Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Doudna

Members
  • Posts

    227
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Greg Doudna's Achievements

  1. Larry, this is interesting. In light of Roselli being murdered seemingly in association with his testimony to HSCA, and the same with Giancana (and maybe also the questionable suicide of Prio), and Ruby's associations with the same Mob circles part of which you bring out here--and Ruby's killing of Oswald--did Ruby have foreknowledge? There is the informant report of "seeing the fireworks" minutes before the assassination; there is Ruby making some arrangements a month or two prior for shipment and safekeeping of his beloved dogs; the stories of Ruby coming into money at the time of the assassination; the original accidental tipoff via Hosty's son that led to Silvia Odio, in which Ruby had made some legal arrangements just prior to the assassination; and the many Mob phone calls in the prior one to two months. That seems a lot for Ruby not to have had foreknowledge--not knowledge of how or who, but that something was in the works? But then, why would Ruby not himself have been killed just as Oswald and Roselli and Giancana? Is it possible the only reason that did not happen for four years was the accident that Ruby was protected while in custody--if he had been released to the street he would have been dead? Of course Ruby did die of a fast-acting medical condition just before transfer to a different jurisdiction. Some other musings: -- Ruby's paranoia, delusions that Jews were being killed screaming in the jail, etc., is it ruled out that that could have been acting? Any time he says something and people respond skeptically, an easy way to discredit or walk it back, just act delusional? (Also a possible legal defense.) -- Ruby's final taped interview in which, on his deathbed, he repeated his basic alibi story of acting out of sympathy for Jackie Kennedy etc., and etc.--there could be a rational explanation for that on the assumption that that was not the truth, if Ruby calculated (not thinking of dying immediately): just don't make waves until I get transferred (and am safer), then I can talk . . . -- his obvious fear for his life, his pleading to Earl Warren to take him some place safe and he would talk (no interest from Earl Warren), his prediction to Earl Warren that he would be dead within days because he had already said too much (did not happen, but a reasonable fear if he did have knowledge and was witnessed signaling he might talk), his plea for the polygraph in hopes that his false story would be discovered . . . that was simply inexcusable, a coverup, that Warren did not get him to safety and find out what he had to say. Ruby was the number one living possible source of information. Any honest effort to crack the case would have gotten him to safety, promised him witness protection, got him to flip and talk, to see if there was anything there. -- I have noticed that in your Someone Would Have Talked (per the index), and not sure but may also be the case in The Tipping Point (no index to check), you seem to make no mention of Jarnigan. I know that Jarnigan is widely considered a non-credible witness including in conspiracy research circles, but whereas there are plenty of witnesses that others believe whom I do not think are credible, Jarnigan on the other hand is one I am not so sure should be dismissed. There are two major reasons for dismissing him that I can see, of which I believe one may be a non-issue: the conflict in timing between his claim to have witnessed Ruby and Oswald talking about assassinating Connally, on the same evening that Oswald is known to have caught a bus and hitchhiked to Ruth Paine's house in Irving where Marina was, from the Dallas YMCA. But the night Jarnigan said he was at the Carousel was to celebrate Jarnigan's birthday, and I have found an article which has his birthday on Thursday night Oct 3, the day before Oswald went to Irving Fri Oct 4, which could remove the timeline contradiction, on the assumption that Jarnigan's memory several weeks later was off by one day. The other reason, more substantial, was his spectacular failure on a polygraph test, in which the only answer he was judged to have answered truthfully was when he said yes he had been drinking that night. Was that test straight or crooked? So far as I know no records of that polygraph test have ever come to light for review; and there certainly would have been a law enforcement motive to discredit Jarnigan. A possible argument that his story could be true, not previously raised, I notice from a detail in the article linked to above in this thread that Douglas Caddy posted, William Scott Malone, "The Secret Life of Jack Ruby". The type is too small to read in the link Douglas Caddy gave but here is a link where the article is readable: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Ruby Jack As Gangster Related/Item 01.pdf. The entire article was eye-opening to me, of Ruby's Mob ties and Cuba history, and no doubt this is all familiar to you, but what caught my eye was the inset story on the fourth page online, p. 48 of the print article, "Rubygate", in which Ruby bought professional spy recording equipment that could be worn as a wristwatch, in the context of his being an FBI informant. This was in 1959. "the saleswoman who waited on Ruby told Secret Service agents after Kennedy's assassination that Ruby had bought 'a wristwatch which held a microphone for the equipment, and also an instrument to bug a telephone,' as well as a 'tie clip and attache case.' Professional spy equipment." In the many times I have read Carroll Jarnigan's letter to J. Edgar Hoover in Dec 1963 describing his memory of what he claims he overhead Ruby discussing with Oswald at the Carousel, I have had the strongest suspicion that (if what Jarnigan was saying was for real) it sounded to me almost like someone was wired and getting the other to say incriminating things on tape. But I did not realize there was this direct evidence that Ruby had been in possession of exactly the kind of sophisticated equipment to do that. As for whether that particular conversation that Jarnigan says he witnessed between Ruby and Oswald happened, I think of this: one thing that stands out in Jarnigan's story is that the discussion (Jarnigan said) was about killing Connally, not JFK. Nothing about JFK, just could Oswald shoot Connally. OK. On the night of the assassination, Clare Booth Luce got a phone call from her Latino anti-Castro friends, and they claimed they had Oswald on tape saying he could kill the Secretary of the Navy. On tape. Offering that to the wife of the publisher of an influential national news magazine that would make Oswald look irrevocably guilty. Presumably there was a tape to be delivered, and presumably it was of Oswald, and presumably it had Oswald speaking of killing the Secretary of the Navy (not Kennedy). Connally had been Secretary of the Navy. What I am noticing is that what the friends of Clare Booth Luce told her they had is exactly what Jarnigan says he heard Oswald say to Ruby. There was no connection between these two stories. Could the tape of Oswald threatening to kill the Secretary of the Navy have originated from Ruby the night that attorney Jarnigan, through a freak accident, overheard Oswald telling Ruby that at the Carousel, then wrote J. Edgar Hoover personally telling him so? There is no known contact or mechanism by which Ruby would have had contact with Clare Booth Luce's sources, but that missing link could be filled in if Ruby was an informant, taped Oswald as part of being a good informant, turned in the tape, and by a law enforcement/intelligence channel (unknown to Ruby) that tape came to be accessible to be offered to the publisher of a national news magazine on the evening of the JFK assassination for the purpose of showing evidence of Oswald's guilt. That is, in this scenario Ruby did nothing other than be a good informant and turn in his tape. But why would Oswald say such a thing to begin with? Here I think of the Keystone Cops-sounding story of General Edwin Walker's hired detectives in Oklahoma investigating who shot Walker, and trying to pin it on and incriminate Walker's former employee William McEwan Duff by offering to pay Duff to kill Walker, whereupon Duff went to the FBI, reported the attempted murder-for-hire, and went back, pretended to be interested and informed on the informants to the FBI--both trying to get incriminating information on the other! While it is highly speculative, wouldn't it be basically the same thing if Oswald thought he was infiltrating and informing on a plot of Ruby et al to assassinate Connally, and Ruby thought he was informing on Oswald, just as in the case of Walker's detectives and Duff? It would be a clever way to set up a patsy, get him on tape threatening violence . . . It all sounds bizarre, except . . . except . . . the alleged tape recording of Oswald saying he could shoot the Secretary of the Navy (where did that come from?) . . . Jarnigan independently saying he witnessed a conversation of Oswald saying exactly that . . . and Ruby had tape recording equipment and the law enforcement informant contacts to have taped Oswald saying that, and then the attempt to get a tape of exactly that unusually specific nature mainstreamed into national news media the very night or weekend of the assassination. According to this, https://www.covertbookreport.com/carroll-jarnagin-did-he-actually-witness-ruby-with-oswald/, Jarnigan feared for his life, claimed there had later been an attempt to kill him by an injection, and hid for a number of years which could account for his not having ended up like Oswald or Roselli, if his story was true. Of course Jarnigan had alcoholism issues, was reported to have failed a polygraph test, and there is no other evidential corroboration of his story than his word (and the circumstantial argument of the subject of the alleged tape recording of Oswald). But Jarnigan was an attorney, he shows no signs of having sought publicity or fame (just the opposite), and as an attorney he wrote personally to J. Edgar Hoover about what he said he had seen, almost immediately following the assassination. What do you think, Larry?
  2. Jim D., I read the four parts of David Reitzes on the Clinton and Jackson witnesses of Oswald in Clinton and Jackson, and except for the part about a Klan conspiracy (intent to fabricate testimony in concert maliciously), I came out convinced that there is nothing substantial, nothing there, to Oswald or Ferrie or Clay Shaw in Clinton. Witness identifications which start out as highly uncertain and then over time become positive identifications is a first strike against. Witness identifications not documented in the first instance until starting years after the fact instead of attested brought to authorities' attention soon after the assassination is a second strike against. Not a Klan conspiracy, I doubt the Klan issues had much to do with those Oswald identifications, simple malleability of human memory and mistaken identifications given the passage of years of time is sufficient to account for it. And the third strike against--I have problems in the idea that the man in Jackson wanting a job in Jackson, being sent to the state hospital, who talked to some people there and then went to try to register to vote in Clinton in the black Cadillac, was Oswald. It is just obviously some local, not Oswald who did not even live there. Neither Marina nor anyone else in Oswald's circle ever heard of Oswald wanting to work in a mental hospital in Jackson when he did not even live there--this just seems nuts to me. There is nothing in Oswald's address book about that. The job-seeker, whoever he was, said he was a vet who had spent time in Guantanamo, Cuba, and talked about how good of an electrician he was--that does not sound like Oswald. To me this is like the alleged Sports Drome shooting range sightings of Oswald, or the Shasteen barbershop claims, or Russo seeing Oswald at a David Ferrie party--I think those were mistaken identifications too. For some reason stories of UFO sightings coming in clusters come to mind. Then in addition to the four parts of David Reitzes, this article of Patricia Lambert, a review of Mellen, had this of interest from her (Lambert's) interview of Dr. Frank Silva, the psychiatrist at the East Louisiana State Hospital: Dr. Silva was scrupulously precise, painstaking even, in emphasizing that at the time of the assassination he did not relate Lee Harvey Oswald to the man he met at the hospital. He made no connection between that man and the president's [alleged] assassin. '[Oswald's] face was not familiar,' Dr. Silva said. 'I don't think anybody [at the hospital] remembered him, not anybody that I knew.' When the assassination happened, no one said this is the guy who came here. 'No one said anything.' 'If you had shown me a picture of this guy, Lee Oswald [as seen] on television and in magazines, and said had you ever seen this guy, I would have said no, I've never seen him.' (. . .) Eventually, Dr. Silva (in Baton Rouge) also heard what later would be known as 'the Clinton scenario,' and two elements of it fit the man he met at the hospital. That's when Dr. Silva began to think the man at the hospital 'could very well [have been Oswald].' Dr. Silva became almost, but not entirely, convinced he was Oswald. 'And now,' he said, 'I can even visualize [Oswald's] face as the face of the person I spoke to. But of course it is a secondary recollection. It's not a direct recollection.' 'Of course, I've seen so many pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, that it would be very easy for me to say [the man] had a T-shirt on...But, you know, after 30 years you just [unwittingly] fabricate things on something... It is something that is tangential and you see almost from the corner of your eye, then you begin to say this is what it was'. All that troubled Dr. Silva. At one point, clearly searching, working to get it right, trying to excavate the steps that led to his 'secondary recollection,' Dr. Silva pinpointed its precise origin. 'I know [the man at the hospital] said that somebody had thought there were jobs there and he had applied...and they had told him he needed to register to vote.' 'I remember that part. And it's probably the reason I put this person and Lee Harvey Oswald together.' (. . .) But no one knew better than Dr. Silva that he had no real memory of Oswald, only images of him created after the fact. As evidence of the mind's vulnerability to suggestion those images are enlightening. As evidence of Oswald's presence at the hospital, they are meaningless. Dr. Silva knew that too. His final word on the man he met at the hospital, which he said more than once in slightly different ways, was this: 'Whether he was Oswald or not, I don't know.' 'I cannot say'. Irvin Dymond, Clay Shaw's lead trial attorney, who believed Clinton to be 'a complete fix,' told me that Jim Garrison didn't engage in fraud in the ordinary sense--meaning that he didn't invent evidence out of whole cloth. He 'took what came their way,' Dymond said, and worked with it. What came their way in the hill country north of Baton Rouge was a former military man, identity unknown, interested in Cuba and Castro, who showed up at East Louisiana State Hospital looking for work. That man could have been anyone. Nothing about him was singular (. . .) A good deal has been written in recent years about false memories. Dr. Silva's experience raises that issue and is instructive. The man at the hospital was real. The later recollection of Oswald, by Dr. Silva's own analysis, coalesced from what he heard about Oswald and the images of him he saw on television. Fortunately, Dr. Silva was too aware and knowledgeable to represent that later recollection as fact. Few are aware, however, or that knowledgeable (. . .) The three alleged conspirators appearing together in public and Oswald applying for work at that hospital defy belief. Garrison understood that Oswald's actions required a rational explanation. He came up with this: Oswald's 'sponsors' (read plotters) wanted Oswald to work 'a few weeks' at this mental facility, Garrison claimed, so that later, 'with a switch of cards from 'employee' to 'patient,' they could 'have the right psychiatrist' there testify that he had been 'treating' Oswald, thus completing a picture of him as a wandering mental case. That explanation is either silly or deranged, depending on one's generosity; either way it is light years removed from rational thought. 'At that time,' Dr. Silva said, 'there was a doctor [at the hospital whose name Dr. Silva couldn't remember], a real nice guy who had white white hair' whom Dr. Silva 'always connected with the theories about Shaw.' (Shaw's hair was quite gray.) This doctor 'was not a psychiatrist,' Dr. Silva said, he was 'internal medicine or something like that,' and he was at the hospital 'because he was in between jobs or something, and he had a contractor relationship with the hospital.' 'I have the feeling,' Dr. Silva said, 'there was somebody in the hospital that was going to drive [the man] to get registered, and I have the feeling it was this [white haired doctor]'. (Patricia Lambert, "The Good Witness: Dr. Frank Silva and 'Lee Harvey Oswald'", https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/silva.htm) That makes more sense to me than that it was Oswald, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, etc., all three of them in the same car, in Clinton that day.
  3. Denny, you are right. On p. 339 of the Marcades 2nd edition is a Fruge document of April 4, 1967 that states that between Nov. 21-28 "she stated that she once worked for Jack Ruby as a stripper, which was verified". He does not make clear that he personally verified it. The first claim that Fruge himself was the verifier seems to be 2006 Anne Dischler saying that. Now Fruge is dead, nobody has any idea who or how the verification happened, what club, or when. But you are right, there is a 1967 claim from Fruge of verification. Jim D., I have never been to New Orleans or Clinton/Jackson related to JFK. How many times have you been to Big Sandy to do Rose Cherami research? Not a serious question, does not matter. On the foreknowledge, I am sure you are aware the question is whether the claims of foreknowledge are true or later after the fact. It is now known, thanks to Steve Roe, that Rose Cherami fabricated personal involvement in a high-profile murder case in Arizona in 1957. The claims of foreknowledge and participation in a car of JFK assassins in 1963 is a second similar claim in a second high-profile murder case. Since she made it up the first time and it was not true (but sounded convincing), the question is whether she made it up and it is not true the second time too (even though it sounds convincing). I would be interested in you engaging Steve Roe on substantive matters of fact on this. Steve Roe appears to have studied the Rose Cherami case extensively. Why not have a civil discussion of issues of fact, details of evidence, etc. with Steve.
  4. Denny, I think there is a misunderstanding. When I said "no evidence" that Rose Cherami (Melba Marcades)'s story of working for Ruby was confirmed, I meant evidence that a researcher can look at and verify. You are citing claims of Fruge and Dischler (Dischler getting that from Fruge) that such confirmation existed, with absolutely nothing ever produced or known to us or publicly known to anyone of what that is. I knew about that. I saw that in the 2020 second edition of Dr. Marcades' book about his mother, on p. 328 ("In 2006, Ann Dishler [sic], Fruge's investigatory partner, confirmed Fruge had sources to this claim who wished to remain unidentified"). That is not confirmation or evidence, it is hearsay--someone claiming that there was confirmation but you will never be able to know the source, the nature of the source and how the source was in a position to know, or what specifically was confirmed, or look at it. So with Fruge as the sole--sole--source (including to Dischler) of the unverified claim that it was verified, here is Fruge's earliest known statement about verification, to HSCA in the late 1970s: He "thinks that this might have been checked later"? Doesn't he know? In the late 1970s, he "thinks that this might have been checked later"? By who? He "thinks this might have been checked later"! Anne Drischler apparently says in 2006--forty-three years after the event and 28 years after HSCA--that Fruge himself had checked but could not speak of it because . . . "confidential sources"! That explains why Fruge apparently never in his life disclosed what specifics this alleged checking, if it ever happened, confirmed of Melba Marcades' Ruby story? That is what I meant by "no evidence"--evidence existing in the form of an accessible witness statement, document, testimony, police report ... the usual understanding of meaning of evidence. Then you have as part of the Marcades' story, the ludicrous claim of her knowing that Oswald and Ruby were long-term bedmates, and the new--new information, the 1957 newspaper article brought to light in past days by Steve Roe--that Melba Marcades had a known track record of total fabrication of stories putting herself in the midst of high-profile criminal cases in the news. And convincing law enforcement officers. Sounds almost like a different version of Judyth Baker, though for some reason Melba Marcades has more sympathy from me. Judyth Baker also has plenty of claims that confirmations existed for her stories which you cannot see today. Here is a moral question: suppose, hypothetically, that the story of Rose Cherami was very effective in persuading members of the public that there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK. Then suppose, hypothetically, the Rose Cherami story collapsed, proven to be of no different genre than a Judyth Baker claim, i.e. baseless, without evidence and appearance of fabrication. What would be the right thing to do, in that case? Plato talked of "noble lies"--lies which prove useful, known by insiders not to be true, but good for the public to believe because serves good ends. I don't believe in noble lies, I detest the notion of noble lies, and I am not too enamored with Plato either (morally, as distinguished from intellectually in which he was utterly brilliant). Is the Rose Cherami story something that, it does not matter if it is true, it works--it was the opening scene in Oliver Stone's "JFK" and look how effective that first scene was . . . But is it true? Are the claims that have been made re Rose Cherami backed up in terms of accurate assessment of underlying evidence?
  5. Latest Fred Litwin post: "Did Rose Cherami ever work for Jack Ruby?" https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-rose-cherami-ever-work-for-jack-ruby. Pretty compelling of no evidence and not very likely. If someone objects to citing Fred Litwin on this, all I can say is why have JFK pro-conspiracy researchers not done this spadework first in discrediting this story.
  6. Melba Marcades, Rose Cherami, claimed to Dr. Weiss and Lt. Fruge that: * she had worked for Ruby as a dancer, and in that capacity knew of a relationship between Ruby and Oswald for many years * that it was well-known in her dancer circles that Ruby and Oswald were bed-mates How can there be any truth to that? All claims of Oswald knowing Ruby relate to the final months of the time after Oswald's return to the US from USSR in 1962-1963, and the disputed witness claims of Oswald Ruby contacts center on only the final weeks before Nov 22, 1963, not a lengthy period before that. In 1963 Marcades was 39 years old. Has there ever been corroboration of any kind produced--a fellow dancer, testimony, records, anything?--that Marcades worked in a Ruby club? Did Jack Ruby have a track record of hiring 39-year old women to be exotic dancers? Does that make sense? And what is it with her claim that Ruby and Oswald knew each other "for years"? And being gay lovers? When there is no substantive basis at all that Oswald ever was gay or bi. Yes her story checked out on the drug smuggling in Houston. But that was her line of work and nothing to do with the JFK assassination. The fact that the drug smuggling checked out says nothing about her credibility on the claims of Ruby and Oswald and her involvement with JFK assassins. According to Lt. Fruge, Marcades did not simply claim the two men with her were going to assassinate JFK, but that she herself was. She said her purpose of her trip was to get to Dallas to deliver drugs, pick up her child, and kill Kennedy. According to Fruge. Steve Roe has produced a newspaper article from 1957 of Melba Marcades fabricating a claim to have been a participant with inside knowledge in a high-profile murder case in Arizona, that was completely made up. That newspaper article should be major news to everyone here who is interested in the Rose Cherami case. It is new--it is not in any of the Mary Ferrell documents, any of the Garrison investigation documents. Nor--surprisingly--is it anywhere in either edition of Dr. Marcades' books concerning his mother, even though extensive biographical information otherwise is uncovered and told. That Melba Marcades--Rose Cherami--made up a story of being a participant/involved in the Arizona murder case, is like the story of the boy who cried "wolf", warning the people of the village, but the boy's cry was not true. In the story, the boy did that a few times, and then one day (so the story goes) there was a real wolf, and he cried "wolf" but the villagers would not believe him. In this case Marcades cried "wolf" falsely in 1957--and nobody until Steve Roe's report within the past several days has known of this. In 1963 she cried "wolf" again. Her claims of involvement with JFK assassins, being a 39-year old dancer in a Ruby nightclub, knowing of Ruby and Oswald as gay lovers--this is the exact same kind of thing as the 1957 Arizona high-profile fabrication, a second cry of "wolf!" She faked it before, and it looks for all the world like she faked it again in 1963, since it is the same kind of thing repeated. That is the starting-point on her allegations now. The 1957 story discredits Marcades as a witness in her story in 1963 of involvement in the JFK assassination which is exactly the same genre of story as 1957 (high profile; murder; claim of personal association/involvement). It raises the bar very high--requiring hard unambiguous evidence--before believing her on anything in that story. Not in the drug smuggling part, which is her known world and history, but the JFK assassination and Ruby nightclub parts, for which there is zero on-the-record corroboration apart from the arguments of timeline and foreknowledge. The 1957 Arizona story is a game-changer. There never was any necessary linkage of the Rose Cherami story, to the reasons for supposing the JFK assassination was a hit in which Oswald's actions are not a full and sufficient explanation. That is, there is nothing essential to the actual issues of the JFK assassination in the Rose Cherami story. There is nothing lost by ditching it. Steve Roe's 1957 newspaper article has tipped it for me on the Rose Cherami story. Its a sad human case, the story of Melba Marcades. In my case there was the freak coincidence of the Big Sandy, Texas connection, where she was either struck by a car receiving fatal injuries, or foul play, whichever it was, in 1965, and my own journey in the early 1970s from Akron, Ohio to attend a Bible college for 2-1/2 years located at that very town of east Texas of 1,200 people. During my first year there I bought a used motorcycle and spent countless hours riding it on the back roads around Big Sandy including Hwy 155. I know a number of people, related to the now-defunct college, who live there to the present day. My student job on campus (the campus was located on Hwy 80 two miles east of Big Sandy) my freshman year was in the college's Transportation Department servicing church fleet vehicles, and in that shop I worked with a mechanic who was the Big Sandy fire chief, and a heavy-equipment operator who was Big Sandy's mayor, in their off-hours. But for the JFK assassination, my take on this at this point is: the Rose Cherami story does not look credible to me. It looks like a repeat of Arizona 1957.
  7. Steve Roe--the Silver Slipper as the Las Vegas Silver Slipper, and not Rose Cheramie's Silver Slipper--thank you for this because prior to your bringing this out, I thought Silver Slipper = Silver Slipper was striking. But there was no connection between the Silver Slippers. A match, a coincidence, that was nothing. The reason I am glad to learn this is because I think that false information--dud leads--impede rather than advance getting to accurate knowledge of the truth of the JFK assassination, and it is good to have false leads gone. The other detail I saw of interest in the Mrs. Hoover story was Julio Fernandez, Jr.--not Sr.--as the same name as Clare Boothe Luce's Cuban contact who tried to plant an LHO-implicating story for her and husband to publish, within hours of the assassination. Luce later told Fonzi she had made up the name, but I think it is at least as likely that she was lying the second time to Fonzi on that, as that her claim was truthful that she was lying the first time. Whoever talked to Luce I think had a reasonable chance of having been connected to people connected to the JFK assassination, and those contacts of Luce on that occasion have the appearance of having been covered up (since no WC or any other investigators found them and questioned them under oath). Julio Fernandez Sr. is totally innocent--Mrs. Hoover's reporting on suspicious-looking Cubans visiting his house is just sideshow, anti-foreigner suspicion. Forget Sr., it was Jr. who had been in Florida who would be the only possible person of interest if there was one there. But, he was 19, sounds like an artist afterward and not an ex-Bay of Pigs kind of warrior, nothing obviously incriminating, and Julio Fernandez apparently was a common name, like John Smith. Jr.'s name match with the Clare Boothe Luce story just not substantial enough either, once the Silver Slipper is gone. Mrs. Hoover may have sent items culled from Fernandez Sr.'s garbage to a Congressman, but there's nothing there. She was suspicious of everything about Fernandez Sr. People can say "well there could have been something there". Yes, but that can be said about a lot of things. No one has shown anything connected to the JFK assassination in whatever items Mrs. Hoover sent out of Sr's garbage to Congress, therefore--based on what is known there, which is zero--therefore there is zero. Until such time, if ever, it is ever shown that there is something there more than zero (not very likely). On Rose Cheramie. I lived 2-1/2 years in Big Sandy, Texas, population 1200, and I have visited the spot on Highway 155 that I think may have been the site of Rose's death, and I know that stretch of road well. I totally agree that site makes no sense as a hitchhiker trying to go west to Dallas or east to Shreveport. I talked to a local who knew something of the story of the man who found her, drove her to a doctor and tried to save her life, and that Rose lived for hours before dying. I arrived in Big Sandy in the early '70s, about seven years after Rose's death. Soon after I arrived I heard a hearsay story indicating how Wild West east Texas was. I want to preface this story by saying I have googled trying to verify or find the actual story behind what I heard but have found nothing online, no verification. But anyway here is the hearsay, told to me by a private college's security officer (I think it was hearsay to him too). Apparently there was a murder conspiracy, a plot, to kill the fire chief of Gladewater (small town about ten miles east of Big Sandy). The way the hit was going to work was a fire was started, and shooters lied in wait for the fire chief to show up when they would kill him. Well, the police chief showed up first on the scene, and he was shot dead by the killers, by mistake, they thinking he was the fire chief. Oops. As noted, I have been unable to find any story that matches this online, but that is what I was told. No connection to Rose Cheramie, other than Wild West context. With Rose Cheramie, if it was a hit it does not seem to have been a professional one because she was not left dead but alive. But it is hard to read that as an accident either--just puzzling. But anyone in the organized crime/ drug smuggling/ police informant world, an untimely death could be for any reason, who knows if it was JFK related or not, just no way of knowing. We can go crazy with what-ifs unverified by evidence. I just received and read the updated edition of Michael Marcades's book, the son. With utmost compassion for Dr. Marcades's story of his quest to recover and tell his mother's story, the book itself was a disappointment in being in the genre of ghost-written creative nonfiction--written like a novel. I personally cannot stand that genre. I want old fashioned straight discussion of facts and footnotes and leave out the creative fiction, the imagined conversations and inner thoughts of characters told by the omniscient narrator, etc. What made the book nevertheless worth purchasing was the documents at the end from the medical records of Rose's death, especially to me with my local connection to the scene. But everything else in the creative fiction retelling, mixes fact and fiction, with no judicious analysis of what is true or not true. The bar owner at the Silver Slipper lounge, the one of Rose Cheramie, made two identifications from photos several years after the fact which are a bit questionable in reliability, but he also gave the exact proper name of a third man who he saw talking with the two in that bar like he knew them, the night that Rose Cheramie was there. But that full correct name of that third man (so far as I know) was and has never been tracked down. He would likely have known who the other two were if asked, but he never was found and asked.
  8. What do you think of late-to-the-party witness John Curington? This is a serious question, not rhetorical. Curington is the aide to H.L. Hunt who says he was sent by HL Hunt to check on jail security for Oswald the night before Oswald was shot by Ruby, and that he, Curington, reported back to HL Hunt at Hunt's estate late Saturday night, followed by Curington at Hunt's instruction setting up a meeting between Hunt and Dallas mob boss Joseph Civello that occurred ca. 7 am or so Sunday morning--Curington says he was not present at that meeting but got a couple of hours sleep and then went to church--Ruby killed Oswald later that morning and Curington heard the announcement when he was in church. Curington first told of checking the jail security for HL Hunt in 1977, with no mention of the Civello connection at that time. In his 2018 book, Motive and Opportunity, and in taped interview with me in 2018, Curington told the Civello connection. As he told it to me (and writes of it in his book), I originally had the impression he was saying he had phoned Civello in the middle of the night at Hunt's request to set up the Hunt/Civello meeting. However subsequently Curington told me he had gone over in person to Civello's house that night (ca. 2 am), rather than the communication being by a phone call. Then, in a phone call last December, 2020 (I have written notes of the conversation at the time but no recording), Curington explicitly told me that when he got a phone call from HL Hunt to go check jail security re Oswald late Saturday afternoon Nov 23, he knew Oswald was going to be dead, which is what happened the next morning. In other words, although Curington did not do the hit, Curington told me it was clear to him that a hit was coming down. Curington is now 93 years old (sound mind). I have talked to him many times since 2018 and a long-time friend of mine has known him closely going back to the 1980s. He is who he says he is with respect to his position and many years with HL Hunt. But what to make of his story? Apart from Curington's book which has not received much publicity or notice; Dr. Cyril Wecht who has to a certain extent taken Curington under his wing; and my 2018 interview with him which has not been greatly publicized (https://independent.academia.edu/GregoryDoudna, scroll down to next to last listing), Curington's story of the Civello middle-of-the-night meetings which Curington said looked like it was setting up the hit on Oswald which happened the next morning has basically gone "nowhere". I see now there is also an oral history interview of Curington recorded 2018 on the Sixth Floor Museum website although I have not heard it. It was an eery feeling to have a living person at this late date, not otherwise obviously fraudulent as so many other late-to-the-party witnesses have been shown to be, tell me matter-of-factly, in so many words that he was knowledgeable of and party to circumstances of Oswald's murder being planned starting about eighteen hours before it happened. Curington says he had no meeting or contact with Ruby at that time nor did he see Ruby at the police station (I asked), and that he did not hear either Hunt or Civello speak of killing Oswald. Only (in his call to me last December) that he knew, when HL Hunt asked him late Saturday afternoon to go check out security at the DPD police station where Oswald was held, that a hit was coming down. What is to be made of a witness who comes out this late in the day with something like this? I did not know this at the time I wrote up my interview with him, but late last year (in fact, my email inquiry to Curington about this was what prompted Curington to call me by phone in response, the phone call in which he told me directly that he knew it was a hit coming down) I learned about and tracked down two items which call Curington's story into question. Namely, two major national-circulation magazine interviews of HL Hunt, August 1966 Playboy, and January 1967 Esquire (the Esquire story can be read here: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/H Disk/Hunt H L/Item 15.pdf). In these interviews HL Hunt specifically says, firsthand, that he was advised by FBI agents the afternoon of the assassination to leave Dallas for his safety, and that he did leave Dallas with his wife, Friday Nov 22, and was not in Dallas that night or the rest of that weekend. There is no wiggle room in this: that is what HL Hunt says happened. If that is correct then he cannot have been at his home Saturday night Nov 23 to receive John Curington's midnight visit reporting on jail security for Oswald, nor can Hunt have received Civello at his estate for a meeting early Sunday morning Nov 24. I wrote Curington and asked him about this, and he called me back by phone. His response was he insisted that was wrong. He gave me an almost hour-by-hour rundown of what happened in the hours after the assassination ("business continued as normal that afternoon"), that he drove Hunt home that evening at the end of the workday as usual, that he took care of Hunt's mail the next morning, that he was phoned by Hunt the next afternoon (Saturday) with the request to check out the jail security, etc. He said absolutely that Hunt had not left Dallas that weekend, that it simply was not true. As for why these two national magazines would report Hunt saying otherwise, Curington said they must have made it up, and said that is what both he and Hunt experienced all the time from journalists, just making things up. I asked: two national magazines would make up the identical story independently? He said maybe one got it from the other, he did not know, but he insisted it was not true that Hunt left Dallas any time that weekend. So there it stands. What do I think? Obviously I do not think two national magazines would make up quoted words from HL Hunt out of whole cloth. The only two options are that HL Hunt was telling the truth (and Curington has not been truthful at some point), or HL Hunt was lying. Of course, if Curington's story is true, HL Hunt might have a motive to do so. However, Hunt's story appeared twice in national-circulation print four years after the fact, whereas Curington's first appeared 14 years (without Civello) and 55 years (with Civello) after the fact. I have thought much about this and do not know for sure, but the weight seems to go against Curington in this "he says vs. he says" case of conflicting witness claims. I will probably be taking down my Curington interview in its present form soon, whether forever or to be put back up with this information as disclaimer I have not yet decided. Curington has come across in person to me as a straight shooter, but I know six decades of time can do strange things to people's memories too.
  9. I agree with much of what Tracy Parnell says. I do not think it is too relevant what the public thinks. That is not who I think is the relevant audience to address. Half of the public believes in creationism. Half of the public believes in astrology. Half of Trump supporters think there is a question concerning whether Obama was U.S. born. Winning over public opinion is irrelevant. The ones that matter are historians, now and in the future. Peer-reviewed journal articles, or published books which are game-changers for those knowledgeable of the issues. A senior scholar with a lot of wisdom from Hebrew University, Jerusalem, that I knew long ago advised me: don't write scholarly articles for the purpose of winning over mediocre scholars or the public. Instead, you write addressing the best minds in the field fifty years from now--that is who matters. He also said, in politics he was egalitarian believing in equality of persons, but in scholarly ideas he was an elitist, not all arguments are equal. For a little while I have been working on an argument making a case for exculpation of Oswald in the case of the Tippit killing. It will contain new argument and data not previously raised. Of all charges against Oswald, it is probably fair to say the Tippit killing is perceived as the most difficult case for exculpation of all. I intend to separate it from issues of any other charge against Oswald, such as the JFK assassination, focusing solely on the Tippit killing. My argument will involve no Oswald doubles, no claims of prior plot to frame Oswald, nothing outside of usual and customary law enforcement responses. It will be solely in the genre of "Innocence Project" case arguments for overturning wrongful criminal convictions. Oswald did not live to be charged or convicted of the Tippit killing, but apart from that that is the parallel I will be developing. When I do have it ready to publish, I will gladly offer it to the best critics to my knowledge to shoot it down if possible, such as Myers, or Tracy Parnell or Steve Roe, each of whom I respect, if one or more of those are willing to have a go at it. Strange to say, I do not regard that kind of critical assessment, argued on the basis of evidence, as a negative thing but to be welcomed and valued and appreciated. My target audience and objective will not be to win over the public, or readers of this forum. I will judge success or failure of my Tippit argument based on whether it wins over those in America experienced in issues of wrongful criminal convictions, and historians. But I am not actually talking about legal exculpation (which is not always the same as actual exculpation), but exculpation to historians' standards, in terms of whether the accused actually did it. If it succeeds it succeeds, if it fails it fails. The arbiter that matters to me, in terms of human judgment, being not the public, not people here, but mainstream historians. Tracy Parnell is right: that is whose judgment matters. Tracy Parnell is right on another thing: there is no unified theory on who killed JFK, not after years of investigation and research decades after the fact. There is strong though not quite unanimous agreement that Oswald was innocent of the JFK assassination, but explanations of the specifics of that go every which way. If Oswald was involved with the sniper's nest on the TSBD sixth floor, how could he be innocent of involvement in the assassination itself? But if he was not involved in the sixth floor sniper's nest, then who was and how did they get into and make their exit from the building without being noticed? Yes, this and that explanation has been conjectured to these questions, but there is no unified theory even conjecturally even on those basic questions. There is unity I would say on this: that the shots fired that day are not explicable in terms of Oswald alone firing, with reasons for that coalescing around a cluster of basic facts and arguments upon which there is some loose agreement. To that extent there is a something approaching a minimal "unified theory" if it can be called that, even if it has not come together formally. But that is about as far as any unity of the best researchers' minds goes at this point, it seems. If the objective is to change popular and political reality in America by reopening the JFK assassination case, where are the serious journal article submissions to peer-reviewed standards in historians' and forensic journals? Where are the best researchers combining to agree on published, written basic bullet-point statements of agreement as to findings ("unified theory specifics")? I think the issue of the JFK assassination will be a matter for the nation's and the world's historians ultimately to solve or not solve, in terms of ultimate arbiters. Through the peer-reviewed journal process, historians' conference presentations, and historians of reputation and standing becoming persuaded on the basis of evidence formally presented and published.
  10. I was intending to defend Ruth Paine, not on an agenda to take down your book although I can see how it came across that way. I apologize.
  11. I did not say Talbot ignored Ruth Paine. I said he does not think Ruth Paine was dishonest or CIA. "Ruth Paine ... was not ... a witting agent" (p. 535). Ruth's statement that she never had any contact with CIA "that I'm aware of", "is true, as far as it goes" (p. 536). "Ruth Paine was not an operative" (p. 537). Hostile to CIA and Dulles, Talbot is sympathetic to Ruth. Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, 2010 2nd ed of 2006, says nothing at all negative concerning Ruth Paine. None of the mentions of Buddy Walthers involve file cabinets or Ruth Paine's garage or Ruth Paine--just isn't there. In Larry Hancock's most recent Tipping Point (2021), in which after a lifetime of research he attempts to name names and reconstruct what might have happened in the runup to the assassination, Hancock suggests no role of Ruth Paine in the plot, says nothing at all negative or suspicious concerning Ruth Paine's character, in contrast to dozens upon dozens of named persons Larry Hancock believes are suspicious. So Larry Hancock 2010 and now 2021. John Newman, probably unsurpassed in groundbreaking and formidable research on the CIA and Oswald, leaving practically no stone unturned in working through documents and evidence. John Newman says not one thing negative concerning Ruth Paine in Oswald and the CIA (2008). Clearly the reason these three top-tier researchers--Newman, Hancock, and Talbot--never disparage Ruth Paine is quite simply each of them encountered no evidence to support the outlandish things you continually assert of Ruth Paine with no disclosure or acknowledement on your part that what you allege is 100% suspicion and 0% confirmed evidence, in the form of document, witness testimony, or confession, i.e. evidence. If there was credible evidence that Ruth Paine was sinister--why have not Newman, Talbot, and Hancock, with every intent in the world to pursue CIA machinations underlying a conspiracy in the assassination—the best researchers on earth in this area of inquiry--seen anything of the horrible things you assert as if you know them to be facts? The simple explanation is you deal with suspicion and scenario which simply have failed to be at all obvious to the top tier of researchers who deal with evidence. In all this time, not one document or witness or confession has shown Ruth to have been a witting CIA asset or operative, to have committed a crime against anyone, or perjury in her testimony. No hard evidence, in all this time, in the year 2021, after all the document releases and intense scrutiny. Would it not be appropriate to show a little more humility concerning the status of your allegations? As in, "I personally suspect xyz, for reasons a,b,c, but I do not claim this is proven, or that it is certain, and certainly there is zero documentary evidence for this..."
  12. Yes irrelevant. What you are doing is "whataboutism", never mind the (irrelevant here) matter that it is only your spider-sense statement-analysis interpretation that justifies your insinuations, expressed in the form of catty suggested suspicions with eyebrows raised and "hmmm", never quite saying directly what you are getting at but intending others to conclude, for which you have no direct evidence beyond inquisitor mind-reading interpretive logic or conspiratorial dot-connecting-suspicion-reasonings. I note the best researchers, such as Larry Hancock and David Talbot and numerous others, not to mention 100% of the experienced staff investigators of both major investigations, both WC and HSCA, have not accused or voiced suspicions that Ruth Paine was dishonest or part of JFK assassination plotting or whatever, which you never quite say directly in simple declarative sentences, what you firmly believe exactly Ruth to be guilty of. On not being "under oath", I can hardly believe you are serious if you are defending as OK if a book presents a fabrication as a known fact, if the book is not "under oath". From the little I know of Vince (through reading, not personally) I am quite certain Vince does not hold to such a low moral bar as you seem to be suggesting or defending. I do not actually think you do either.
  13. I have posted a correction in my earlier, with strikethrough lines for transparency of what was corrected. I have also deleted the last line asking for other researchers to comment concerning how to handle cases of inadvertant but damaging publication of untruths about persons. Not that the question is not of interest--not least because it is something that nearly all of us, myself included, do from time to time even with the best of efforts not to do so, and a discussion of "best practices" in such cases when it is discovered or brought to attention would be a worthy topic--but that would probably best be done elsewhere as another topic of discussion. Vince responded promptly and acknowledged and posted the correction honorably.
×
×
  • Create New...