McWillie was one of Ruby's closest contacts to that world. 

I also agree that Ruby was ordered to kill Oswald, probably under the same circumstances as Ron described. 

And Ruby did lie a lot.

His Warren Commission testimony often appears to be that of a mentally confused and even disturbed person, but I sense that many of Ruby's answers were purposely presented in this contrived way to avoid telling more of the truth.

In my opinion, Ruby obviously wasn't in on any serious action planning and implementation part of the assassination. He wasn't mentally stable enough to be so. But he may have known ahead of time that it was coming down. And I will always believe that Ruby was ordered and allowed to kill Oswald, with certain members of the Dallas PD being in on this caper.  

Wherever the head shot bullet entered no one disputes it's damage was like an exploding missile.  JFK's head/skull actually expanded outward noticeably in the top upper right front and back skull area once the bullet penetrated.

The blood, brain matter and bone spray was so wide spread it formed a very visible pink "cloud" that went many feet in the air above and hit others 10 feet away.

For those who have hunted large animals and made head shots upon them I would ask them if this JFK skull and brain matter explosion was typical or at all possible with the type of bullets the Carcano used?

Just pointing out the implications of conspiracy if another bullet besides the others was used on the head shot.

OMG...that Air Force 1 swearing-in scene film photo is perversely cringing!

Woody Harrelson looks like he is wearing a stiff wooden LBJ mask!  An amateurish Holloween type one at that. And those elephant sized ears! 

And the Jackie Kennedy actor. The power of the real photo is the absolutely traumatized terror expression on the face of the real Jackie Kennedy.  A photo of Jackie that stays in your memory forever because of it's almost unfathomable grief and shock. This LBJ film photo depicts Jackie as if she was merely uncomfortable and bored.

And why don't we see the infamous reproduction of Albert Thomas's sick smiling congratulatory wink he gives LBJ when the swearing-in ceremony is over and LBJ turns toward him?

LBJ film has been laid to rest next to "Parkland."

Although nothing could truly compare to "Parkland" as a box office bomb failure.

Dec 1-3 Gross ... $13,070 ?   

LBJ Budget $35,000,000.

Barely made 1/15th of that.

On 11/17/2017 at 10:11 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Relevant.  How can the Main Stream Media resist such a clear unredacted document so related to the assassination?

I can see the Enquirer headline now.  "FBI Agent Had Shriveled Right Nut!".

Remarkably this weird anatomic abnormality didn't seem to affect Hosty's rabbit like procreation proclivity and ability to father children.

He had nine!

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The Powers that are Always there, that is good.

I liked this scene from Nixon, and BTW, it really happened.  

 

Really happened?

Nixon was asked those specific questions and answered them just as the scene depicts? 

The "system?"

The real "wild animal "power behind everything that Nixon admits exists ( above him ) and that he hopes at best to try to somewhat tame? 

The powers that are always there?

Wonder who the individual is in that highest power cabal that is considered their CEO?

Always felt the Rockefellers were the major players in this country as part of the larger international organization.

They got Nixon out and Gerald Ford in with Nelson as VP.

Interesting questions.

Could Robert's DNA be matched to Marina's daughters?

And I too would wonder what Robert may have said in response to his mother's well known claim that her son Lee was is some way an intelligence person?

Agree, the circled image is extremely vague and interpretable.

Reminds me of so many "ghosts in windows" images posted on paranormal websites.

And some of those photos have clearer and better defined figures than the Dillard one.

That Dillard photo would be ripped apart in a court of law proceeding as depicting Oswald definitively.

Even young, sharp eyed Dealey Plaza eye witness Arnold Rowland ( better than 20/20 vision) and who had the clearest 15 to 20 second view of a man with a rifle in one of the sixth floor windows 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived and just 50 to 60 yards away, repeated through 7 FBI interviews that he could not identify this rifle holding man as Oswald.

Anyone stating and writing that Oswald was absolutely the shooter of JFK on 11,22,1963 from the Texas Schoolbook Depository building as fact is doing so on disputable forensic evidence and absolutely no eye witness testimony.

Arnold Rowland's Warren Commission testimony is extremely intriguing,interesting and thought provoking. I want to post about it soon for discussion and debate. I wonder if he is still alive?

Pulling for him in every way. A crusader for the truth.

Thanks Jim.