Denny Zartman

You and I may find what we believe to be simple and obvious explanations for a lot of these details. There's a reason I haven't participated in the Prayer Man threads. But the truth is that this case is complex because there are others who look at the same details and also find a simple explanation which just happen to be completely at odds with our own "simple" explanation. If Oswald didn't go to Mexico City, the explanation for why the authorities insisted that he did is not simple and straightforward. We can not agree that he did or did not go. If he did go, why? If he didn't go, why do they continue to insist that he did? If after more than half a century we can't answer the question "could Oswald drive?" that's not a simple case. A lot of the evidence has been destroyed or hidden or falsified, a lot of testimony changed, a lot of witnesses intimidated or even eliminated, and a lot of intentional disinformation has been spread. Probably more than we will ever really know. Saying that the murder of JFK isn't that complex given that we are relying upon a distorted, incomplete, and often contradictory record IMHO doesn't reflect the true nature of this case. We also possibly have a number of participants who were actively trying to hide their roles and pretending to be other people. Piecing together what really happened from that distorted, incomplete, and contradictory record isn't an easy task. If it were truly simple, I doubt we would still be battling over these details today.

I'm glad there are people out there who will micro analyze every detail of this case. I'm not knocking them or their efforts, nor am I saying that they shouldn't be micro analyzing. The case is important enough to deserve close scrutiny. I'm saying the complexity and the amount of details being analyzed might initially seem overwhelming to a beginner, and that might explain some of the perceived waning interest. As someone who's been reading JFK books for years, I'm still bewildered by the sheer amount of information that I still need to study. I'd imagine that for someone coming in cold, it would be utterly mystifying. If I were a beginner I would be daunted by the mountain of minutia being endlessly debated. I'm not a beginner and I'm still daunted.

Does anyone think we need another breakdown of Dealey Plaza witness? As in, location, number of shots, direction of shots, and any other relevant statements? https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/index.htm The one linked above is the one I've been using the most, but it appears not to have been updated in over 15 years. It also seems other sources (including Mark Lane's Rush To Judgment and Craig Ciccone's Master List Of Witnesses) have some additional names. I've already collected names from those three sources and put them on index cards, but haven't yet really dug into examining the statements of each witness and trying to put it all together. I'm wondering if it's even necessary, or if it's just my OCD acting up again. I know there was never a true survey of all the witnesses (and that many witnesses were bullied into going along with the official story), but it always bugs me whenever I read a JFK book and they use vague terms in describing how many people heard how many shots and where they thought they were coming from.

I grew up in the '70's and the JFK assassination was barely in our history books then. Oliver Stone's "JFK" probably did the most to bring it back into public consciousness, but even memory of that film is fading. Now it's mostly YouTube videos and websites, most with inconsistent messages. I wouldn't want to be someone just starting to read about the JFK assassination today. The case does look extraordinarily complex. Look at the backyard photo thread that's going on right now and try to see that through the eyes of someone who knows nothing at all about the assassination. I'd guess that they could barely make heads or tails out of it. Determining which sources are trustworthy and which ones aren't is another serious challenge for a beginner. Finally, the concept of a "conspiracy theorist" now has a seemingly inescapable stigma about it. I hope to somehow, someday, play a role in helping people understand what went on and exactly what makes this case so endlessly fascinating for those of us who continue to study it after so many years. It's a challenge to take the many aspects of this case and make it comprehensible to someone who knows absolutely nothing at all about it.

It is mind blowing. Not only is it a violation of the suspect's rights, I can't see how it could do anything at all but hinder an investigation as well as any potential prosecution. Were there no crimes in Dallas where more than one person was involved, or that had a suspect intent on lying? Investigators are going to want to ask for a suspect's story again and again and see if it changes. To identify and track inconsistencies in a suspect's story, you have to know what those inconsistencies are. How in the world is it possible to go out and accurately check the details of a suspect's story or alibi without having detailed notes... or any notes at all?

I listened to the interview of Mary Ferrell in 1975 last night. Very interesting. I don't think I've ever heard her speak before, so it was a treat to listen to a true pioneer in JFK assassination research. There's an unfortunate dip in the audio about halfway through, but most of the interview is audible. The historical value is still worth it. 11 minutes in, Ferrell talks about an unidentified CIA agent and his friend being at Parkland. this vaguely rings a bell for me, but I don't remember any details of that reported encounter. Anyone else know more? I didn't note the time in the video, but at one point Ferrell was talking about Oswald's first cousin Marilyn Dorothy Murrett possibly recruiting Oswald for the CIA, and that files on Murrett were still being kept secret (this being 12 years after the assassination). This detail about Oswald's cousin also something I seem to remember reading long before I was actively trying to study this case seriously, but I don't know much about this at all. Has anything more been learned about Marilyn Dorothy Murrett? Ferrell interestingly describes Marguerite Oswald as "impossible" but also "truthful." 35 minutes in, Ferrell describes Agent Hosty as being on the extreme far right of the political spectrum. Ferrell also talks about a WC executive session on January 27th where Allen Dulles was doubting a story about the FBI interviewing Oswald for two hours, but this was where the audio was dropping out and I didn't get the full gist of this particular story. I'd be interested in learning more. Ferrell speaks about a particular rare edition of a newspaper that apparently mentioned a warning the FBI received in regards to a threat on Oswald's life. Later it seems someone wanted to drop this particular newspaper edition down the memory hole by buying up all the copies and getting rid of them. Ferrell also makes a great point that is so obvious that it often gets missed entirely. If Oswald really delivered a note to the FBI with a bomb threat or some other threat of violent action, they would have arrested him, plain and simple. It's ridiculous to imagine someone doing something like that and not getting arrested. Ferrell theorizes that the note was more like Oswald threatening to tell his own superiors in D.C. about what Oswald saw as Hosty's harassment than an actual threat to blow anything up.

Deleted

I agree. At times it's stunning how many suspicious events and unsolved mysteries are still out there to be discovered. I'm always amazed at how I can constantly learn something new no matter how much I read. There's just question after question. If someone is an LN, I suppose there are no more questions and no remaining mysteries. But not even Bugliosi could fully dismiss Sylvia Odio and her story.

Thanks for the links and the summaries, Robert. I'll consider it carefully.

Robert, I have to be honest and confess that I don't understand your Jesuit angle, and multiple references to Zionism is a red flag for me. From all the stuff I've read in books and online in the last 20 years, I've never read a theory that posited that the Jesuits were behind the JFK assassination, other than yours right here on this forum. Are there any books you can point me to that supports this theory?

There are probably a dozen questions that, for me, would be competing for the title of First Question. What really happened during the Odio incident? Who were those guys and what was their purpose? Is there a direct connection between the Odio incident and the Parrot Jungle incident? Can Buell Wesley Frazier's observations be trusted? Did Frazier have a connection to Ralph Yates? From the interviews I've watched, I find Buell Wesley Frazier to be an honest man. Frazier now appears to believe Oswald didn't do it. Frazier's testimony seems to be strong evidence that Oswald was not carrying an entire disassembled version of the alleged rifle. Other than Oswald's mother, Frazier also appears to be the only witness I've ever seen in the entire JFK history that showed anything resembling sympathy for Lee Harvey Oswald. I also realize that Frazier was under extraordinary pressure from investigators. It also appears no one other than Frazier and his sister saw Oswald with a long package that day. I have no specific reason to either trust or distrust Linnie Mae Randle, but I believe I read somewhere that she was in Ruth Paine's social circle, which, if true, would automatically make me suspicious. Yet I can not discount their reporting of Oswald claiming the package contained "curtain rods". It appears that the specific mention of curtain rods is backed up by the statements of Ralph Yates, who said that he picked up a hitchhiker around Wednesday November 20 with "curtain rods" that talked suspiciously about assassinating JFK and was dropped off at the corner of Elm and Houston. How much of the official version of the time between Oswald's escape and his capture is true? What was Oswald's role actual role? I know he was the designated patsy, but before that, exactly what role was he playing, or, what role did he believe he was playing prior to the assassination? How many conspirators were on the ground in Dealey Plaza and the surrounding buildings? Is it possible to name one person who most likely gave the whole operation the "Go"? I suppose the unanswered question that looms largest for me right now is understanding the disconnect between what seems to be considerable time and effort spent setting up Oswald as an assassin working for Cuba and/or the USSR, and the almost immediate official conclusion that Oswald was working completely alone. It's hard for me to understand that the conspirators and those who seemed to be immediately implementing a lone assassin cover up story were not one and the same. I know LBJ used the fear of an international conspiracy to implement and maintain the cover up. Perhaps that was the actual reason for the pre-assassination conspirators planting of so many Cuban/Russian leads, but that's still hard for me to fully comprehend and accept. It really seems to appear (to me, at least) that the conspirators carrying out the assassination clearly intended the investigation of Oswald not to reveal that he acted alone, but to lead directly to Cuba and Russia. Yet the official conclusion of Oswald acting completely alone was pushed immediately after the assassination in Dallas and in Washington, D.C..

Vince Palamara's most recent book "Who's Who In The Secret Service" has a Secret Service document in Appendix III on pages 277-279 that indicates someone closely resembling Oswald was seen in Washington D.C. on September 27, 1963. The witness is a man named Bernard Thompson, the chauffeur of then Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman. I have no idea if this story is relevant, but it's not every day that you have a witness like Mr. Thompson with both a personal friend and character witness in Secret Service agent Floyd Boring. And it appears that Thompson's encounter was more substantial than just passing someone on the street. You can read it and decide for yourselves. Vince's text before the reproduction of this report says that Ruth Paine had returned to New Orleans from Washington D.C. some time not long before September 27, where Paine had visited CIA headquarters while seeing her sister. In view of this, Vince appears to have an interesting hypothesis on the possible Oswald lookalike. Here's my transcription of the document:

Hi Ron, I purchased Wilderness of Mirrors based on David's suggestion. I have only started reading it, but I'm already impressed. I've read The Devil's Chessboard, but not yet gotten Ghost or Cold Warrior. It appears that John Newman, in the addendum to the 2008 edition of "Oswald And The CIA", used the process of elimination to determine that Angleton was the one most likely to have planted information about Oswald's supposed visit to Mexico City. I agree with your "invisible glue" theory, and it does make sense. From my limited understanding of him, he certainly seems to fit the profile of someone who would have been a/the major cog in the assassination machine. From what I understand, things do seem to center around Angleton, Dulles, and Helms. I've read that Helms was not the type to initiate action though; apparently he was the sort that would only go through with something if it had been approved by a higher up. So your question is a good one: who would that higher up be?

I'm not underestimating the fury that Carlos Marcello had for the Kennedy brothers. I understand and recognize that. But I have a difficult time believing that the mob's first step in planning and executing the assassination of a president would be to go to the feds. Do you have any evidence of any other times on record where the mob went to the FBI for help in planning and executing a major crime?

Could the mob really get into the Bethesda autopsy room? I have a difficult time believing that the mob, in making a decision to kill a US President, would make their first step going to the FBI. Do you have some historical evidence of that kind of working relationship between the mob and the FBI, where the mob felt free enough to approach the FBI for assistance when planning a major crime? And for the mob to go to the feds just to take the long way around to finally arrive back at more mob assassins doesn't seem plausible to me. From what I understand, the mob tends to keep things in the family. I suppose that if anyone has been paying attention to my posts (unlikely), my silence on Prayer Man is conspicuous.

Let's not forget the Abraham Lincoln assassination, which was not only a conspiracy, but featured an assassin that couldn't wait to take credit for his crime.

Definitely. Your paper makes it clear exactly how badly Oswald's rights were trampled and how the Dallas police were potentially damaging their own case by denying him the legal representation he repeatedly asked for and actually rebuffing a lawyer that called to offer his services. And it's funny how two of Oswald's three phone calls were to the good Ruth Paine, who seemed to do absolutely nothing in trying to help him get a lawyer.

I don't see what is so incriminating about Thursday instead of Friday. I thought the incriminating aspect of the Thursday visit was the allegation that Oswald picked up a rifle there and we have Ruth and Marina as witnesses even though they didn't see a rifle or Oswald with a rifle. If LHO hadn't gone to the Paine's house that Thursday night, what would have prevented the official explanation from being "Oswald was keeping his rifle at his rooming house"? The only things that are lost are Oswald's change in usual schedule (hardly proof that he fired a rifle) and two questionable "witnesses." Frazier and Randle are a different story. I don't know enough about Linnie Mae Randle to feel like I could evaluate her honesty. I believe that I once read she was in the same social circle as Ruth Paine, and I mistrust anyone connected to the Paines. It would be foolish to believe that extraordinary pressure wasn't put on Randle to provide a story that would be seen as incriminating. All that said, I still don't have a solid reason to distrust her story of Oswald taking a long package with him that morning. I think I have read and seen enough on Buell Wesley Frazier though, and I believe that he's honest. He has stuck to his story that the package Oswald had fit between LHO's cupped hand and LHO's armpit. If that's true, it couldn't have been the entire disassembled rifle. So, was it part of the rifle, part of another rifle, another weapon, part of another weapon, another object, or just an unusually long sandwich? I don't know.

I read the latest one linked above. Good work, Bart. I look forward to the revised version. Great job in adding so many documents and newspaper articles. Those are quite valuable. Good use of pictures as well, and I think your analysis is sound. There was a little repetition in the text, which I trust can be smoothed out in the next revision. I had been doing my own compilation of statements Oswald made on tape recently, and couldn't find the "hygiene" complaint video for the life of me. I was beginning to wonder if I had dreamed it. I was relieved to see it mentioned here. I'd leave off the meme's, though. They weren't necessary and, in my humble opinion, undercuts the seriousness of the work you've done. Otherwise, this is an excellent article with many valuable resources, especially the documents and newspaper articles.

My question would be: was Oswald's Mexico City visit fabricated at the time, or concocted after the assassination? Lyndon Johnson said to Richard Russell that he (Johnson) was only able to convince a very reluctant Earl Warren to chair the Commission by mentioning "what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City..."

My notes say Gilberto Policarpo Lopez was the possible patsy for an attempt in Tampa, Florida on Nov. 18.

We're on the same page. I don't think it originated with Hoover, either. I was trying to see if logic could tell us who had the ability to direct Hoover and the FBI immediately after the assassination and tell them that the lone assassin scenario was going to be the official story.

I agree with you. I don't think satisfying Johnson's desire to become President and get him out of trouble was the initiating cause. I do understand how just applying simple detective logic would lead one to him, though. If we ask ourselves, "who benefits?" it would appear that Lyndon Johnson would be at the top of that list. The more I look at it, it seems to me that the trigger for the JFK assassination had to come from the upper level military. They used the CIA, and the CIA used multiple proxies to hide its involvement. Cuba and the Soviet Union were clearly major factors that military types would take into consideration when mulling this sort of extraordinary action. It's hard to ignore the change in policy in Vietnam in the wake of Kennedy's death and the amount of money that was poured into military coffers. If one were to truly: "Follow the money" Ask "who benefits?" Ask who had the authority to tell Hoover how it was going to go? Ask who had the ability to get into the autopsy room at Bethesda? It certainly would be logical (in my view) to suspect the highest levels of the military.

I'm learning that the CIA was an Executive Branch creation, and it appears that by JFK's time the CIA had transformed into something that couldn't be controlled by the President any longer and wasn't functioning as originally intended. Since the CIA was the central information gathering point for all the other military intelligence agencies, it does seem that the CIA was turned around from a relatively passive intelligence collection resource to an active participant in carrying out extralegal actions for the president and the military, and may have been used by the military to carry out the assassination. Getting into the autopsy room at Bethesda is key to an effective cover up. As powerful as the mob and the wealthy right wing oilmen were at the time, it is still a task to get into that room and direct how things are going to go. It is also quite a feat to be in the position to continue the cover up through all the official investigation, and I just don't see how that is done by someone outside the highest levels of government. I think Lyndon Johnson is a natural suspect. Judging from the way detectives work in mystery fiction, you'd think that he had a motive, means, and opportunity. Certainly he jumped into the cover up with both feet right away, so even if he wasn't the one who gave the ultimate "go order" beforehand, he still shares guilt in acting to obscure the truth and aid the assassins in their escape. His immediate and enthusiastic participation in the cover up also shows consciousness of guilt. At the same time, it might have been Joint Chief of Staffs decision that just happened to get lucky have a Vice President in waiting and Director of the FBI who were more than willing to participate. I try to look suspiciously at any aspect of the JFK assassination that involves luck, happenstance, or coincidence, though... so that's why I'm questioning the way I'm trying to analyze this whole thing.

I don't think Hoover and the FBI were the heads of the conspiracy. I suppose there's a possibility that they weren't part of the actual mechanics of the assassination. I do think it had to be someone over Hoover in authority. I don't think the mafia had the ability to call up Hoover immediately after the assassination and tell him how things were going to go. It also had to be someone who not only had a disinformation team on the ground handling the evidence right away but had the ability and plan to feed disinformation to the press. I really don't know if the mafia had that sort of organization. The FBI were the ones handling the investigation and evidence, and intimidating the witnesses.