Rob Couteau

For anyone who hasn't yet viewed the Stanley Marks page on this forum, "Murder Most Foul! The Conspiracy That Murdered President Kennedy" is now back in print for the first time since 1967: https://www.amazon.com/Murder-Conspiracy-Murdered-President-Kennedy/dp/1736004948/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=stanley+j+marks+murder&qid=1605162246&s=books&sr=1-1

Thanks to your help he will be, Jim.

This is a scanned copy of that most intriguing letter from the JFK Library, requesting a copy of "Murder Most Foul!" for their collection. This is also reproduced in the new edition of the book. (Collection of Bobbie Marks.)

Good to hear from you Anthony, and thank you!

I'm pleased to announce that Stanley J. Marks' MURDER MOST FOUL! is now back in print for the first time since 1967. Includes an in-depth biographical essay on the author's groundbreaking work and how it may have influenced Dylan. 400 pages, with illustrations. Available at Amazon, B&N, Bookfinder, and various other worldwide outlets. https://www.amazon.com/Murder-Conspiracy-urdered-President-Kennedy/dp/1736004948/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=murder+most+foul&qid=1605065978&s=books&sr=1-1

Not many people nailed it as quickly as Castro did - and he was another lawyer, to boot.

This is an interesting idea, to compile a list of very well known and reputable people who could never be accused of being tin hats but who believed in the evidence of a conspiracy. I wonder if we could add Dave Powers to this list. In discussing the possibility of Secret Service involvement in the conspiracy, in "Survivor's Guilt," Vince Palamara writes that ARRB "Director Tom Samoluk told the author in 1996 that JFK's longtime friend and Presidential Aide Dave Powers 'agreed with your take on the Secret Service...'" This caught my eye because in 1973, while Powers was still in charge of assembling the documents and memorabilia for the JFK Library, someone on his staff contacted Stanley Marks with a letter (written on official stationary) requesting to purchase a copy of "Murder Most Foul" for their collection. If Powers had this belief, authorizing such a purchase might make a lot of sense.

Well said.

Jim, Kelin does briefly mention in the book that he saw them; near the end of the book he thanks "Gwen Field for feeding me and letting me see her late mother's panoplies." I liked that you mentioned how some of the key early people were lawyers and brought that special training into their work; to this list we can also add Stanley Marks. I am convinced that Marks had some contact with either Ray Marcus or Maggie Field, esp since the three of them were listed in that group interview. Also, Marks lived in LA and Bobbie Marks said that he gave public lectures about the assassination; and it wasn't till I read John's book that I realized that LA also hosted some of these other key players. Also, in "Murder Most Foul!" Marks notes: "the Commission had the CIA go to the Gestapo files to try and prove that he [Joesten] was a “communist”! From reading Kelin I learned that this was first revealed by Mark Lane in a debate with Wesley Liebeler on January 21, 1967, held at the University of California, Los Angeles. Since LA was Stanley Marks’ locale, it’s quite likely that Marks learned of this firsthand, by attending the debate, and then incorporated it in his book, published 7 months later. (I hope to contact Kelin to ask if he's ever come across any letters from Marks in the various archives he's searched.) In any case, as you say, this was an amazing group of ordinary citizens who succeeded in making a crack in the case that would not go away. Which makes Meagher's betrayal of her friends that much sadder. When they didn't agree with her about Garrison, she just cut them out of her life. Very brutal. (And instead befriended Clay Shaw!!!) I think she had a very black-and-white way of dealing with the world. One last thought: there were certainly a lot of broken book contracts. And I think the worst culprit was Random House. As Kelin says in his book, Random House broke their contracts with both Leo Sauvage and Maggie Field. And they also contacted Meagher to express interest in her book, but then ended up rejecting it. Harold Weisberg was also the victim of a broken publisher's contract but I don't believe that Kelin notes whom the publisher was. I recall that you have also noted elsewhere how in later years Random House was especially anti-JFK. The effect of all this was to interminably delay the appearance of these texts. And in Maggie's case, to add to her grief.

Just finished listening - a great interview with Jim and John Kelin.

What Epstein did sort of fits into the notion of a limited hangout as defined by Victor Marchetti: "a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."

That's great news! Looking forward to it. Kelin's book recently helped me to create some additional context for Stanley Marks' "Murder Most Foul!" and to verify certain facts and events. I found that the last two-thirds of Kelin's book really paints a deeper portrait of the human dimension of these researchers and gives you a sense of who they were as people. As well as showing you the evolution of thought in the early days of the case. PS: Epstein's "political truth" reminds me of Maoist "thought reform."

Always interesting to see how these guys do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of a larger pattern, with its typical modus operandi. Thanks for this great info, Anthony.

I didn't know about the Lane connection - thanks for that. Will check it out. I like the way you brought that to the forefront in your article. That is certainly suspicious - Epstein may have concluded "attack first, before getting attacked" after being issued that warning from Vince. Or someone (or some Agency) thinking on his behalf may have helped to arrange this. More and more I see Inquest as a sort of limited hang-out operation. It would be interesting if you and John Kelin had a talk after all your recent research on this.

I think you're right to conclude that he was not real to begin with. Think about it: From the very start just about all the early critics were having massive trouble getting published. They would get rejected from one publisher after another. After collecting a pile of rejection slips, some would eventually be promised book deals, then the deals would stall interminably until finally getting cancelled. But Epstein lands a deal on the very first try. And not only that, he gets unprecedented access to major players in the Warren Commission itself. He has money for a big research staff, and he instructs them to stay clear of research on the CIA. Then he arranges a debate and he fails miserably (on purpose? Sort of like Oswald's major debate fail?). Was the book constructed with holes in it on purpose? So that it would get all the major media attention and then be shot down, putting the whole issue of conspiracy to rest? Then Salandria has that encounter with him where Epstein comes right out and confesses he's become a turncoat. Salandria is not the kind of guy to lie about stuff like that. And I always thought it highly suspicious that de Mohrenschildt was killed after being interviewed by Epstein and right before Gaeton Fonzi could get to him. There's that haunting passage in Fonzi's book: "I would later learn that as I was talking to Alexandra de Mohrenschildt, her father was in a hotel room in Palm Beach being interviewed by ... Edward Epstien.... Epstein's increasing contacts with the CIA were considered suspicious by many of his fellow critics." De Mohrenschildt died four hours after he had been given Fonzi's card by Alexandra; remember how the card was found in his shirt pocket by the police, and so they called Fonzi? I mean that is some exquisite timing. I always wondered what de Mohrenschildt had told Epstein, and whom did Epstein relay that information to afterward? Whomever it was, somebody seems to have moved quickly and blocked Fonzi in the process. What do you make of that whole episode? Haunting, no?

Thanks for pointing this out; I completely forgot about that even though it's mentioned in the Kelin book. Just finished your essay - Besides being a great synopsis and analysis of the entire Meagher-Garrison affair, the concluding bits about Dyer read like the climactic scene in a play in which everything shifts into a deeper and more resonant perspective. All with just a few lines of dialogue. I could just picture Shaw matter-of-factly saying that Oswald was a double agent; or Dyer saying "Would you have admitted knowing him?" Nice work.

The details are related in John Kelin's book. Meagher fell hook, line, and sinker for the official drivel when she concluded: “as the Garrison investigation continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly serious misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods” (pp. 456–457). Harold Weisberg actually claimed that Jim Garrison didn’t conduct any real investigating in New Orleans. And Anthony Summers, author of "Conspiracy," called the Garrison investigation “grotesque.” But even worse that all this is the way Meagher turned against her long-term friends and comrades simply because she didn’t agree with them on the point of Garrison. She really treated them brutally. Yet at the very end, when she was asked by the publisher to give a peer review of Garrison’s book, she ended up praising it.

Just finished reading all five parts - what a great piece of work. Looking forward to part six.

I read Matthew Smith's "JFK: The Second Plot" when it first came out and always thought it was a good piece of work.

Steve Thomas contributes some of the most valuable posts on this site.

Besides being a pithy and moving eulogy to a great researcher and advocate, Jim's piece shows how one man can make a profound difference. Salandria's contributions were truly far reaching and important.

On March 12, 1973, Stanley received a letter on official stationery from the U.S. General Services Administration, National Archives and Records Service, John F. Kennedy Library, Waltham, MA, saying: "The Kennedy Library is interested in acquiring the book listed below from your company." The book was "Murder Most Foul!" The letter is signed by one Joan Baronian, "Purchasing Agent." Does that not take the cake? Keep in mind that Dave Powers was in charge of assembling the materials for the library at that time. I find this somewhat mind-blowing. (For anyone interested, we discuss this at the 24-minute mark; and at the 53-minute mark I added some info about Dave Powers role in assembling the library materials.) This from the JFK Library online: "Dave Powers, Special Assistant to President John F. Kennedy, was closely associated in every aspect of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. In 1964, at the request of Robert F. Kennedy, Powers began assembling and collecting the Kennedy memorabilia which was to become part of the Library's permanent exhibit on the life and legacy of President Kennedy. He also traveled around the world with an exhibit of items to raise money for the construction of the Library. In 1965, Powers moved the material to the National Archives Federal Record Center in Waltham, MA where he and a staff of archivists spent the next 14 years assembling and organizing the Kennedy collection. In 1979, the collection was moved into the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum on Columbia Point. Powers held the position of Museum Curator of the Kennedy Library from 1964 until his retirement in May, 1994. He was an active member of the Board of Directors of the Kennedy Library Foundation."

Thanks Jim. I'm still shocked about that JFK Library request to purchase Stanley's book. What do you make of that?!?

Tonight on Black Op Radio: We will be discussing all the latest developments in the Stanley Marks / "Murder Most Foul" saga, tonight at 9 pm EST; 6 pm PST. Len Osanic conducted a really great interview that runs for 90 minutes. http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black1002.mp3

And it sounds like Leonard wasn't very sympathetic to JFK either. From his book "The Last Innocent White Man in America": "If the president's idea of himself is that of a swashbuckler, how else does he expect the CIA to behave in Latin America and Southeast Asia?" https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19930613&slug=1706384