Greg Doudna

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

You keep bringing up Crafard as if there's even a tiny shred of evidence that he has anything to do with anything at all in Oak Cliff.  There is nothing, nada, zilch.  Why do you keep mentioning him trying to tie him into Oak Cliff?  I don't get it.  You're taking a blind leap.

I don't know about that Bill... there is the Ruby connection, who following the failed attempt at the Texas Theatre to kill Oswald, stalked and then killed Oswald himself Sunday morning. 

The physical descriptions of the Tenth and Patton witnesses agree with Craford.

Nobody knows for sure where the killer came from when observed walking west on Tenth toward the location of the killing of Tippit, it was not from Oswald's rooming house but it would be compatible with coming from Ruby's nearby apartment, where Craford spent time. 

He self-confessed to having done contract jobs for mob interests, hits. He hightailed it out of Dallas hours after the Tippit killing for no sensible reason. Just before he began his hightailing, he was driven in the neighborhood where the tossed and abandoned paper-bag revolver was found, driven by Ruby and George Senator at 5 am in the morning for what was explained to the Warren Commission as a nocturnal trip to photograph a billboard.

Again, the issue is whether the killer of Tippit was Oswald, or went to the Texas Theatre intent on killing Oswald next.

4 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

It's foolish (in my opinion) to really believe that the best system the killer and the handler could come up with was to randomly have the killer begin to sit next to people inside the theater in the hopes that he would eventually sit beside the right person.  It's nonsense and laughable.

No, the killer was in the balcony not sitting next to anyone. It was Oswald sitting next to one patron after another in a nearly-empty theater, and that had nothing to do with meeting a killer. I agree, your straw man is laughable. However, it has no bearing on what is under discussion.

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Brewer said he was ten feet from Oswald.  Brewer also said that the man taken from the theater (Oswald) was the same man he saw standing ten feet from him in the shoe store entrance.

According to what I have been reading on research on eyewitness identifications in scientific studies as well as incidences involved in DNA exonerations, one finding is that after first (fresh) identification any repetition suffers from contamination from influence of added information. A second finding is that high degree of confidence expressed in court is both persuasive to juries and also poorly correlative to actual validity. A third finding is that the more brief the glance or time of seeing the person the higher the incidence of error. 

One study compared how mock juries differed when presented with a case for which the first set of mock jurors heard only circumstantial evidence for an incrimination--16% of those jurors voted to convict beyond reasonable doubt--whereas other mock jurors presented with the same circumstantial evidence plus an eyewitness identification raised that from 16% to 70%. 

It has also been found that DNA exonerations of actually innocent persons have involved multiple eyewitnesses making the same wrong identification.

Now to go to the specific case of Brewer and the man he saw outside his store. You say Brewer saw him from only ten feet away. Actually, minor point, but ten feet was Brewer's estimated distance from him to the doors, and then there were an additional 15 feet to the street (the doors were inset). The man stepped "into" the outdoor "lobby" area with his back to the patrol car passing with the siren, which may have been only let's say 4 feet in which would make him 21 feet away from Brewer not 10. The more important point is that this was not direct sight but through the glass doors. (Brewer would not have seen Oswald through the display windows, based on this 1957 photo of the store: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth19275/.) 

And it was only a few moments.

Brewer then follows the suspicious man into the Texas Theatre at a distance where the man went up into the balcony, Brewer following and checking in with Julia Postal on the way. Brewer, with Burroughs, inside try to find him in the balcony but do not see anyone there, then check the main floor, where Oswald is sitting, and Brewer does not see the man he is looking for there, even though Oswald was there and Brewer saw all the ground level of the theatre, meaning he saw Oswald sitting there but did not recognize him at this point in time. Then Brewer, peeking through the curtains in the back of the stage, sees in the semidarkness at a distance Oswald at the opposite end of the theater stand up and sit down--suspicious movement, catches Brewer's eye, and, flagged by that, Brewer says "that's him!" to officers arriving at the back door and points him out.

How reliable was that identification at that point? Well not very reliable in itself (the semi-darkness, the distance...), except it appeared vindicated in spades at the arrest.

In other words, there is mechanism for error here. After Brewer saw Oswald arrested (the one he had pointed out in the distance not very reliably but now "proven correct", so he and everybody believed), then Brewer had every basis in his own mind for strong confidence in the identification. He had gotten it right, it was proven! (so he understood in his mind) But that is less than certain, in itself (i.e. considering the validity of the witness identification in isolation), for reasons named. If Oswald is guilty on other grounds, there is no problem, Brewer got it right. But if it was not known that Oswald was guilty in the Tippit murder on other grounds, Brewer's identification falls short of unequivocally establishing that fact, again for reasons named.

The question is whether the killer of Tippit in front of Brewer's store was Oswald, or went into the theater to kill Oswald next. That is the question. 

The reason Craford comes into the story is, as you correctly note, his connection to the man intent on killing Oswald after the failure at the Theatre and success in that intent two days later, Ruby. Oswald's carrying of his revolver that day is also well explained as a rational response to a true belief that his life was in danger, as it was, from Ruby, and in the Texas Theatre, Craford. 

Oswald was wearing a brown shirt at the time of his arrest, into which he had changed at the rooming house (from his maroon colored shirt worn that morning of which Pat Speer obtained the first known color photos). 

The man deputy sheriff Courson described passing coming down from the balcony--where Julia Postal told arriving police the man she and Brewer were looking for was--the man whom Courson mistakenly thought was Oswald (never mind only Brewer making that mistake!)--Courson described him as "wearing a kind of plaid or checkered patterned shirt", suggesting Brewer's brief glances at the man in front of his store could have been that person rather than Oswald if that man's shirt was similar in color seen for a few seconds through glass doors.

And it is known that there were other mistaken identifications of Craford as Oswald. So it is not so hard to imagine.

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

"An officer approached him and he hit the officer and knocked him back. Several other officers then joined the fight and the man was taken out of the theater. This was the same man I had seen in front of the shoe store where I work." -- Johnny Brewer

I do not question the sincerity of Brewer, but are you aware of how many people have been falsely convicted on the basis of mistaken eyewitness identifications, in cases of brief sightings at distances? Brewer saw the arrested Oswald well enough in the theatre and many times thereafter in photos, and I believe him that he sold shoes to Oswald in the past, but how certain is it the man Brewer saw acting furtively in front of his store windows (=tippit killer) was the same person (if one was not influenced by other information on the Tippit case)?

In this case what do you make of a different witness, Jack Davis, inside the theatre, who told of Oswald movements not easily compatible with Oswald having been the killer who ran into the balcony? Have you seen Jack Davis’s Sixth Floor Museum oral history interview? He looks no less credible than Brewer to me, and less likely to be mistaken in telling of the strange movements of Oswald inside the theatre than Brewer could be mistaken in seeing someone stand and sit down in the back of a semi darkened theatre from the stage and point him out to police, “that’s him”.

The fact is Craford was identified as Oswald by other witnesses on other occasions, and Courson’s story in itself confirms there were two persons in the theatre who people were identifying as Oswald, which does not mean there were two Oswalds, but does mean there is some room for witness error in Brewer’s identification by analogy. Can it be excluded that Brewer saw Craford, not Oswald, acting furtively in front of his store windows for a few moments before continuing on? And then, failing to see him in the balcony in the theatre (even though he actually was up there somewhere), mistakenly identified Oswald below to police as the man he knew had run into the theatre? 

I realize Oswald had a .38 revolver on him. But Craford was in proximity to and a plausible explanation for what looks like the real abandoned murder weapon from the Tippit killing (because it has not been otherwise explained), the tossed paper-bag .38 revolver on a downtown city street, only hours later. The one which nobody knew about until decades later fbi documents told of it, because the Dallas Police disappeared it and that was hardly an innocent disappearance.

And Craford was housed by and employed by the killer of Oswald two days later on Sunday morning. And Craford was an experienced hit man, unlike Oswald, and the Tippit killing looks like the work of a professional who reloaded prepared to kill again, then went into the theatre…

And somebody had helpfully left a vehicle, a truck, with the key in it and engine running and no driver or human in sight, helpfully out the back door of the theatre, a getaway vehicle. (And Craford although he owned no car there is no issue that he could not drive.) 

And the fingerprints on the Tippit cruiser which are 99% likely from the killer (it’s just obvious), are excluded as from Oswald. Plus there never has been any sense at all to why Oswald would walk to the tippit crime scene location in the first place, whereas the killer was seen walking to the crime scene from proximity of Ruby’s nearby apartment. And witness Benavides saw up close the killer had a block cut hairline in the back of his head but Oswald had a taper cut not block cut. And that is not all…

13 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

So I ask again... Why would Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?

The killer of Tippit, not Oswald, ditched his jacket between the Tippit crime scene, and the Texas Theatre.

The killer of Tippit was in front of Brewer's store, seen by Brewer, and then went into the Texas Theatre and into the balcony.

Oswald, who was witnessed by credible testimony of patron Jack Davis as sitting next to persons in a nearly-empty theatre suggesting trying to find someone, and may be further corroborated by the later testimony of Butch Burroughs concerning also seeing Oswald sit directly next to a patron (Burroughs' pregnant lady), was arrested on the ground level of the theatre.

Oswald did not have on a jacket in the theatre because in a warm theatre people take off their coats. And the coat Oswald wore leaving the rooming house was his heavier dark blue jacket, with some color confusion due to Earlene Roberts at the rooming house being color-blind. That blue jacket of Oswald would have been taken off by Oswald inside the theatre, after he paid his ticket and entered the theatre on the ground level, because of the warmth inside the theatre. That is why he was not wearing a jacket when arrested. 

There is an unexplained patron encountered by police in the balcony of the theatre (he was not wearing a jacket either), exactly where the killer ran (up into the balcony), where Oswald is never attested to have been (in the balcony). This patron was a young man who was a smoker.

Curtis Craford, who was independently identified by completely sincere witnesses, but wrongly (mistakenly), as Oswald in multiple instances unrelated to the Tippit case, is the obvious suspect in the Tippit killing other than Oswald. (Craford had self-confessed hitman experience; he fled Dallas precipitously within hours of the Tippit killing; he is attested in the approximate location of the paper-bag revolver of the same kind used in the Tippit killing, being ditched after use in a recent murder, some ca. 1-2 hours before that paper-bag revolver's discovery by a citizen on a street in downtown Dallas, only hours if not minutes before Craford's flight from Dallas; he was employed by and living in the business premises of the successful Mob-connected killer of Oswald two days later, following his own failure to kill Oswald in the Texas Theatre on Friday interrupted by the police arrest of Oswald saving Oswald's life from Craford intent upon killing again, at that time, immediately following the killing of Tippit.)

The only witness at the theatre who identified the Tippit killer who went into the theatre and who went into the balcony, as Oswald arrested on the main level, was Brewer. 

Brewer's identification of Craford in front of his store as Oswald arrested on the ground level of the theatre could be as mistaken as any of the other known witness mistaken identifications of Craford as Oswald.

If the killer of Tippit who went into the balcony was Craford, that would mean there were two persons among ca. 14 patrons in that theatre who are known to have been identified positively by witnesses as Oswald (although one class of those identifications was mistaken): Oswald, and Craford, both in that theatre at the same time. 

Several police told of a man in the balcony who was not Oswald on the ground level, who was not otherwise identified in any police or FBI report, and who never came forth voluntarily in all the years since to identify himself, unidentified to the present day.

One officer told of this man sitting at the top of the stairs to the balcony smoking.

Oswald was not a smoker.

Craford was a smoker.

(That is known from Craford's WC testimony in which he refers to Ruby paying him for his work in the form of what Craford referred to as "his cigarettes".)

Who was that unidentified man in the theatre balcony--exactly where the killer had gone, exactly where in the theatre Julia Postal told arriving police to look for the killer--who was smoking?

Deputy sheriff Courson walked by this man and said later he thought it had been Oswald (who Courson said he let walk by him coming from the balcony as Courson went to the balcony looking for the killer). Just like other witnesses unrelated to the Tippit case thought Craford was Oswald.

The smoker in the balcony, this man who was mistaken for Oswald, was the killer of Tippit--not Oswald in the main seating area below.

There were not "two Oswalds" in the theatre, there was only one Oswald. There was no Oswald impersonator in the theatre.

But there were two in that theatre among the ca. 14 who some witnesses thought looked like, and thought was, Oswald, even though only one of those two was Oswald.

Craford, the killer of Tippit, was the other of those two in that theatre.

Brewer's identification of Oswald as: the man he saw go by his store (= the killer of Tippit minus his jacket, who then went into the theatre balcony) was a mistaken identification, falling into a known range of mistaken identifications of this same Craford as Oswald by witnesses who believed they were being truthful, just as Brewer.

Human error in a witness's identification, on the part of Brewer.

This is the alternative explanation you keep denying exists.  

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

So we have at least 3 cases where someone was trying to use the JFK assassination as a way to kick the U.S. into a war with Cuba:

Gongora

Alverado

The DRE

And all these 3 incidents took off within hours and days after the assassination.

Exactly. Except in Ruedolo Gongora's case, it was never known, even including to those who suspected he was being framed and silenced by the US government, that he was a former Brigade 2506 (Bay of Pigs) member. Ruedolo Gongora himself was (reportedly) saying he was a Castro agent intent on killing JFK and that he had knowledge of wide-scale plotting by Castro to kill JFK. How does a "lone nut", who does not himself disclose to anyone that he is a Bay of Pigs veteran, act out in a way that agrees so well with Alvarado and DRE (the "Pedro Charles" letters) and those apparent attempts to set up the original patsy, Castro? 

The FBI did not interview him, but did investigate and wrote up a report, failing to discover or report in that report, whichever it was, that he was a Bay of Pigs veteran, member of Brigade 2506. 

1 minute ago, George Govus said:

it was my understanding that Kennedy never committed to U.S. air cover. He distinctly forbid U.S. explicit participation no matter what. The opposite was communicated to the Brigade by the C.I.A.

Is that your understanding of the matter, Greg?

Yes.  

Could this quotation further developed in the Hancock and Boylan paper, "Red Bird Airfield Leads" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rODOLtGaAe0cni6N5rBnmgmwC71N2hpN/view), be a possible context for why a half-crazed Bay of Pigs survivor might be picked up in NYC on Nov 22, 1963 raving about six to eight teams of Cubans were in cities intent on killing JFK? This from David Boylan:

"[T]he initial legwork on the Cuban mechanic was done by Matthew Smith in his interviews with Wayne January. This was the Red Bird Airport.

Quoting January's talk with the Cuban:

“[Wayne], I tell you. I was a mercenary pilot, hired by the CIA. I was involved in the Bay of Pigs planning strategy which was operated by the CIA. I was there involved with many of my friends when they died, when Robert Kennedy talked John Kennedy out of sending in the air cover which he agreed to send. He cancelled the air cover which he agreed to send. He cancelled the air cover after the invasion was launched. Many, many died. Far more than was told. I don’t know all that was going on but I do know that there was an indescribable amount of hurt, anger and embarrassment of those involved in the operation. … They are not only going to kill the President; they are going to kill Robert Kennedy and any other Kennedy that gets into that position. …You will see…They want Robert Kennedy real bad.” - Cuban pilot.

We believe that this was Manuel Villafana who was the nominal head of the Commando Mambises run by Grayston Lynch who was tasked by David Morales.

He [the Cuban] became comfortable with January after working with him over several days of working together and spoke further about his experience. He was particularly outspoken in relating that his friends had died during the Bay of Pigs landings because JFK had not delivered the promised air cover for them. During their conversations, talk of the President coming to Dallas apparently agitated the Cuban, and he related to January that JFK would be killed in revenge for his comrades' deaths. He stated that “they” were also going to kill RFK because he had convinced his brother not to send planes to support the landings at the Bay of Pigs, and because the Kennedy’s were now in the way of efforts to overthrow Castro. 

(8/4/22, 5th post down at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28004-oswald-tippit-and-carl-mather-connecting-some-dots/)

A detail on the case of Pascual Enrique Ruedolo Gongora

He was the Cuban who was in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in New York City on Nov 22, 1963 and claimed Castro had sent in six to eight hit teams of four persons apiece, to assassinate President Kennedy, and that he was a member of one of them. He had mental issues and had written a rambling, incoherent letter to RFK demanding to be deported back to Cuba. INS arranged to have him sent to Spain to go back to Cuba but Castro would not accept him, so he was returned to the US and committed to a mental institution in New York where he may or may not have lived out his days. 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1444.pdf

https://ia601301.us.archive.org/23/items/nsia-RossStanley/nsia-RossStanley/Ross Stanley 02_text.pdf 

https://ia801301.us.archive.org/23/items/nsia-RossStanley/nsia-RossStanley/Ross Stanley 05_text.pdf

Harold Weisburg discusses the Ruedolo Gongora story in chapter 11 in Oswald in New Orleans (1967). https://archive.org/details/OswaldInNewOrleansByHaroldWeisberg1967/page/n227/mode/2up 

My only reason for this note is to bring a fact to notice that has not been realized all this time, simply for the record. In all of the past discussions of Ruebolo Gongora--the FBI report which can be found on the MFF site, the reporting of El Tiempo, the National Enquirer major article in the link above, the discussion of Harold Weisberg ... one significant detail has been missed in all of these prior discussions, this part of his story never told:

Ruebolo Gongora was a combatant and survivor of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Of the 1000-plus members of Brigade 2506, all were either killed or captured except for only 12 who escaped, on a boat, 12 survivors of 22 originally on that boat in an ordeal at sea so horrific that there was cannibalism on that boat. The story of the cannibalism was told in the 1990s by one of the survivors and confirmed by others in the know. 

Ruebolo Gongora was one of those 12. Unheralded, never noted in all of the later stories about him. 

He would not have been crazy at the time he participated in the Brigade 2506 landing and invasion. But it would not surprise me that an ordeal ending up in cannibalism could be a factor in him becoming crazy afterward. 

As a member of Brigade 2506, he would no way have been any Castro agent either. 

I discovered this of Reubolo Gongora by accident. Following is the evidence:

First, he appears by name, Pascal Escuante Ruebolo Gongora, in the "2506 Members Supplemental List" of Bay of Pigs participants on the "cuban-exile.com" website, name #99 in the list here: https://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0036.html 

And his name appears as a Brigade 2506 member on the list of members of the Brigade 2506 website: https://www.bayofpigsbrigade2506.com/the-members. 

The Warren Commission Exhibit 1444 (22H860-7), which is an FBI document quoting from an INS file, says only that Ruedolo entered the US April 28, 1961 "as a refugee", giving no prior history or information before that. The Bay of Pigs invasion was April 17, 1961. The only ones I could find of Brigade 2506 who were not killed or captured by Castro was one boat of 22 which made it to the US with only 12 of those living. Conditions were so bad on that boat that one of the survivors told of cannibalism, verified by another and not denied by any in the know, who said it was a secret kept out of respect for the conditions; this was told in news stories in April 1998 such as this one: https://latinamericanstudies.org/bay-of-pigs/baypigs2.htm. I could not find the names of the other 10 of the 12 (two are named in those articles). According to survivor Julio Pestonit's story, the survivors were in that boat 16 days, a "16-day ordeal at sea". That conflicts with the date in Ruedolo Gongora's INS file of April 28 which is only 11 days. But it must be the same and therefore the 16 days must be an exaggeration told and remembered by Pestonit. (I can see no other source in those news stories for the 16 days number than the oral history version of Pestonit 35 years later.) The date of entrance to the United States "as a refugee" on April 28, 1961 of Brigade 2506 member Pascal Ruebolo Gongora according to INS records I believe reflects the true date those 12 survivors on that boat made it to the mainland U.S.

Why this history of Ruebolo Gongora never was told in any of the reporting about him, I do not know. I can only think of that old saying about being slow to condemn someone if one has not walked in their shoes. I do not know what became of Ruebolo Gongora. I cannot find an obituary or notice of death for him, no information on whether he remained confined for life or was ultimately released. It is possible he could still be alive but that is unknown.

1 hour ago, Charles Blackmon said:

I don't believe all the evidence is fake, but I sure don't buy the official story about this evidence. Tom's pointing out that the HSCA experts did not really satisfactorily prove their authenticity just confirms for me that they are likely fake.  

Red herring -- I don't believe HSCA ever claimed to "prove their authenticity".

They failed to find proof of inauthenticity or forgery. Not the same thing. 

In other words, the HSCA panel was not convinced by claims then popularly circulating, some of which continue to circulate, claiming evidence of forgery. Their finding was none of those claims proved forgery.

But the panel never claimed to have ruled out a very good forgery which they were not able to detect. I believe the panel explicitly said that was technically possible, not an excluded possibility on physical-examination grounds. (Tom would you say that is accurate description of the panel's finding?) 

When you (Tom) write, "The panel came up with four mutually exclusive possible explanations for those lines and admitted they had no idea what actually caused them ... That is not proof of fakery, but it does suggest that the HSCA panel was biased... In other words, the HSCA report is not as conclusive as it claims to be".

Whoah Tom, how is what you are saying different from what the HSCA panel said? You say "that is not proof of fakery" and the HSCA panel also said it was not proof of fakery. What's the difference?

The panel's only conclusive finding was finding no proof of fakery. Do you disagree with that conclusion on something else (since you are not disagreeing with that conclusion in this case)?

The only way you can disagree with that is to claim specific proof somewhere, but you're not doing that, are you?

(I hope I've got the HSCA panel's position described accurately. This is from memory.)

Comments on the staged shot

A starting point: it should not be thought unusual that the shot would be staged as if that is unlikely in principle. It was a case of an unsolved shot, no witnesses, no serious injury, public figure hungry for publicity. Those four factors are equivalent to police coming upon a murdered wife and a living husband next to the dead body who says an intruder to the house killed her and got away--it could be true, police don't know until they investigate, but until police find evidence exculpating the husband, the husband is going to be a suspect because "half" the time that is who did it in cases like that. 

Or like arson investigators at commercial establishment fires and the insurance was worth more than the building and an unsolved arson is found: an owner-hired arson is going to be on the short list of investigators' radar because that is the cause of the fire about "half" the time in cases like that.  

Similarly with the unsolved attempt on a public figure's life with no witnesses and no serious injury as in the case of the Walker shot--it starts out ambiguous, it could be real or faked, until there is evidence that tells the story. It is not as if the staged shot is an unusual or extraordinary explanation.

To be the devil's advocate against the staged shot for a moment, the backyard floodlight of Walker's house could be out by accident. The poisoned dog next door could be done by Oswald--a cruel thing to do but it looks like someone was that cruel, just don't know who. The blind could be up on the window--the lattice fence at the end of Walker's back yard might be some partial privacy from view outside to anyone walking in the alley, or Walker didn't care who saw in, people vary.

The shot missing, Roe has plausibly noted that Oswald was in a hurry, took one shot and ran away, did not even operate the bolt to reload or eject the first shell hull.

On conflicting stories of Walker remembering differently whether he had suddenly moved or not at the moment of the shot, that could be Walker simply didn't remember or know himself. The story Oswald told Marina of running, stashing the rifle away from the house in some bushes near RR tracks or whatever, then bus home, is all believable.

An experienced professional sniper would likely not have missed the shot, but Oswald was not an experienced or professional sniper and if the rifle was sighted-in at 100 yards versus the 35-40 yards of the Walker shot, it would mean a direct aim would go high unless accounted for, etc.--an inexperienced shooter could miss. 

But there are two things that are not so easy to explain. One, Robert Surrey in the house at the time of the shot but telling police and FBI differently. And two, all the planning and preparation Oswald did (from photos of the Walker house) seems like a lot of work to take a chance that Walker would be in a lighted room with the blind up at night--as if Oswald had accomplices (Robert Surrey) or rather Oswald as shooter was an accomplice to Surrey.

Robert Surrey seen going to his car in the church parking lot after the shot by Kirk Coleman, Surrey coming from the alley which means out the back door of the Walker house after the shot, is the key point. Kirk Coleman seeing his man No. 2 get into a parked car was Robert Surrey getting into his car, is the pivotal point. Why doesn't Surrey tell police he was in the house at the time of the shot, and later to FBI and WC?

One reason could be Walker told a reporter the night of the shot that he was alone in the house at the time, which was published in a Dallas newspaper the next day, possible motive for Surrey to back up Walker's story. But more than that, if Surrey had told he was in the house, he would be asked why he went out the back into the alley to get to his car which makes no sense if an unknown shooter just shot from there. (And why did Surrey not check to see if Walker was OK before leaving the house and driving home two miles away and then being called by Walker to come back because someone had taken a shot?)

The simplest explanation for Surrey's witnessed behavior and its timing (by Kirk Coleman) is because Surrey was complicit in the shot. 

Surrey for sure isn't complicit in a real murder attempt of Walker with Oswald or with anyone else, that's absurd, but the staged shot makes sense. Surrey is the explanation for Coleman's man and car No. 2, and in my paper I also offered what I believe is a credible explanation of the movements of Coleman's man and car No. 1 as well--the one standing in the parking lot away from his car with the headlights on and engine running, standing with line of sight to the shooter in the alley, capable of being a signaler, part of the staged shot.

None of the evidence connecting Oswald to the shot says the shot was a real murder attempt as opposed to a staged shot with the exception of Marina's testimony, but Marina's testimony does not truly answer that question unless it can be known Oswald told Marina the truth, which cannot be known.

Then, as brought out in the detailed work of Larry Hancock and others but also familiar to the FBI and Warren Commission investigations too, there is the known behavior pattern of Oswald--not what most people do, but Oswald did--of Oswald connecting to unsavory right-wing types on purpose, in agreement with Oswald telling Michael Paine directly, with reference to Walker, that he was infiltrating/spying on the radical right in Dallas.

A staged shot in which Oswald was one of two or three collaborating participants explains the logistics better than Oswald acting alone and being that lucky to find or know Walker would be in a lighted room with a window with no blind down at a time a shot could be fired in the darkness without being seen or a dog barking. 

The case for the shot having been a real murder attempt in the end comes down to Walker looks convincing saying it was, and Marina said that Lee told her it was a real murder attempt. But neither of those arguments are fully substantial or decisive if one thinks about it, if there is evidence otherwise. In Walker's case all that needs to be supposed is he stuck to a story, not so hard to imagine.

Against those two positive arguments for it having been a real murder attempt are the reasons adding up to the shot was staged, by Walker aide Surrey utilizing two Walker supporters on Walker's behalf ... of whom Oswald was behaving as one at that time and place, and was one of those two.

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Greg, if you're reading my post carefully, I have repeatedly emphasized that the datebook, and the Walker shooting, are symbiotic so in my opinion, there is no reason to move this conversation.  If Jim di prefers that we do, I'm amenable; otherwise, I hope you will stop suggesting that the questions are distinct from one another.  Walker and Datebook.  I haven't yet added the rest of Lafitte's entries that implicate Walker fully in the Skorzeny plot. It's precisely because of those entries I asked why you had never pursued the motivation of No. 1 and brother to take a shot at Walker?  And you've yet to acknowledge Hilaire du Berrier who stated he was at Walker's on November 22. Du Berrier is in the Lafitte datebook just days before the shot at Walker in Dallas in April.

If you're pursuing the investigation in good faith, I ask that you set aside your somewhat knee-jerk assessment of Hank's investigation and consider the aforementioned. And I hope you will reconsider reading the book you attacked eight days after it was published.  I think that was unconscionable, regardless of who authored the book.

OK I see your point, the Lafitte datebook refers to the Walker shot, if its authentic that would be relevant to Walker. If we had some bread we could have a ham sandwich, if we had some ham. To me it isn't relevant, because nothing in that Lafitte datebook is relevant or of interest unless it is vetted for authenticity first, because I assume it is inauthentic unless shown otherwise.

(I accept what you report on the physical notebook or instrument of the paper being 1963, which clears up that detail. It is also what would be expected in any case of an actual forgery not done by total amateurs--use paper of the correct ancient date which will carbon-date to the right age, etc. The single most important next question would be forensic identification of the writer of the handwriting, on the basis of comparative examples examined by handwriting experts. The absence of any expert analysis on the record stating it is Pierre Lafitte's handwriting makes more likely a reconstruction that it was someone other than Pierre Lafitte who wrote it, in a genuine datebook from 1963 that did belong to Pierre Lafitte. Incidentally, is the widow not willing to make a simple statement under oath stating specific dates and circumstances to the best of her memory of this item? Why not? Why should anyone in the JFK research community reasonably rely upon an artifact that no one else saw for decades if even the widow who produced it will not vouch for it?) 

You say "you've yet to acknowledge Hilaire du Berrier who stated he was at Walker's on November 22". First, I don't see what that has to do with April 10, 1963 and the Walker shot in terms of evidence I recognize, the question with which my paper dealt with. Second, I never heard of Hilaire du Berrier, the American Mercury (right-wing) correspondent, but I did look him up just now in the index of Coup in Dallas and found the information on pp. 428-29. He says he was staying at Walker's house on Nov 22 when Walker was gone to Shreveport. The only connection of him with April 10 comes from the Lafitte datebook, which to me should not be considered until the authenticity issue is resolved. So you have to take that up with others, I'm not your person for that. 

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Based on a cursory Google search, a new method for the absolute Carbon dating of paper just came out last year, and was tested with extremely accurate results (<3yrs) on paper samples from 1950-2018: 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35195289/

Even though this is off-topic of Walker, this is truly interesting Tom, thanks, I didn't know that--this is new and significant. I know quite a bit about radiocarbon dating and for texts, about +/- ca. 30 years (one standard deviation, 68% confidence) is about the edge of the envelope best that is possible. But, this shows that for paper, and in principle it should follow for any other organic artifact, after 1950, the article shows precision of as good as +/- 3 is obtainable (due to the rapid dropoff of atmospheric carbon measurements following the end of atmospheric nuclear bomb testing). Good find!

Leslie, I was not meaning at all to "erode general faith in Dick’s expertise" as you are trying to make me out. I came to a different opinion on a matter on which reasonable people will disagree. That does not mean someone is criticizing someone else's expertise. To answer your question, I did not read every word of Coup in Dallas (never claimed to, and doubt I ever will, for reason explained below). 

I have just reread Dick Russell's Foreward (pp. v-vi) and "The Lafitte Datebook: A Limited Analysis" (ix-xiii), in Coup in Dallas. In "A Limited Analysis", here Dick Russell expresses belief in authenticity of the Lafitte datebook in the second sentence bolded below, and gives his explanation in that same sentence ("based on the entries I have seen"):

"Pending verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts, I have carefully reviewed the 1963 datebook allegedly written by Jean Pierre Lafitte. Based on the entries I have seen, cryptic as many of them are (no doubt intentionally), this is a crucial piece of new evidence indicating a high-level conspiracy that resulted in the assassination that November 22 of President John F. Kennedy. Many of the names are familiar to me ... A number of these names, however, were not [Russell's bold] known publicly in 1963 and for more than a decade thereafter. Thus, assuming the datebook entries were indeed set down at that time by Lafitte, this adds substantial credibility to the likelihood that the document contains never-before-revealed information about a conspiracy involving..." (bold added)

The first sentence with bolding is a caveat. The second sentence with bolding is a statement affirming authenticity citing a reason: "based on the entries I have seen". 

The apparent basis is the existence of names dated in the datebook to 1963 which only became known in JFK assassination documents and to researchers in later times. To some (such as me) that increases the question as to authenticity. To others, apparently including Russell, that becomes an argument weighing the other way, in favor of authenticity. In his Foreward, Russell states that the Lafitte datebook is authentic ("contains the strongest evidence ever published ... I state that unequivocally ... adds corroboration ... of immeasurable importance"), giving no reasons in the Forward for the belief in authenticity. But as noted, he did give a reason in "A Limited Analysis", above.

Here is the problem: the first verified knowledge of existence of the Lafitte datebook's writing occurred decades later, after those names familiar to researchers were known and familiar. So far as I can tell, Albarelli does not give an exact date for when he first saw the Lafitte datebook but says at some point widow Rene Lafitte showed it to him (pp. xv-xviii), with indication that this occurred sometime after he met her which was before he finished his book published in 2009, A Terrible Mistake. The question of the Lafitte datebook's writing's existence in 1963, as the writing internally claims, is what is in question and remains unverified. (No handwriting analyses, witness affidavits, ink analyses, etc. of which I am aware, unless you have something of this nature.) 

Even if the physical notebook were itself verified authentic from 1963 in date of its paper or manufacture or sale, the issue is whether the writing is from that year. Even if the handwriting were authenticated as written by Pierre Lafitte (who died sometime earlier than 2009)--my understanding is not even that has been done--that would rule out other forgers but would not rule out forgery, e.g. by Pierre Lafitte later in life. Instead, the logic of this project progresses from a start with a caveat statement (expressed by Dick Russell); then the rest of the book ignores that caveat, either concludes or assumes the Lafitte datebook writing is authentic to 1963; then saying, idiomatically put, "trust us"; then on to hundreds of pages of complex labyrinths of analysis and details based upon the premise that the authenticity of the writing in the datebook in 1963 has been established.

To me this has every red flag of suspected forgery, which are so very, very common in the world of literature, art, and history. Books are written about forgeries of this kind of genre. Most commonly, though not always, the motive is financial, in which if experts with reputations can be found to vouch for authenticity, an appraisal value can be documented which can be monetized, sometimes in the form of a tax deduction for a donation, other times in outright sale or appraised value. Sometimes it is a long process over years to obtain status of authenticity from experts. I am not saying this is the case here. I am saying I suspect it is, and know of no sound cause not to suspect such. Typically in such forgeries very sincere persons become advocates who are not themselves knowledgeable of any wrongdoing.

The whole thing is circular until there is that "verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts" that Dick Russell mentioned. If you would like to start a new thread on this, I am willing to continue this discussion with you there provided you agree to attempt to stick to substance and avoid ad hominem as will I to the best of my ability. However my preference would be not to discuss this, out of self-interest of not wanting a war with you. I am offering this only to get this, which has nothing to do with the Walker case, moved off of DiEugenio's page which is about the article in Kennedys and King dealing with the Walker case. 

On 3/21/2023 at 6:53 AM, Mark Ulrik said:

No, the police report only states that the trajectory from window to wall was downward. However, the shot came from an elevated position due to the sloping of Walker's backyard, and the trajectory was already downward when the bullet hit the window. Nicking the upper edge of the glass pane must have caused a slightly upward deflection, just enough to miss the intended target.

One correction in my paper concerns the question of whether there was a blind on the window. Walker told police there was a blind but it was up, but officers Dellinger and Rose in a written police report said there was no blind on the window. In my paper I noted the inconsistency and did not know which was incorrect. It turns out this question has an answer and it is the police report that was in error (Walker was correct there was a blind). This was brought to attention by "lanceman" (I don't know any other name for this dude) at ROKC (https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2701p25-reopen-the-case-of-the-walker-shot). (Note to lanceman: I resigned from the ROKC forum and am unable to log in and answer you there. Please contact me by email [you can find it on my website at www.scrollery.com] if you wish to reach me.) 

The film of the blind on the window: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjXkDLRFzOg or (same in a longer newscast) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBFZSP4gR9c&t=0s.

The bullet through the glass in the photos of Mark says to me the room was air conditioned with the window pane down sealing the room from air outside. However the blind was up, allowing the shooter (Oswald) a direct line of sight into the room. It is not that the window pane itself was up. But the blind was up. The blind was not up to let in fresh air from outside, for the glass pane sealed the room. But the blind happened to be up, making the shot possible. Most people I would think have blinds down at night in an air-conditioned lighted room. But maybe not everyone.

Lanceman also says the full moon that night would have been at elevation 28 degrees at 9 pm on April 10, 1963 according to the "Stellarium" website and suggests: "assuming the Walker house was 25-30 feet high, the moon would have been well above the house to illuminate much of the backyard and the shooter's position". I think the house was not blocking the moon rising from the southeast but rising elevation behind Walker's house would, and all accounts (Walker, others) report it  was dark in the alley behind Walker's house, not lit by moonlight, at the time of the shot. So although the moon was 28 degrees above the horizon, it can be assumed landscape or trees prevented the moon from lighting the alley and the location of the shooter at 9 pm. The "Stellarium" site (cool site) is https://stellarium-web.org (second hat tip to the lanceman dude). 

Lanceman also suggests a possible natural explanation to the barking dog who was sick the next day which her owner, Mrs. Bouve, believed was a result of having been poisoned related to the shot: "A plausible alternative explanation is that owners often keep food and water outside for their dogs. It had been an extremely hot day. The dog could very well have consumed food or water that had a high bacteria count resulting from the high temperatures."  

On the backyard floodlight out, as Steve Roe noted to me, that light may have been on 24/7 when Walker was gone on his trip and this in a time before LEDs, incandescent bulbs could burn out quickly and not be too unusual.

Still, three things not simply worked in the shooter's favor but were essential to have in unison: the blind up; the dog not barking; and the backyard floodlight inoperable. If the shot had been an actual murder attempt instead of a staged shot, a fourth necessary item would be added: Walker in the room.

That is some luck for those three or four things to coincide fortuitously for a lone-nut shooter. A non-luck interpretation would be that more than one person was involved in the shot and the shot was staged (Walker not in the room until after the shot was fired).   

7 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You write, (assuming Russell accurately reported the Angers interview). yet you then quote Dick, One of the most surprising postscripts of the Angers story is that Dick Russell then went to General Walker with that story and asked Walker for his reaction. Russell was stunned when Walker told him, Russell, that "several people" had "raised that possibility" to him, Walker, already, and that it was "natural to suspect" that. Do you also only assume that Dick has accurately reported what Walker told him.

 

This actually has everything to do with Coup in Dallas, Greg, in light of your analysis of my subjective analysis which you posted on this forum just eight days after Coup was published in November 2021, a remarkable feat as has been noted by a number of researchers who have studied Hank's investigations for years.  It took many of them weeks to absorb the content of Coup. I've wondered if you had read the book cover to cover before your critique?  I've also wondered why you chose to attack my candid analysis rather than read and challenge Hank's introduction which lays out in detail the provenance of the Lafitte material and the reason why he was 100% certain it was authentic? 

I've never seen a problem with Dick Russell's accuracy in reporting of his interviews. Its been a while since the conversation over Coup in Dallas to which you refer and this is from memory, but I am sure I did not focus on the content of the Lafitte notebooks or read word for word the discussions of the contents of those notebooks, because I looked for the discussions on authenticity, and expressed skepticism on that. I am not convinced it is genuine JFK assassination foreknowledge or that Lafitte was project manager of the assassination and I don't buy the case for authenticity, didn't see that forensic examination of the artifact by outside experts had been done. I realize Hank Albarelli believed it was authentic and Dick Russell does and I realize you do but I was not convinced. I have tried to stay out of those discussions since.  

Just now, Leslie Sharp said:

And in that letter, Lee divulges he had been in MC.  

Do you recall whether Ruth was asked about the MC trip, a controversy among researchers and journalists that has spanned decades? Did she publicly confirm Lee had been in MC within a few days of the assassination? 

Re. SA Odum. Ruth refers to him as "Hart". If she only knew him through Michael and never actually met him until after the assassination, wouldn't she have called him "Bob" during testimony?

You're probably familiar with barber Shasteen's story that he cut Oswald's hair, and that Odum frequented the same barber shop.   

I don't follow the question or controversy of your second paragraph, sorry. I do not personally believe Oswald got his haircuts in Shasteen's barber shop; mistaken identification. Maybe this is getting a little afield from Gil's topic?

10 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Greg, I'm glad you emphasize Dick Russell's accounts as being substantive because it provides an opportunity for me to emphasize that Dick provided a "limited analysis" of the Pierre Lafitte datebook for both a film company in Australia and our publisher, Skyhorse, which no doubt you recall from reading Coup in Dallas cover to cover.  

Don't mislabel Angers' story as if it is an account of Dick Russell. The story comes from Angers claiming that is what Larrie Schmidt told him. Dick Russell reported it but it is not Dick Russell's account nor does Dick Russell have anything to do with whether the story is true or not (assuming Russell accurately reported the Angers interview). That is like evaluating whether a letter you receive in the mail is to be believed based on how well you judge the character of the mailman--has nothing to do with it. Nothing to do with Coup in Dallas (no offense intended).  

6 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I'm certain Michael Paine acknowledged he knew SA FBI Bardwell Odum prior to the assassination, and referred to him by the nickname "Bob."

I've yet to pinpoint Ruth's reference to the same FBI agent in her lengthy testimony so that I can quote her directly, but she refers to him as "Hart" and implies they were on friendly terms.  So, I suggest she may be mistaken that Hosty was the first FBI agent she had met.

 I'm open to the possibility she met FBI agent Odum post November 1, so in that regard she may be technically accurate that Hosty was her first, but can we be certain she hadn't met "Hart" previously? Could she have met him through Michael? Did Bob and Michael meet before or after Ruth met Hosty on the 1st?  If either is the case, doesn't that open another proverbial can of worms.

On November 7, 8 ,9, Ruth and Michael read the letter Oswald had typed on her typewriter to discover that he had been in MC with a reference to the Russian Embassy. Might she have considered a discreet phone call to Hosty whom she had met on November 1? Or perhaps a call to her friend "Hart." Why didn't Michael touch base with "Bob"?

Wasn't Hosty in touch with New Orleans at some point following the August arrest of Lee?  Did he not ask, or at minimum advise Ruth of the incident in NOLA when he first met her on November 1, or did FBI Hosty only learn of the arrest following his visit with Ruth on November 1?

The aforementioned suggests to me that Ruth has been interviewed over the years by researchers who may well be sympathetic to her? 

Well that is Ruth's testimony. It is clear Michael Paine was on a first-name basis with Odum who also lived in Oak Cliff. When that acquaintance began I don't think is known. I have thought, even though there is no direct evidence of it, that it is plausible Michael might have notified the FBI at the time he agreed to go along with Ruth taking Marina into their house in Irving. Ruth would have discussed taking Marina in with Michael who still owned half the home even though not living there. So I could see FBI contact from Michael prior to Nov. 1. Ruth testified Hosty on Nov 1 was her first meeting with an FBI agent. But to my knowledge Michael was never asked that question, of when he first became acquainted with Odum, or of contact with the FBI.

On the Soviet embassy letter, I agree it would be natural for Ruth to call or think of calling the FBI (in this case Hosty whom she had met and liked). According to both Ruth and Michael, when Ruth tried to tell Michael how concerned she was over the contents of Lee's embassy letter Michael blew it off and told Ruth to let it go because it was none of their business. Ruth testified she resolved to show the letter to Hosty the next time he returned (implying she anticipated Hosty would be back).

8 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Greg, Have you developed this to include your hypothesis to explain Surrey's staging of the event? Have you pursued his history yet?

Yes I thought I explained how it would fit. In my paper I argued Coleman's man No. 1 was part of the staged shot (as a signaler to the shooter, not as shooter), and so if that was Larrie Schmidt's brother Robert Schmidt, that would be the involvement. In the Angers story, Larrie told him Robert knew Oswald, that over a few beers they decided as a lark to just off General Walker. Oswald volunteered he had a rifle; Robert drove, presumably to where the rifle was, to a bridge over Turtle Creek (presumably Oswald picked up his rifle there); then in the Larrie/Angers version, Robert with Oswald proceeded on foot to the front of Walker's house and shot at Walker through a front window and missed. I am suggesting this sounds like a version of the staged shot on behalf of Walker, not an attempted murder, and Angers, who was a raconteur and may have been speaking from memory, got details wrong (or maybe Larrie Schmidt did not have the details straight when he told the story to Angers). The actual shot was taken from the alley in the back of the Walker house, not the front. The reconstruction would be Robert may have assisted Oswald that evening, then was alone with car No. 1 in the church parking lot seen by Kirk Coleman, acting as a signaler both to the house and to Oswald in the alley. The engine left running of the car of No. 1 when No. 1 was out of the car at the time of the shot possibly could have been for an expedited getaway if needed but Oswald ran the other way. 

Angers at one point may have attempted to use some knowledge of the story he had from Larrie Schmidt, which Angers told Dick Russell he had on tape, to blackmail Walker for money. This was in 1969. Here is Walker's version of what Walker interpreted as Angers' blackmail or shakedown attempt (https://ia601302.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/6/items/eawalkerdataset/Edwin Walker.zip&file=19691212_EAW_on_Curry.pdf). According to Walker, Angers (who was friends with Dallas Police Chief Curry) wanted a donation of $10,000 (in 1969 dollars) to assist in South American distribution of Chief Curry's newly-published book on the JFK assassination, and Angers pointedly told Walker twice in the course of making the request for that voluntary donation that they had Walker's "police file at Chief Curry's house". Walker interpreted that as a reference to the Walker shot of April 10, 1963 and an attempted shake-down. Walker did not clarify what could be in his Dallas Police file that Angers might think Walker would pay $10,000 not to have become public. 

As Angers told the story to Dick Russell (The Man Who Knew Too Much [1992], 325-27), Angers taped Larrie Schmidt ca. early 1964 telling the story of Larrie's brother's complicity with Oswald in the Walker shot, and Angers said that was taped with Larrie's consent. Larrie when asked in later years denied the story, though confirmed he had known Angers. I find it difficult to believe that Larrie would knowingly or willingly incriminate his brother on tape that way, which is why I believe if there was such a tape (none has ever surfaced; Angers died in 2016) it would have been a taping without Larrie's knowledge. 

One of the most surprising postscripts of the Angers story is that Dick Russell then went to General Walker with that story and asked Walker for his reaction. Russell was stunned when Walker told him, Russell, that "several people" had "raised that possibility" to him, Walker, already, and that it was "natural to suspect" that. (Of course the version of the story Walker was referring to was that it was an attempted murder.) Walker thought it was "natural to suspect" that a young man he employed in Oct and Nov 1963 to be in his house and drive him as his chauffeur (Robert Schmidt) would have tried to knock him off earlier in April but not in Oct or Nov 1963. 

Mitrokhin archive 

In the link given by Jonathan Cohen above, Prof. Kroth reported an archivist at Cambridge sent him 32 pages of Russian corresponding to the archive locations cited in footnotes for the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter forgery section of The Sword and the Shield (1999), pp. 228-29. Kroth reported that the 32 pages in Russian he received contained no reference whatsoever to Oswald, Hunt, or Nov 8, 1963.

In 2018 I attempted to track down those footnotes. Like Prof. Kroth I did not go to Cambridge, UK due to prohibitive cost but contacted the Churchill Archives Center at Cambridge by email. I was referred to a researcher fluent in Russian who offered for-hire research and translation services in that Archive. She informed me that the footnotes in the Archive did not correspond to the footnotes in the published book, in agreement with what Prof. Kroth reported of his experience.

I see that the Churchill Archives Centre website now offers direct research service for overseas or distance researchers of up to one hour per month by the Centre at no charge, then charges for research time after that: https://archives.chu.cam.ac.uk/copies-and-research/. Photocopies can be ordered. There are apparently indexes with the accurate locations on-site that Centre personnel could assist with in that 1 hr per month, to assist in finding correct locations.

After reading some reviews about the Mitrokhin Archive available on JSTOR (available through libraries), I don't see much question the "Dear Mr. Hunt" operation is part of Mitrokhin's notes from Moscow and was done by the KGB. In reviews of the Andrew and Mitrokhin work by reviewers who seem to be knowledgeable, the main question is whether this was Mitrokhin acting on his own (as Mitrokhin claimed) or whether it was, so to speak, a KGB authorized release of KGB materials designed to show the KGB in its most favorable light telling of all its accomplishments, maybe the ones the KGB is favorable to being told and what was not was purged prior to release to the West via Mitrokhin. I have not found any reviews charge it as being a Western spy agency operation or charging western fabricated material in the Mitrokhin Archive. 

An explanation of the story of the Mitrokhin Archive through Soviet-era history is this, chapter one of the Andrews and Mitrokhin book: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/andrew-sword.html?simple=True. The entire 1000-plus pages ofThe Sword and the Shield is available online here: https://archive.org/details/TheSwordAndTheShield-TheMitrokhinArchiveAndTheSecretHistoryOfTheKGB/mode/2up. 

I report below a few details of my inquiry at that time for research interest, for the assistance of any who may wish to pursue this further. My research question in the below was not whether there was a KGB operation to plant an Oswald letter designed to link E. Howard Hunt/CIA to the JFK assassination, but whether the KGB claimed to have forged that letter in Moscow as opposed to opportunistically making use of an authentic item that had come into their possession. The researcher wrote me:

"First of all just to let you know that the numbering of the files in the Churchill Archive does not correspond to the footnotes in Christopher Andrew and Vasilii Mitrokhin's book The Sword and the Shield (1999). However I did look for the forgery letter 'Dear Mr. Hunt' at the request of other scholars and I am aware of its location. I can also translate for you two pages about this letter from the Mirokhin Archive. My charge for work in the Mitrokhin Archive is..." (email, 3/21/2018)

On 3/26/2018:

"I visited today the Churchill archive and have pictures of the pages about the 'Dear Mr. Hunt' letter for translation, which I can prepare..."

I contracted her services and received a translation of the pages and paid. I sought photocopies of the Russian original of the two pages but was told:

"I was not allowed to send pictures of the original documents from the Mitrokhin Archive to any researchers because of the copyright issue. If you want to get pictures of the original documents you should discuss the matter with the Churchill College Archive directly."

Upon receipt of the researcher's translations I realized it was nothing other than the Russian original of the identical paragraphs in English in Sword and the Shield, with no differences apart from the translator's slightly different renderings in English of the same Russian. The entire section would have come from Mitrokhin's notes in Russia, typed up by him (if as some suspect it was a KGB operation it could have been prepared with some assistance, in either case typed up in Russia), and apparently received no modification or editing in that section from lead author Christopher Andrew.

From my point of view it was a waste of money because the footnotes went to nothing other than a Russian original pre-translation, not to any underlying prior documents, nothing not in the paragraphs in the book published in English.

In response to followup questions, the researcher wrote me, "I don't know when, how and with whose assistance the files in the Mitrokhin Archive were created. The p. 460 A - 460B are typed (they are not printed from the computer). When the file  N 1/6/5  was bound I also don't know. As I mentioned earlier, numbering of the files in the Archive and Christopher Andrew's book do not correspond."

I asked a followup question: 

"Going back to paragraph 2 at the top, where you translate, 'On August 18, 1975, photocopies of a note purportedly by Lee Harvey Oswald, created by the Centre [KGB], were sent from Mexico to...' I am unclear concerning the syntax. Is the Russian saying that the note itself was created by the Centre [KGB], or that the photocopies of the note were created by the Centre [KGB]? Could you give the underlying transcription of that?"

To that question I received in answer: 

"I presume both."

and she provided the Russian original of the above: 

''18 августа 1975 года в адреса трех американских граждан независимых исследователей обстоятельств убийства президента Кеннеди из Мексики посланы фотокопии изготовленной в центре записки Ли Харли Освальда следующего содержания...''

I asked in followup:

"But 'google translate' (Russian-->English) gives a different syntax and meaning than your translation, and I wonder if you would recheck this point. Specifically, where you have "a note purportedly by Lee Harvey Oswald", I cannot find any underlying Russian in the sentence supporting the qualifier word "purportedly". How did you arrive at that translation? I have tried both the sentence as given and several permutations with Google Translate and all consistently render simply "a note written by Lee Harvey Oswald".

I received no response to that question. I asked:

"[W]here you answered my question that you presumed the Russian to be saying that the Centre [KGB] 'created both the note and the photocopies of the note', Google Translate seems consistently to render that only the photocopies of the note were made (not the note), in that sentence. 

"Here is the rendering of Google Translate: 'On August 18, 1975, photocopies of the note written by Lee Harvey Oswald were sent to the addresses of three American citizens of independent investigators about the circumstances of the assassination of President Kennedy from Mexico...' 

"The Russian transcription (English transliteration of the Cyrillic, per Google Translate) is: '18 avgusta 1975 goda v adresa trekh amerikanskikh grazhdan nezavisimykh issledovateley obstoyatel'stv ubiystva prezidenta Kennedi iz Meksiki poslany fotokopii izgotovlennoy v tsentre zapiski Li Kharli Osval'da sleduyushchego soderzhaniya...' Here is what you rendered: 'On August 18, 1975, photocopies of a note purportedly written by Lee Harvey Oswald, created by the Centre [KGB], were sent from Mexico to the addresses of three American citizens, independent investigators of President Kennedy's assassination, with the following contents:' (. . .) 

"it appears that Google Translate omitted translation of 'izgotovlennoy v tsentre', 'made at the Centre'. You have a rendering of this expression which is 'created by the Centre'. However is not 'v' a preposition 'at' the Centre? Should 'izgotovlennoy v tsentre' be 'made [your "created"] AT the Centre'--referring to location where the photocopies were made? (. . .) Am I wrong? It appears to me that the Russian is simply saying that the KGB made some photocopies of the note and sent the photocopies. Without (in this sentence) saying or implying anything about the origin of the note or that KGB created or made the note itself. Is not the sentence saying that photocopies of the note, which was physically located at ("v") the Centre, were sent (to x, y, z)...? Can you clarify on this? 

"I hope you understand this goes to the very heart of my question of interest which prompted my undertaking your translation services itself--whether this text is claiming that the KGB forged the note itself. Your translation represented the document as strongly implying a "yes" answer to this question, from the Russian of this sentence. But Google Translate gives renderings suggesting a "no" answer to that question, from the Russian of this sentence."

I received no response to that request for clarification. Perhaps someone knowledgeable in Russian may be able to shed light.

I also asked:

"In paragraph 5, lines 1-2, where you translate, 'The note above was composed from specific phrases and expressions borrowed from Oswald's letters during his stay in the USSR, written in imitation of Oswald's handwriting on a piece of genuine writing paper, which Oswald used in Texas', I am unclear concerning this syntax. Is the Russian from which you are translating saying: (a) the KGB created the forgery by writing the forgery on blank genuine paper from Texas used by Oswald? or (b) the KGB had a genuine paper from Texas that had Oswald's writing on it, and created the forgery on a different paper in imitation of the genuine document from Texas which had Oswald's writing on it?"

The answer I received to that question in full (referring to what the Russian text is saying):

"The KGB created the forgery by writing the text on blank genuine paper from Texas used by Oswald. [underlying Russian:] Приведенная выше записка составлена из отдельных фраз и выражений, заимствованных из писем Освальда во время проживания в СССР, исполнена почерком Освальда на обрывке подлинной писчей бумаги, которой Освальд пользовался в Техасе"

The wording quoted in Eng. translation "written in imitation of Oswald's handwriting" sounds like it probably reflects a claim of forgery in Russian. There are other examples in the Mitrokhin Archive of the KGB forging letters in areas different from the JFK assassination.  

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

As I recall, this was long-ago exposed as Soviet disinformation. They forged the letter to try to implicate H.L. Hunt, not realizing the CT's to whom they leaked it would seize upon it being Howard Hunt.  

Now, some will say the documents linking it as Soviet disinformation were themselves fake, and that the lefter is actually legit. But this is to deny the provenance of the letter--where it suddenly appeared in the hands of CTs in the 70's. 

And this, to me, misses the real take-away. The HSCA handwriting analysts were fooled by the letter, and thought it may have been legit. Knowing it was a fake PROVES that other questionable documents declared legit could similarly be forgeries. And not by the Russians.

Among the gazillion books I own is a 1950's era book on the FBI crime lab. This book noted that the FBI's handwriting analysts served a dual function. One was to best assess the ID of those signing signatures and writing up letters. Two was to forge letters themselves that could then be passed off as legit as part of the Cold War. I remember the specific example of forging letters from Russian diplomats to American agents that could then be put to use. They would make sure these forgeries somehow fell into Soviet hands, and that the Soviets would begin a counter-intelligence investigation of the diplomat/agent. They would then swoop in and offer asylum to the diplomat/agent should he/she wish to defect as opposed to facing a decade in the gulag, or execution. 

Good reasoning Pat but—but—a couple of points. The known facts are the letter first turns up mailed from Mexico City to jfk CTs in the US late 1970’s; it is told by Polish high level intelligence defector to the West Mitrokhin to have been a Soviet dirty tricks op, with specifics; and the letter is not clearly determined forged by handwriting experts.

Assuming the Soviet op is true as Mitrokhin says, as it may be, there is no way to know the letter was forged (created) by the Soviet spy agency instead of they had it and utilized it. Mitrokhin himself would hardly have been in a position to have personal knowledge of how they got that letter. When his notes have the KGB saying the agency “prepared” it for the dirty op, maybe they prepared the photocopy. Mitrokhin cites no witness names, no source. He says something he was put in charge of transferring KGB documents to a new building and took notes on all the documents he transferred (which was all of them) for twelve years, typed them up and defected. 

It all could be true as Mitrokhin says. It’s just there is no document, no source cited, no corroboration, no firsthand witness or supporting witness, though he says he saw that in KGB documents.

The conjecture or proposition (if the letter were authentic) would not be that the Hunts were doing the assassination, but that Oswald was phishing for information on something for informant purposes. It could also be somebody’s idea of setting up the Hunts as “patsy”, compare the Soviet embassy letter dated 3 days later considered authentic Oswald handwriting by handwriting experts, which can be read as in a sense similarly setting up the Soviet government (“finish our business”). 

18 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Thank you K.K. Lane.

It is SO OBVIOUS that Kantor was telling the WC the truth about Ruby's presence at Parkland hospital around 1:30 PM the day of 11,22,1963.

Kantor's professional and personal credibility was provenly very high and strong.

The question is...why?

Why would the WC in their final report claim highly respected and experienced journalist Seth Kantor was mistaken ( through some over-worked up mental state? ) about meeting Ruby at Parkland that afternoon...and emotionally and mentally damaged ( and Mafia connected if even slight - Louis McWillie ) Jack Ruby wasn't?

Or, that he ( Ruby ) was just flat out L****?

In my opinion, because Ruby's presence at Parkland would open up enormously suspicious contradictions in Ruby's account of his full actions that afternoon and in the least expose his blatantly*** about them.

Right Joe. Kantor clearly is more credible than Ruby. Another odd thing is that Ruby’s dancer Joy Dale (Joyce McDonald), pregnant and according to dancer Little Lynn the gossip was Ruby was the biological father, was also at Parkland Hospital at the same time.

Joyce McDonald (Joy Dale) said she took her child to Parkland Hospital Nov 22 for an eye checkup appointment, went there by bus. Then, she says she went by bus again not to home but to the Carousel Club where she met Jack Ruby around 3 pm, becoming an early witness to how distraught Ruby was over the impact of the assassination on Jackie and Caroline.

Two days later, on Sunday, she gave a radio interview telling of how good Ruby had been to her friend Larry Craford (who had just quit his employment by Ruby with no notice and hightailed it out of Dallas precipitously the previous morning).

Ruby, who had just murdered Oswald that morning in cold blood out of allegedly being overcome by passion for the wrong Oswald had done to Jackie and Caroline, that afternoon when questioned in custody told the FBI from memory the very street address in Oak Cliff where Tippit’s cruiser had stopped when Tippit was killed, as the street home address of Joy Dale, who in fact lived elsewhere in Oak Cliff. What kind of freak mistake was that? Joe, don’t let me down—give a narrative explanation (you’re a good writer). 🙂 

I reject his anti-vaxism and demonization of Fauci, but despite those disagreements I like him, because he’s the closest thing to a jfk/rfk legacy revival and because unlike turncoats to the right, RFK, Jr does not strike as having done that. He is core democratic left in soul and values in keeping with his father’s 1968 campaign values, despite liking of him by Fox News and many on the right, capable of crossover appeal. 

But the example of Bernie Sanders who had a statistical majority of the Democratic voter base favoring him as their preferred choice (but some of whom went for Hillary in 2016 and then Biden in 2020 nevertheless on perceived electability grounds) … shows an outsider to the Democratic Party establishment cannot win the nomination without the support of some significant sector of that establishment which Sanders did not have and which RFK Jr would have vastly even less. Most likely he will be fringe and a blip on the campaign if he does run, unlikely to win or do well in early primaries. Really a long long shot, in a 2024 election in which every voter in America will be voting motivated from stark terror above any other factor, up or down for or against fascism.

21 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Three handwriting experts consulted by the Dallas Morning News concluded that Oswald wrote the Hunt letter. If Oswald didn't write it, it was a very good forgery.

Federal investigators didn't want to admit that Oswald wrote the letter because it raises several troubling questions, nor did they want to explore who may have forged the letter if it was in fact a forgery, since such a highly skilled forgery would suggest the involvement of intelligence personnel.

Could the letter have been genuine then later “laundered” by US intelligence via the Soviet mailings looking like a Soviet Cold War operation as a means to discredit a true document? The argument that it is genuine is some handwriting experts thought it was whereas others testifying to HSCA at most said it was uncertain. I don’t think there was a strong finding that it was certainly forged, as most likely would be the case in most forgeries of that quantity of handwritten text. If the Soviets really had the letter it could have come to them as the real letter and then it was utilized, not necessarily they created it themselves. I also think the addressee could have been Lamar Hunt, and that if it was genuine the letter could be understood in a larger context of Oswald attempting to gain information for informant purposes.