Benjamin Cole

Gee, and the timing of this Alecia Long book on Garrison is....right before the Oct. 26 deadline for releasing the remaining JFK files? 

And I see... to admire Garrison's work is to be anti-LGBTQ.  

The CIA is woke, btw, just watch their recruitment ads. 

Right. Garrison was so far off-base that CIA deputy chief Raymond Rocca was asked to investigate Garrison. On 20th September, 1967, CIA officer Wistar Janney reported: "Rocca felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy".

As we now know, Clay Shaw was Clay or Clem Bertrand and was a CIA asset. 

Garrison made a lot of mistakes in that trial, such as putting Charles Spiesel on the stand or putting Russo under some sort of drug. 

Likely, Shaw was a CIA handler of sorts, not a direct or immediate JFKA plot participant. 

But in the bigger picture Garrison was roughly right. 

6 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Numerous members of the DPD were up to their eyes in the plot.

Joseph M. ---

In the JFKA plot, or complicit in the post-JFKA cover-up? 

My take is the actual JFKA had a very small number of participants. Perhaps four or five.  Why include anyone from the DPD? 

Were local cops in Miami and Chicago brought in to facilitate possible hits in those cities? Wouldn't that start to get a bit risky? 

After the fact, a cover-up or the "LHO the lone commie nut" narrative was more or less directed from on high, and likely involved the murder of LHO. Foot soldiers and the media fell in line.

10 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

I think Fidel was quicker on the ball than de Gaulle.

His broadcast to the Cuban people on the 23rd November '63 was very sharp.

 Kennedys And King - Fidel Castro's First Speech on the JFK Assassination, 11/23/1963

That is a great speech, and Castro was right in many ways. 

But I have reservations about such pronouncements, whether by Henry Wade, CBS, LIFE magazine, Katzenbach, Castro or whoever that were made with 24 hours of the JFKA. At that point, no one knew whether LHO was a demented lone nut, a foreign agent, a CIA operative, a mob soldier or what have you. 

Everyone was talking their narrative, or parroting authority. 

As an aside, the global security Deep State (as noted by Sen Richard Russell) quickly dropped Cuba and became obsessed with SE Asia, from Indonesia to Laos, to Cambodia to Vietnam. 

If the JFKA was done for a foreign-policy reason....

4 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

I think Fidel was quicker on the ball than de Gaulle.

His broadcast to the Cuban people on the 23rd November '63 was very sharp.

 Kennedys And King - Fidel Castro's First Speech on the JFK Assassination, 11/23/1963

Paul M---

A very interesting speech and deeply insightful.

I have some reservations in that Castro, like Henry Wade, like US media, like Katzenbach, was jumping to conclusions, on Nov. 23.

For all anyone knew, LHO (on Nov. 23) could have been a demented loner, or a CIA operative, or part of disgruntled group of CIA cast-offs, or a Castro-affiliate with several co-conspirators unknown. 

The media played the role of willing dupes, Castro played his game, and the CIA played theirs. 

Today, I contend LHO was a CIA asset, and there were at least two, and likely three guns fired that day in Dealey Plaza.

Interestingly, as even Sen. Richard Russell noted, the US Deep State lost interest in Cuba and went deep into SE Asia after the JFKA.  

Consider Indonesia, Vietnam and SE Asia----much more important than Cuba. 

The Rose Cheramie narrative is compelling, and appears to hold water. 

This does raise an interesting point.

The horrid little men transporting and dumping Rose Cheramie do not seem part of a sophisticated high-end JFKA operation. They were loose-lipped, vulgar, running dope and took huge chances.

Maybe doped up themselves. Bragged about the pending JFKA and then tossed a witness on the roadside. This is not James Bond, unless they are purely decoys. 

Sergio Arcacha Smith fits more with low-end rogue CIA elements doing the hit, somehow married to or piggy-backed onto the high-end CIA LHO biography build. 

This is largely my scenario of what happened. 

As with principles in the nation's Capital...I see nothing. 

15 hours ago, David Andrews said:

If you look at the discussion of years ago in the Forum back pages, de Gaulle's early, private comment on the DPD was, "All the cops in the world, they're all alike!"  A rough translation, meaning, in context, that they'd all turn their backs to an assassination.

David A--

de Gaulle was the target of several assassination attempts. He also fought the good fight for a Free France against the Nazis, at real risk to himself.  He was not an armchair moralizer. 

That said, his comments about cops are prejudiced. He may have reasons for his attitude, but I disagree that a conclusion about the JFKA can or should or does upon an anti-cop sentiment. 

In fact, I doubt the Dallas Police Department had much to do with the JFKA, although I think complicity and deference to the FBI set in. 

If, by "cops" de Gaulle is referring to intel agencies, he might rest on more-solid ground, but even so, I dislike blanket statements about any group of people. Not all cops are good or bad, or think alike, just as people of different religions are individuals, or different nationalities.

The grounds for conspiracy in the JFKA, in my assessment, rest upon the readily observed sequence of shots in the Z film, and the timing between the second and third shot (not enough time that is), moreover verified by multiple on-scene witnesses. Add on, gunsmoke in Dealey Plaza. So, we know there was at least two guns firing in Dealey Plaza that day.

This is what the SBT theory, and the removing from the public of the Z film was all about. 

That's my take. De Gaulle is a fascinating figure in history and he may have been right in his dark suspicions. But if he had some real-deal intel, he should have put it down on paper, and published it somehow.  

7 hours ago, Richard Price said:

I agree Benjamin.  The "dark money" that now almost completely encompasses our politics has for the most part subverted any actual "right" or "left" positions of any of the members of any and all of our so called parties.   Just as has been said about many criminal enterprises, all you have to do is to "follow the money" to find the nexus and origin of most lawmakers positions on just about any topic.  As JFK was once quoted: "Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future."

I don't think I invoked righteousness for one or the other party in all things, they each have their sins, as do we all.  As for cynicism:  "The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities...  JFK 

Richard P.--Yes, I did not mean to imply you were on the righteousness bandwagon. 

I should try to not be so cynical.

But I think you are right; money has bought media and academia, and the foundations, think tanks and our political parties. The put BLM on NBA basketball courts and go mute on China. 

BTW, the book "Trade Wars are Class Wars" by Michael Pettis is a great book

7 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I know.  I suppose Russell belongs on a World Opinion list with de Gaulle, Sukarno, and others who cried foul from outside the US.  In the Forum back pages, there is quite a lot of discussion of de Gaulle's reaction.  See also the .pdf news item at this address, too large to attach:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi-9aCZ4N3wAhUgGVkFHXczDCsQFjAIegQIDBAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjfk.hood.edu%2FCollection%2FWeisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files%2FD%20Disk%2FdeGaulle%20Charles%20Attitude%20Toward%20JFK%20Assassination%2FItem%2003.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3ADnLf2CbExLpVFLY1-0i-

David A.

Great news story. de Gaulle may even be right, but I suspect he was largely surmising, due to his own history (as I would in his shoes).  

I was trying to present people with close hands-on knowledge, like Dr. Shaw, or prominent US pols who might have "inside" knowledge, such as RFK, or Russell Long, who was from Louisiana, and might know the local network. The three WC members. 

Dr. Shaw's testimony is amazing. He says a clean, non-tumbling shot struck Connally. He enlarged the governor's back wound in treatment.  This alone raises very serious issues with the SBT. 

6 hours ago, Richard Price said:

A very succinct assessment very early on, by someone with the knowledge, experience and access to information.  Amazing also in the fact that even to this day, the "right" continues to plot, all the while blaming just about everything on the "deep state" or "leftist" provocateurs.

Richard P.----

Thanks for reading. 

I am not sure there is a clear delineation anymore between "right" and "left" in the US. 

We have Jacob Hornberger, a libertarian, active in the JFKA community and calling for a much smaller national security state and less globalism. 

And you have Hillary Clinton as a globalist warmonger in pant-suits. CNN and MSNBC stuffed full of former CIA and Pentagon officials making assessments on air. Rachel Maddow chortling with Sen. Schumer that the CIA will get Trump. When was the last time a prominent left-winger called for a much smaller global security budget? 

Who has revived the Russians as the Huge Boogeyman? (While mostly going mute on China, where Apple makes their phones, using some materials made with slave labor). 

Who has become censorious, the left or the right? 

No, I am not defending the worst elements of the American right, nor the right-wing of the 1960s-2000.

But the US political scene has changed. 

I advise replacing righteousness with cynicism, when discussing either party. 

8 hours ago, Dan Rice said:

Fascinating, indeed.  I had not seen that before.  Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for reading. 

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

16 Questions on the Assassination, Bertrand Russell, 1964:

http://personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/sixteenQues.htm

An overrated philosopher with rich, middle-aged groupies; despite this, you couldn't call him a "researcher."

David A.---Thanks for reading. 

I am not sure how to characterize Bertrand Russell. He raises some excellent points in the piece to which you link. 

The Prominent, Professional and Proximate Who Did (Do) Not Accept the Warren Commission 

And an easy-to-relate JFKA narrative for the public

Even at this late date, there are efforts to dismiss the JFKA community, or to define the event as likely the work of long-dead Russians or Castro-Cubans.

What is forgotten today is that a large fraction, perhaps a majority, of those who were prominent, professionally involved or who were proximate to the JFKA also did or do not accept the Warren Commission conclusions—including three of the seven WC members. 

It is striking to ponder that had someone other than ex-CIA chief Allen Dulles effectively sat atop the WC, a majority of the commission may have likely not accepted the key findings. 

So without further adieu, here is a list of the prominent, professional and proximate who did (do) not accept the WC or lone gunman, or even HSCA version of events— 

1. Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Shortly after the JFKA, RFK famously asked CIA Director John McCone if “they”—the CIA—had murdered his brother. RFK is quoted as saying, ”You, know, at the time I asked McCone... if they had killed my brother, and I asked him in a way that he couldn't lie to me, and they hadn’t.” Yes, the shocking reality is that a US Attorney General felt compelled to ask a CIA Director if the intel agency had assassinated a sitting US president. RFK retained doubts until his own assassination. 
2. Senator Russell Long, from Louisiana. Long’s own father, Senator Huey Long, had been assassinated in 1935. Russell Long thought New Orleans District Attorney James Garrison might be barking up the right tree. Here is fascinating footage:  https://www.efootage.com/videos/90904/senator-possible-jfk-assassination-plot-1967 
3. Warren Commission members Senator Richard Russell, Georgia; Senator Sherman Cooper, Kentucky; and Congressman Hale Boggs, Louisiana. Here is Russell, in taped conversation with President LBJ on whether LHO was the lone gunman: "I don't believe it.” LBJ responded with the words: "I don't either.” For his part, Boggs posited FBI Chief J. Edgar Hoover had constantly lied the WC, and that the CIA and FBI would never admit LHO had been an asset or informant, if true. Cooper told Kennedy family members he did not believe LHO had acted alone.
4. President LBJ. See Russell telephone call, and comments to media. 
5. Texas Gov. John Connally. Connally consistently maintained that on Nov. 22 the first shot struck JFK, the second shot struck himself, and the third struck JFK. The Z-film bears out his recollection, which was also seconded by his wife, who was seated next to him, and several Secret Service members. The insurmountable problem is that there is well less than two seconds between the shot the struck Connally and the final shot to JFK, which is not enough time to have been accomplished by a single-shot bolt action rifle of the type LHO had. 
6. Secret Service agents Clint Hill, Paul Landis, Bill Greer, all on the scene of the JFKA, all confirm Connally’s recollection of events; three shots, three hits.  All have stated they dismiss the SBT. 
7. Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel, HSCA (1977-78). At the conclusion of his investigation, Blakey believed there had been a conspiracy to kill JFKA, and two guns in Dealey Plaza, probably Mob-related. Moreover, by 2018 Blakely was citing anti-Castro Cubans and CIA assets Eladio Del Valle and Hermininio Diaz as possible Dealey Plaza gunman, and speaking of the CIA in scatological terms. 
8. Dr. George Burkley, JFK’s personal physician, present in Parkland emergency room, and then the Bethesda autopsy. In 1977, George Burkley’s lawyer contacted the HSCA and said Burkley “has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated,” and that Burkley was willing to talk. Inexplicably, Burkley was never asked to speak to the HSCA or the WC. 
9. George de Mohrenschildt. Admitted CIA asset, and LHO’s “friend” and possible handler in Dallas. De Mohrenschildt may have been clued in about the April 1963 “assassination” try on General Edwin Walker, which was also likely ersatz and part of the LHO biography-build. Later de Mohrenschildt wrote an unpublished book and said LHO was a patsy. BTW, De Mohrenschildt said Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell, who was also a CIA asset, was a personal friend. 
10. Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker. Member of the Church Committee, Schweiker said the WC report had “collapsed like a house of cards,” after having let the CIA and FBI conduct the investigation.  
11. Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough. Riding in car two back in the motorcade from the presidential limo, Yarborough (also a military veteran) repeatedly said he smelled gunsmoke in the wake of the JFKA, like many other witnesses. He said that about one-and-a-half seconds elapsed between the second shots and the third shots, testimony that roughly lines up with the Z-film. 
12. Parkland Hospital treating physicians, including Dr. Charles Crenshaw, who stated that “President Kennedy was shot at least once, and I believe twice, from the front.”
13. Jeremy Gunn, General Counsel at the ARRB, declared in conversation with JFK researcher Doug Horne, “President Kennedy never had an autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital---that was not an autopsy.”
14. David Atlee Phillips. The veteran CIA man, chief of operations for the Western Hemisphere, organizer of PR stunts. Possible handler of LHO. In July, 1986, shortly before his death, he told an interviewer, “My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers."
15. Dr Robert Shaw, Connally’s surgeon. Often overlooked, Shaw told the HSCA the bullet that hit Connally had struck cleanly at a slight downward angle, and had not been tumbling. Shaw enlarged the back wound in treatment, confusing some later researchers (including, embarrassingly, HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey). Shaw concluded Connally had been struck by a clean, separate shot from all others. 
16. FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O’Neill, witnesses to the JFK autopsy, both have dismissed the SBT, due to relatively low position on JFK’s back of a bullet entry wound, which when probed indicated trajectory of 45 degrees to 60 degrees downward. To state the obvious, the bullet would have to make an acute turn inside JFK’s body to exit the throat, but before exiting the throat would have to make another frontward 90-degree turn in order to strike Connally.  And then would have to strike Connally cleanly, sans any tumble. 

What comes through from even this abbreviated review of the prominent, professionals, and frontline observers and evidence, is that at least three separate shots struck JFK and Connally. (There is a probable fourth shot that struck a curb near bystander James Tague, a ricochet from which lightly injured his face.) 

From a review of the Zapruder film frames, it appears that Connally was struck in frame ~296. That is less than one second from the final shot(s) to JFK, at frame 313. That is not enough time for both shots to have been executed by a single-shot bolt action rifle. Most experts say 2.0 seconds to 2.3 seconds is the bare minimum between shots on a single-shot bolt-action rifle.

Conclusion and an Easy-to-Relate Narrative

This simple evidence, that of the short time between the Connally shot and the subsequent JFK shot, presents grounds beyond reasonable doubt that there were at least two guns firing at JFK in Dealey Plaza. 

Add to this evidence the dozens of witnesses, many in law enforcement or military veterans, who smelled gunsmoke in Dealey Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA. That strongly indicates, arguably beyond reasonable doubt, a gun was fired or  diversionary explosive device was ignited near the presidential limousine as it passed. 

I contend it is the above simple story line that the JFKA should consistently and repeatedly present to the broader public, particularly as we press for full disclosure of remaining documents under the JFK Records Act of 1992, and, even at this late date, a re-opening of the JFKA case.  

However, I criticize no one in the JFKA. To me, criticizing fellow JFKA research and community members is akin to harping on an NFL team for not scoring a touchdown on any particular play. 

The JFKA research community is not alone on the playing field; rather, playing against it is our own US government. 

The FBI has fabricated evidence (CE399), hidden documents, intimidated witnesses. US Navy officers conducted a dubious if not bogus autopsy. The CIA also has hidden documents, bamboozled investigators (Blakey), and has hired feckless mercenaries in media to do its bidding and discredit critics. The federal government has resources and lucre.

In sharp contrast, the JFKA has little money and no media backing. Yet, as David slew Goliath….

Hats off that the JFKA has achieved as much as it has. 

8 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

"So many conflicting accounts."

Starkly differing accounts.

The brain especially.

Up close within 1, 2 and 3 feet and even inches for hours Navy Corpsmen Paul O'Conner and James C. Jenkins had starkly differing accounts.

O'Conner says JFK's brain was literally gone except for macerated pieces ( before it was reportedly removed by Humes ) yet fellow corpsman James Jenkins said he "was" handed a brain. One that was "missing slightly less than a third of it's mass."

No one can quite agree on the actual removal of JFK's brain.

O'Conner ( who had personally performed many of these brain removing skull cutting procedures ) stated the skull cutting normally performed to do this wasn't done as there was no brain to be removed.

Jenkin's said he noticed cuts to the brain stem that couldn't be made in the way he was used to seeing.

Commander Humes said JFK's brain literally "fell into my hands."

Humes never mentioned the brain being weighed in his autopsy notes.

When asked why...he said simply..."I don't know."?

According to the final official report, JFK's brain weight was listed at 1400 grams. Heavier than normal men's brain weight...intact!

More than one Parkland doctor up close to JFK's head during his initial ER room treatment stated much of JFK's brain matter was missing in the massive blowout hole in the upper back right side of his skull. Also that brain matter was still oozing out of this hole while JFK was lying prone on the exam table.

One doctor said Jackie showed him a chunk of JFK's brain as she held it in her hand.

JFK's brain "matter" (not just blood and fluid spray) hit the two motorcycle officers directly behind the limo when JFK was hit in the head.

Brain "matter" was found all around the inside of the limo and even on the seat where JFK was sitting according to at least one SS agent who attempted to clean the seat of blood.

So, in the end, with all the brain matter being blown out and oozing out, we have a brain weighing 1400 grams listed as JFK's in the final Bethesda autopsy record?

And even that brain goes missing just days or weeks after the autopsy?

Please!

Just the extremely conflicting eye-witness testimony regards JFK brain condition, removal, study, disappearance and final official record aspect of the autopsy "alone"  from everyone present is enough to blow the entire affair into the realm of laughably absurd suspicion and conspiracy suggesting.

How about JFK arriving at Bethesda in two different coffins? 

Again, was a drug aerosol in the air? What can explain such conflicting testimonies about what must have been a signal event in everyone's career? 

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

A very important article up at K and K.

Trump blew this off not once but twice.This was after he said he was looking forward to declassifying everything.  Mark makes the case that what he did was illegal in both spirit and the letter of the law.  Hard to disagree.

Where was the media over this issue?

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-jfk-records-will-president-biden-obey-the-law

 

From JFK to Nixon, from Trump to Biden, no President can cross the National Security State. 

Whether brilliant statesmen (JFK) or self-besotted lulu (Trump), or the very picture of mediocrity and convention (Biden), or even the scheming Nixon, the Deep State runs the show. 

On behalf of whom? 

The media and Congress is busy on the Jan. 6 nut-jobs. They pose a threat to America.

7 hours ago, Dan Rice said:

That is quite odd.  I could imagine he meant fully 'wrapped' but that doesn't account for removing the coat.

Man, is it odd or what? But, as you may know, there are many directly conflicting accounts that day in Bethesda, some, like Osborne's, that are simply inexplicable. 

You would think Osborne, at some point in his career, would have realized he had a hallucination. Perhaps he never read other people's accounts of JFK's body. 

Again, it is mere speculation on my part, but there were so many conflicting accounts that day in Bethesda, by otherwise sane professionals, that maybe something was in the air. 

On top of all that, this was a signal event in the career of everyone involved. Sure, a guy could forget this medical event or that one, in a long career. But the JFK autopsy? 

You know, this has been bouncing around the back of my head, and I ran across it again in Vincent Palamara's new book.

This is from Admiral David Osborne's statement to the HSCA. He is not some lulu off the street.  

What to make of this? A "fully intact missile"? And JFK was "fully dressed"? 

If Osborne was nuts, how did he become an Admiral? Or Chief of Surgery? 

There are so many strange and conflicting observations at Bethesda that day, one wonders if some sort of hallucinogenic gas was afloat. How does an Admiral remember JFK arriving fully dressed? Or a intact copper-clad bullet rolling out of his coat? 

Big issue here. Amazon, Google, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook have become de facto town squares. 

But they can keep anyone out. Sabotage anyone. 

Some people like censorship, when it goes their way. 

But that is the thing about censorship. Once the wolfhounds are set loose...

Interesting take by David Stockman, the old Reagan official:

27 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Senator Russell Long.

Great one. Huey's son, I think. And you know what happened to Huey. 

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Some good points here Benjamin. Buying and manipulating the press in the Americas was essential to shaping and manipulating public opinion. You can openly read about people like Edward Bernays, the godfather of modern propaganda and PR techniques, being commissioned by the CIA/American Fruit Company to orchestrate the psychological warfare campaign in Guatemala to facilitate the coup d’etat that ousted Jacobo Arbenz from power. We’d all be remiss to think that the CIA wasn’t using every media tool available to control the regions and trade in regions it saw as vital in the psychological war on communism. It’s very likely any significant pro-Batista or anti-communist news source would have had a CIA arrangement/funding. 
It’s also important to understand that not just Cuba was at stake but, the whole of the Americas. 

Chris B.

Verily.

Too bad so many decades have passed. I would bet even money that the Fernandez individual, mentioned in this thread, had some US intel backing. The guy started and owned newspapers, ends up in the US. Appears to be unemployed, while his wife works. 

12 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Mr. DiEugenio over the years has made some highly questionable claims, here on this Forum and in his books.

Today I will focus on just one of these highly questionable and leading narratives, this time from his “Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba and the Garrison Case” (2^nd edition).

To be fair, Mr. DiEugenio is welcome to respond and make his rebuttal addressing this topic. However attempts to side-track off this topic here, will be ignored.

Also this has nothing to do with Mr. DiEugenio’s arguments with Fred Litwin.

This is my own observation, nobody else. 

The story begins here where Mr. DiEugenio on page 79 (Kindle version) makes this passage “The story could possibly have been even more explosive than Fruge thought. For on November 28, 1963, a Margaret Kay Kauffmann of Martinsburg, Pennsylvania, told the FBI that her mother had recovered a piece of paper in the leaves beneath her porch. It was a trailer advertisement. In handwriting scrawled across the top left was the name of a club called the Silver Slipper or Silver Bell. In the top middle of the page was the name Lee Oswald. On the top right was the name Rubinstein. In the middle was the name Jack Ruby and at the bottom was the name Dallas, Texas. A Cuban doctor named Julio Fernandez often burned trash in their backyard, under her balcony. The paper with the names on it was found about 20 feet from his last burn. Fernandez’s brother had been the captain of police under Fulgencio Batista.”

DiEugenio, James. Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case (pp. 79-80). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.

Sounds intriguing right? Silver Slipper, same bar in Eunice, Louisiana where reportedly Rose Cheramie got into an argument with two unidentified individuals who left her stranded on a highway, eventually getting hit by a car and transported to a Eunice hospital, later to be encountered by Lt. Frances Fruge. Also we have the names of Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby thrown into the mix. To top it off, Dr. Fernandez's brother was captain of police under Batista. Wow, way up in Pennsylvania!

DiEugenio’s source for this is from DiEugenio, James. “Rose Cheramie: How She Predicted the JFK Assassination.” Probe Magazine, Vol. 6 Number 5, see also FBI Memo of 12/ 2/ 61 written by Special Agent J. Edward Kern.

So DiEugenio wrote the Probe article and researched the document (Kern memo improperly dated, should be 12/2/63). 

Reading on, there’s nothing else. No further explanation given by DiEugenio on this explosive find.

So what really happened here?

You can read the actual entire FBI document https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10454#relPageId=2&search="Edward_Kern"

It involves a story that the FBI investigated when the brother of a Margaret Hoover (Robert Steele), just 2 days after the Kennedy assassination, dropped by the Pennsylvania State Police, to offer information given to him by his sister about possible information relating to the assassination. The State Police immediately turned it over to the local FBI.

The FBI did go out and interview Margaret Hoover, her daughter Margaret Kay Kauffman and her husband Gerald Kauffman and Dr. Julio Cesar Fernandez. I won’t bore you with all the details as outlined specifically in the FBI document, as you can read through the link to get the real story.

Bottom line here; there was no paper found or submitted by Margaret Hoover with the names, Jack Ruby, Lee Oswald or Silver Slipper written on a trailer advertisement to the FBI. She did submit the used Airline (or Railroad) Ticket with the envelope; however that was explained by Dr. Fernandez who stated it was his son’s ticket from Miami to Pennsylvania, who now lived in Martinsburg with his father.

As the FBI correctly surmised, this was yet another mentally stressed individual making wild claims. In fact, they even considered prosecution for providing false evidence https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10454#relPageId=17&search="Edward_Kern"

This is a classic example of “lifting information out of context” to inflate a claim. Mr. DiEugenio intentionally or through sheer negligence, failed to tell the readers the correct whole story of this affair.

Steve Roe--

I welcome examination of evidence in the JFKA, and earnest civil debate. 

You did miss something in your brief dismissal of this strange episode.

If you go to this link, you will see WC document 3067

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3067.pdf

Next, go to the document number Pittsburgh 107-5070, dated 12/2/63, but evidently of an interview dated 11/28/63. The first words in the document "Mrs. MARGARET RAY KAUFFMAN."

So, on 11/28/63, Mrs. Hoover's daughter confirms that her memory also is that handwritten names of Oswald, Ruby, Rubenstein and words "Silver Slipper," or "Silver Bell" did appear on the back of the trailer advertisement. 

What is curious is how many people at that early date knew of Jack Ruby's connection to the Silver Spur club in Dallas? This is six days after the JFKA. 

Later, the woman's daughter, evidently in a second interview, recants her initial interview. But she cannot recant that she mentioned the name "Silver Slipper" or "Silver Bell" in her initial interview. 

BTW, the man in question, Fernandez, is interviewed by the FBI and he turns out to have been a prolific editor-founder-owner in Cuba, and owned many newspapers and magazines before the revolution, holds a "doctorate in political and economic science" and then was chased out by Castro. 

The FBI appears to have queried Fernandez closely about Castro-ties, but not ties to anti-Castro Cubans. That was the conventional thinking of the time.

Also note that FBI agents called the US Attorney's office to see if they would prosecute Hoover and her daughter under section 1001, Title 18. Hmmm. Recanting under pressure? The US Attorney's Office declined to prosecute. 

In conclusion, I would say this strange event is interesting, not conclusive. However, this event is hardly key to understanding the JFKA. 

Sure would be nice to know more about Fernandez. He obviously was not just some schlub. 

It goes without saying that the CIA has long been active in financing publications in Latin America. 

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Benjamin,

      At the very least, LBJ was "complicit" in the JFK assassination in the sense that he was the POTUS that the Cold Warriors wanted in the Oval Office -- the guy who would escalate the war against Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and against the PKI in Indonesia.  LBJ also put the kibosh on JFK's diplomatic outreach to Khrushchev and Castro. 

       LBJ signed NSAM 273 on 11/25/63 and, allegedly told the Joint Chiefs in December of 1963, "O.K., gentlemen, you can have your war (in Vietnam.)  Just make sure I get re-elected next year."

     Who had the clout to influence J. Edgar Hoover to shut down the FBI investigation of JFK's assassination, and to actively assist the Warren Commission cover up?

     And LBJ's disagreements with JFK and RFK on Vietnam and other Cold War issues were common knowledge in the JFK administration.

     There is also the Altgens photo evidence, emphasized by Phillip Nelson, that LBJ was, apparently, ducking down in his limo in Dealey Plaza while Lady Bird and Senator Ralph Yarborough were waving and smiling at the crowd.

Agreed. 

The LBJ ducking photo...well, if the shots were to be aimed at JFK, then LBJ would not need to duck.  Perhaps he could be expected to stand up in his car to get a better view. 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Thanks, Benjamin.  Your points are well taken.

I'll probably proceed with the popular Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ biographies by McCullough, Ambrose, Dallek, and Caro, without expecting much in the way of Deep State history.

It's somewhat funny that the only biographies of LBJ that I've ever read are Joachim Joesten's The Dark Side of Lyndon Johnson, (written shortly after JFK's assassination) and Phillip Nelson's LBJ-- Mastermind of the JFK Assassination-- both highly unflattering, to say the least.

People I know who have read Caro's hagiography have been puzzled when I have raised the subject of LBJ's possible complicity in JFK's murder.

I guess Caro would be puzzled too, and his books are great reading. Just deficient in the regards I mention. 

As I have said, I think the JFKA was executed by a small number of people, but there was a great deal of complicity in the LHO murder, and then a tsunami of complicity in the entire WC-media cover-up.  

LBJ had a role in the cover-up---but in the JFKA itself? Less likely, but who knows? 

I enjoyed the McCullough books too. But the modern Deep State was not there in Washington's time, and just getting started under Truman. 

I think you might have to read "bit and pieces" rather than whole biographies. 

Biographies tend to either become hagiographies, or hatchet jobs, or personality profiles, but all sidestep a key point: The postwar ascendance of the globalist security state, and globalist macroeconomic policies. 

Forgotten today is the US demobilized after WWII, so much so the US entered the Korean War short of certain materials and weapons. It was considered normal to limit the military in peacetime. 

For a window into Nixon, read Ken Hughes, "Chasing Shadows." 

Don Fulsome has written about Nixon and the Mob. Another interesting window.

Caro's biographies of LBJ are pretty good history, but again, the angle that there is a Deep State with global ambitions, on behalf of multinationals, is just absent. The JFKA is not treated as a conspiracy. Caro's book on Vietnam is yet to be published, and Caro is entering the ninth  inning of his life....

What is remarkable is how much the globalist perspective, and the attendant panopticon surveillance state has triumphed, in academia and media (and books you read). Today, it is considered normal for left- or right-wing news outlets to hire former CIA and intel guys as newspeople. The fine points of occupying Syria are debated.

Some news outlets appear eager to become part of the surveillance state.

Good luck and let us know if you come across some good reads. 

Again, I really recommend "Trade Ware are Class Wars" by Michael Pettis for a deeply insightful perspective on "free" trade, which has defined US policy since the 1960s. 

"JFK vs. Dulles" by Greg Poulgrain is essential also. 

But a whole presidential biography, which includes the "Deep State" perspective....not sure that animal exists yet. 

But hey, you are retired and smart. You could write such a biography.