1 hour ago, Doug Campbell said:

I think you mis-quoted me. The full quote:

"It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would used dozens of aliases in the field while trying to topple Castro, yet have absolutely no compunction whatsoever with sharing his REAL, GIVEN NAME with a conman and known-prolific FBI informant while plotting to murder The Sitting President Of The United States."

100%. On. The. Money. It's a ridiculous notion, and borders on being insulting to the intelligence of anyone who's ever studied the CIA Primary Resource Documentation of The Case in any detail. We know better.

Re: Morley and Albarelli: I can believe that. Morley's a smart guy, knows his business. It's almost a certaintly that he thought the same thing I did regarding Joannides' name appearing in the datebook. I'd have responded the same way he did. But with more eye-rolls, probably.

If you're only "proof" that Angleton ever dined with Lafitte is the datebook, keep it. Not interested. Those entries are no more accurate a reflection of events than the Joannides entries. 

Oh, and I bought the book on 12/5/21. I've tried to read it 3 times. I always end up just shaking my head and logging onto the Mary Ferrell Foundation archives to cleanse my palette.

 

found this today-- sent to Morley a few years ago...

Inbox

 

3 minutes ago, Doug Campbell said:

I think you mis-quoted me. The full quote:

"It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would used dozens of aliases in the field while trying to topple Castro, yet have absolutely no compunction whatsoever with sharing his REAL, GIVEN NAME with a conman and known-prolific FBI informant while plotting to murder The Sitting President Of The United States."

100%. On. The. Money. It's a ridiculous notion, and borders on being insulting to the intelligence of anyone who's ever studied the CIA Primary Resource Documentation of The Case in any detail. We know better.

Re: Morley and Albarelli: I can believe that. Morley's a smart guy, knows his business. It's almost a certaintly that he thought the same thing I did regarding Joannides' name appearing in the datebook. I'd have responded the same way he did. But with more eye-rolls, probably.

If you're only "proof" that Angleton ever dined with Lafitte is the datebook, keep it. Not interested. Those entries are no more accurate a reflection of events than the Joannides entries. 

Oh, and I bought the book on 12/5/21. I've tried to read it 3 times. I always end up just shaking my head and logging onto the Mary Ferrell Foundation archives to cleanse my palette.

 

Cleansing your palette or burying your head in the sand of what has been spoon-fed to the "community"?  Ever look into Oliver Curme's history?

Agents provacateur often use  "prove it" as a tease, Doug. 

There are numerous references to Angleton's friendship with his prized contractor Lafitte aside from the datebook; but then, with one's head in the sand, one would never read those would they?

I think your inability to read Coup, after three attempts, might say a good deal more about you than it does Albarelli's investigation?

Who could've predicted? 🙂 

6 minutes ago, Doug Campbell said:

Two points:

1. The single most consistent roadblock, the one person throwing the most ridiculous nonsense-speak out, the one person doing the most to attempt to impede the research community in gaining access to the findings of the previous analysis on the datebook is the one person on the internet doing the most to convince the research community that the datebook is real. 

2. Given what we know about the UBER-prolific use of aliases and pseudonyms by CIA personnel during Covert Cold War Operations of this time period,  the very appearance of the name 'Joannides" in reference to George Joannides of the CIA is an unmistakable indication that the datebook entry referring to Joannides was made after Jefferson Morley's fine work in bringing to light exactly who-and-what George Joannides was, both in the early 60's and late 70's. 

Conan-Doyle's Holmes: "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever's left- however improbable- must be the truth."

It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would used dozens of aliases in the field while trying to topple Castro, yet have absolutely no compunction whatsoever with sharing his REAL, GIVEN NAME with a conman and known-prolific FBI informant while plotting to murder The Sitting President Of The United States. 

It's a ridiculous notion.

Now that the impossible has been eliminated, what's left? The Joannides entries were added after Morley informed The Research Community of who- and- what Joannides was. 

What should have "set the hook" turns out to have been an unfortunate oversight on the part of...well, whoever thought adding Joannides to the datebook was a good idea. Should have used "Mr. Howard", or "Walter Newby".

Then again, when Hank Albarelli provided Mr. Morley with what should have been welcomed confirmation back in 2013/14, Mr. Morley reacted, essentially, "prove it."  My interpretation of the interaction is that in essence Jeff questioned Hank's professional integrity; anyone who knew Hank would know what happened next.

It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would used dozens of aliases in the field

I'm curious to know your credential to make such a determination ... are you former agency?

Had you read Coup, you would have a better understanding of the dynamics between Lafittte and Harvey - Barnes and those he was coordinating on their behalf.

If James Angleton knew Joannides by his legal name, and if Angleton referred to him as Joannides with his friend — yes, friend with whom he and Cicely dined occasionally — then it's logical Pierre Lafitte would pen the name Joannides in his datebook as the Lancelot Project unfolded.

Robert Emmett Johnson 

In the early ’60s, Robert Emmett Johnson, would-be journalist and skilled assassin, attested that he had been employed by Information Services International to support the agenda of dictator Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. ISI, founded and presided over by former OSS officer Ulius Amoss—dealt with extensively in the previous chapter, boasted as a trusted advisor, General Charles Willoughby. The day following the critical note, “O says done-- Oswald in place,” Pierre leaves a clue that the W. team included E. Johnson. 

W team  E. Johnson’s

(Itkin)

Said to be fiercely independent and opinionated, Johnson advised Special Agents of the FBI in Miami on September 19, 1961 that he had been employed as Foreign Affairs Analyst for Dominican Republic leader Generalissimo Trujillo, who had been assassinated in May of that spring. Johnson held the “analyst” position from 1956–1960. At the time of his visit from the FBI (9/61), Johnson stated he was then employed by ISI, which he described as “an independent intelligence-gathering organization” founded by Amoss, a former Chief of Staff in the US Air Force. On the ISI board of Trustees was Charles Willoughby.

            As mentioned in a previous chapter, inside Trafficante’s world at Trescornia in 1959, among those he said he recognized—all of whom had a shared history—was mercenary sharpshooter Emmet Johnson. Factoring in Johnson’s employment by the master of leaderless resistance, Ulius Amoss and ISI trustee Charles Willoughby, there is sufficient reason to suspect that Johnson was on, or involved with, “W’s” team.

            According to the meticulous research presented by historian John Simkin, a declassified document says that in 1962, Emmett Johnson was a member of “Interpen” (International Penetration Force) established in 1961 by former US Marine Sgt. Gerry P. Hemming. With funding from Santo Trafficante and several wealthy, and organized, among other things, to train members of anti-Castro groups Interpen set up a training camp in New Orleans in 1962. 

Before he died, Emmett Johnson managed to publish several books under the imprint Paladin Books (publisher of Col. Charles Askins’ books) under the name “Paul Balor.” The cover of the second edition of his book, Manual of the Mercenary Soldier, published in 1993 features a clear image of Mitchell Livingston WerBell, notorious arms equipment manufacturer and dealer who had served in Donovan’s OSS during the war. 

1 minute ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Leslie, I think that you just want to argue with me for the sake of arguing. I have made made viewpoint very clear and in several responses. This will be my last in this exchange.

I was seeking deliberation over the challenges to any assertion that Marcello Did It and covered it up.  I'm sorry you're unwilling to engage.

6 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Listen to Larry. Look at the actual document. Note the fake number.

I'm waiting to hear from Dick on the question.

I do find the content to be "too pat" to be written or dictated by a director of the CIA; but then McCone was an enigma. Perhaps he realized he was going to be hung out to dry before he could resume his highly lucrative business career?

If you've seen his correspondence with Ike Eisenhower in early December which makes absolutely no mention of the assassination in Dallas just days earlier, you know that McCone AND Ike were playing cards close to the chest.

5 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

He didn't have to.

The Kennedys did it for him.

Did the Kennedys set Isaac Levine in place, or Robert Storey? 

6 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

No, what Douglas is advancing and Larry is disagreeing with (and I agree with Larry), is that evidence that is not kosher is just accepted as the basis for further discussion. No court, no scientist and no auctioneer of fine art would every go along with that idea.

Two issues seem to have become entangled: one is a fake document promoted by Douglas, and two is the lack of proof to show that LHO was a lone gunman who killed JFK. It does not matter if the fake document supports the second issue, the document is still fake but it clouds the real issue which is the second proposition concerning LHO.

And, as I understand it, Douglas is questioning the authority that insists the document is fake?

I find myself somewhere in the middle: if there are no inconsistencies in the content of the document — not the presentation of that content, but the information itself — should it be discarded? And why is NARA invoked as arbiter in this instance?  I look forward to Dick's clarification.

20 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Leslie I can't keep repeating what I have already stated.

 I respect generalizations, but you've invoked the term evidence and insisted that you're in pursuit of solving a case so I would think the details matter; how exactly did Marcello orchestrate the immediate aftermath and the ensuing cover up?

For example, Marcello's fingerprints are nowhere to be found here:

            The propaganda promoted by Clifford Forster and his ilk continues to date, most recently with the publication of Operation Dragon, by former CIA director R. James Woolsey and coauthor, former Romanian acting spy chief Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa. Published by Encounter books, provider of “Books for Smart Conservatives,” the description claims the authors have “. . . finally and definitively put to rest the question of who killed President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. All evidence points to the fact that the assassination—carried out by Lee Harvey Oswald—was ordered by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, acting through what was essentially the Russian leader’s personal army, the KGB (now known as the FSB). . .” 

            Forster’s December ’63 contribution to the “clean-up operation,” claiming that Oswald was as a lone nut and a former defector to Soviet Russia sent home to murder the president, coincided with the role assigned to Forster’s fellow board member at Paix et Liberté, one Isaac Don Levine who is central to the Epilogue of our saga. As we learn later, it was Levine who was assigned the task to “deal with” Marina Oswald in the aftermath of her husband’s murder, as reflected in Lafitte’s November 28 entry: Levine will deal w/ Marina e.t. ... JA ... call Madrid. 

4 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Leslie, the thread I am following was begun by Gary Murr and Larry Hancock via a friend of mine in Norway who has a large collection of material about the mv Olga Patricia.

Using as a guide Occam's Razor, it seems to me that RFK dug the grave of his brother by taking on Marcello, and Marcello used the opportunity to kill JFK to get rid of RFK and anyone like him. It was the denial of involvement by JFK that created a lie later put into print after the fact by the New York Times that JFK had turned on the entire CIA. He had not. He had spun off a chunk of it operating in South Miami and under the control of the Special Group (Augmented) which referred to the management hand of RFK.

This is where the Olga Patricia comes into play via Manuel Artime Buesa as a 'mother ship' for continuing raids on Cuba. Fidel knew all about this and it seems obvious that so did Marcello, since the CIA had turned to the Mafia for help with assassinating Fidel. After the murder of JFK the CIA quickly got rid of the Mi Amigo and then the Olga Patricia. Don Pierson of Eastland, Texas had control of the OP until 1968 when he tangled with Papa Doc in Haiti where he followed in the same path ad De Mohrenschildt and Clint Murchison. There was a plan afoot to use Haiti as a base to attack Cuba. But everything went haywire. After the OP got back into expat Cuban hands, it started raiding Cuba again and Fidel denounced it as a CIA ship over Radio Havana. In retaliation Fidel started attacking other ships tied to US interests. The US State Department then stepped in and seized and sold the ship to a fishing fleet. We are now well into the 1970s.

The misinformation and misdirection got wilder and wilder and in the end the JFK murder mystery was buried. Marcello did not have to do a thing. No US President could begin to tell the American people the whole truth, and that is why documents are still classified.

Uncle Sam is a sham when it comes to diplomacy and international relations, and its teacher was Winston Churchill. Even the entire Trump mess began in London using the same sort of tactics that the British have always used.

Marcello did not have to lift a finger.

Uncle Sam has dug a pit and climbed into it.

That is where Occam's Razor comes into play. The scenario is very basic and very simple but in order to create the nonsense that the shots to kill JFK were fired by LHO from the rear, even the Daily Herald of November 23, 1963 could not make sense of the dispatches from Dallas - so in their reports JFK had just left the overpass and was approaching the SBD!

This is where the question of whether JFK was shot from behind or from the front comes into play.

If we begin with a closer look at the SGA, the ships and then Marcello, a totally different kind of story emerges in two versions: one is true and one is false and so far, the false narrative still dominates the discussion.

Nothing about Crichton or Storey, as but two examples of the details you failed to address here?

There are many Occam's Razors:

Vietnam

Texas Tidelands Case

Ellen Rometsch

North Africa independence movements

Middle East oil

. . . to name but five.

 

1 hour ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

That is not how courts of law admit evidence, nor is it how classical paintings are accepted as genuine, nor how science accepts claimed discoveries as genuine. According to your suggested way of thinking ,if I wish to claim that Joe Biden is God Almighty, then why should anyone dispute my claim, even if Joe Biden says that he is not God Almighty?

According to Larry Hancock, the document is a fake because it has a fake reference number and because no reputable source has certified that it is genuine. Furthermore, if it was genuine, not only David Von Pein would run from here as fast as he could, but every news agency and news channel would be discussing the document twenty-four hours a day and Congress would be involved in a Special Session trying to determine what both the domestic and international ramifications of this knowledge are. The stock market would immediately crash and a lot of vaunted people would be contemplating whether life was worth living.

Evidence is challenged; courts of law call in experts; experts often disagree; ultimately the jury and or judge decide. 

I think that's the argument set forth by Douglas?

11 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I thought you wanted me to “butt out”. You’re inviting me back in?

Thank you!! I would like to do that. 

i am having difficulty discovering to whom I should address a request for permission who has legal authority to authorize disclosure of the scientists’ findings of the ink analyses that have been done. 

Would you advise as to contact information odor Phen Lafitte, identified in Coup in Dallas as the Copyright holder on the Datebook, so that I may contact her for the two purposes of (a) request for a copyright permission; and (b) inquiry whether she has controlling legal authority to authorize release or waiver to the scientists from their NDA’s concerning disclosure of the ink analyses?

Thank you. 

In general, of course you can ask and you can anticipate not everyone is obligated to grant permission. You've asked for contact information and I've rejected your request.

The conversation related to previous attempts at authentication is closed.

Let me know if you want to reconsider the terms and conditions I offered in response to your initial offer. For your edification, the datebook was orphaned.

9 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

The answer to the riddle is in the trap that the Kennedys created by circumstance and in secrecy. The story becomes convoluted as with a person found in a court room to be telling less than the truth, or even a total fabrication of events, which in this instance carried the threat of nuclear war, if at that time the real story had been revealed. So it was not Marcello who had to cover-up anything, the Establishment did that for him. By the 'Establishment', I mean that alphabet soup in all of its many forms. It began to mislead and misdirect the American People and the world at large, to such an extent that its tangled web of deceit became so big that the less likely it was that anyone could ever reveal the extent to which Uncle Sam had become a sham. I am sure that several Presidents have thought that it would be a simple matter to finally 'tell all', only to discover that you can't tell a little bit of truth without revealing the whole truth, and to do that would mean the world turning its back on anything that the USA ever promised anyone in the future. We see this playing out now in the aftermath of a string of recent wars, all based upon deceit and misinformation. Marcello saw the opportunity and he seized it. He could not lose, and so far, he has not lost.

The answer resides in the details. I had hoped we might deliberate over some of those details, specifically how Marcello might have controlled the immediate aftermath including arrangements for Marina's translator or  Robert Storey's role as liaison with the Warren Commission?  I'm wondering if you have evidence that Marcello had any influence over Jack Crichton, then running for GOP candidate for Texas Governor, or Robert Storey, esteemed international petroleum industry attorney?

The Skorzenys

Ilse 8:00 PM

—Lafitte datebook, June 19, 1963

Cable to Madrid – all – ok – tell Tom D.

O says come to Madrid

—Lafitte datebook, October 1, 1963

. . .  Otto, the Chief Tactician

Lafitte first makes specific note of Otto Skorzeny in his 1963 datebook on April 30, Walker + Souetre in New Orleans/Arms (Davis?) -- where? Cable to O. As detailed previously, Skorzeny ran special forces training camps outside of Madrid, and among his chief trainers in the arts of sabotage and assassinations was Jean Rene Souetre, the extreme right OAS officer known for his expert marksmanship. Another close associate of both Lafitte and of Skorzeny was a French terrorist who had served in La Cagoule, Jean Filiol. Filiol and his mistress, Alice Renee Lamy, who was also an expert shot, were infamous for the interrogation and torture of over one hundred people in one day in occupied Paris. Decades later, Lamy and Filiol found their way to Dallas in late 1963, checking into a hotel, likely Lafitte’s favorite, The Stoneleigh on Maple Ave. in Oak Lawn as we read in our closing chapter. 

            Three weeks later Pierre writes simply, “ask OS/Ilse.” Between those entries he continues to name Souetre, adding [Thomas Eli] Davis, and [Clay LaVerne] Shaw. On June 20, Lafitte indicates that he has cabled, or he plans to cable, Otto Skorzeny. On this date, Pierre also has Frank Wisner, former head of the agency’s OPC, on his mind.

            We don’t see Otto again until the 28th of July, when Pierre writes, “George” [Hunter-White] / Otto talk to Stockdale about P. Graham.” This suggests that Hunter-White, aware of Otto’s history with Ambassador Grant Stockdale, is asking about Phil Graham, or he’s asking Otto to phone Stockdale to discuss Graham. (See chapter 4.) 

            Otto and his valued trainer, Jean Souetre are named in the same entry again on August 11th when Pierre notes that he has sent a cable to O in Madrid, followed by Souetre’s name. The first week of September, in a chilling note, Pierre writes, O.S. gas guns - 6, followed by Garland here - A [in a circle]. Garland is no doubt a reference to a close associate of George Hunter-White, Garland Williams. The familiarity of using his Christian name in the entry represents a decade-long association between Lafitte, Williams, and “George” Hunter-White. 

            Author Albarelli was in contact with the Williams family in search of additional Lafitte correspondence but met a wall when the subject of money in exchange proved problematic on a number of levels. Williams was former head of the NY branch of the FNB and officer with the Army’s Central Intelligence Corps. He had also worked directly for Joseph Caldwell King, as identified in author Albarelli’s A Terrible Mistake, assisting the former chief of the CIA’s Western Hemisphere as he oversaw the agency’s Amazon Natural Drug Co. The intriguing entries presented previously about an August gathering in Antoine’s Room in New Orleans that included George Joannides are all the more so if indeed the “King” named in that entry was actually Joseph Caldwell King. 

9 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Leslie is making that impossible. This circus of a thread reflects that 1) Albarelli and Co. tried to get a documentary produced on the datebook, but the producers didn’t want to shoot a film on a forgery so they commissioned an ink analysis; 2) the results of the ink analysis were not favorable to authenticity, so the producers cancelled the project; and 3) Albarelli and Co. locked up the production company in NDAs so the results of the ink analysis couldn’t be made public, and went ahead and published a book on the datebook anyway. 

Leslie even called Greg a narcissist just for asking who is in control of the NDAs, and refused to answer, then subsequently admitted the reports belong to those “involved in the project” and told Greg to “stand down”. Personal insults are a violation of forum rules. So is posting under an alias though… 

Leslie has repeatedly questioned Greg’s motives, when it is crystal clear to anyone reading this thread that Greg has a genuine interest in the provenance of the datebook and is trying to get to the truth. However, Leslie has obstructed that truth at every available opportunity. To paraphrase Greg Parker, she “treats the truth like a ball in dodgeball”. 

Leslie even had the gall to criticize Greg for not being interested in the “success of Coup in Dallas”. Why the hell should he be? Leslie’s ridiculous “good-faith” offer of allowing Greg to pursue an ink analysis on the datebook - as long as he complies with a page and a half of vague, sketchy conditions - while she refuses to pay a dime says it all: she either has zero interest in pursuing authentication of the datebook, or she already knows it’s a fake. The “success of Coup in Dallas” i.e. monetizing the datebook is clearly the only goal here, and an unfavorable authentication report would demolish any future sales. 

Leslie’s replies in this thread have more red flags than a Soviet Embassy. Her condescending, evasive attitude towards anyone who questions the authenticity of the datebook, and persistent refusal to give straight answers to basic questions has demolished her credibility, and the only way to repair it at this point is complete, unconditional transparency. That means, at a minimum: 1) HD photos of the entire datebook, published online for everyone to see; 2) an independent expert ink/handwriting analysis, etc. and publicly available report.

However, Leslie will not “release” the datebook under any circumstances; and she obviously will not pursue genuine authentication efforts. Instead, she flips out, questions people’s motives, insults them, claims that they are ignorant about the JFKA, and basically resorts to bullying whenever someone calls her out. I’ve already been the subject of a couple of these freak-outs, and I’m sure another one is on the way.

Why should anyone be polite to someone who reacts like that? Greg D. has displayed remarkable patience in dealing with this nonsense, but I’m with Ben on this. 

Please read the terms and conditions provided Greg in response to his offer.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I prefer a completely transparent and totally aboveboard process---unconditional in every way---for an evaluation of the likely ersatz datebook. 

Every aspect of the authentication process---from emails sent to experts soliciting services, to the selection of an expert panel, to the examinations to the results---posted online in real time, for all to see. 

IMHO, your stance of endless stipulations and conditions, and proposed limited inquiries, and shadow seeking...is not the earnest stance of a truth-seeker releasing the uncertain document to the public to be verified. 

 

 

 

Please read the terms and conditions provided Greg in response to his offer.  

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Anyone reading or posting here besides Leslie should be assumed to have the worthy motive of authenticating what might be a hugely important document. 

Those directly engaged in this conversation at the moment, Paul, have expressed less than worthy motives in the past; in fact they have each attacked this potentially hugely important document again, in spite of never laying eyes on the physical instrument. Two years later, having failed in their attempts to impede my commitment to provide large swaths of Hank's investigation to those unable to or disinterested in  securing a full copy of Coup, they now interject themselves into the process of authentication?

Following Greg Doudna's offer to identify an analyst that might be willing to examine the ink for minimal if any charge, I've laid out entirely reasonable  terms and conditions.  I'm disappointed that so far he has rejected the parameters; perhaps he will change his mind and exhibit that worthy motive behind his offer you suggest.

6 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Hard to say but it could be that John Newman was under more attention, or someone didn't want Newman putting together the other info he'd dug up with the Cobb material, or whatever spooks Hank had watching what he was up to were more relaxed or forgiving than the ones Newman has attracted. A bit of a head scratcher, but there is the chance that the explanation within the spook world as to the logic of all this is a dumb one rather than a smart one.

lolol.  Yes, I've been told that "we" give "them" far too much credit.

But there are other possibilities, obviously.

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS--

Just tell us someone to contact, so we can at least try to get the datebook authenticated by an independent review panel. 

If you are earnest, you will happily remove yourself from the process, as you are a non-objective and interested party. 

 

@Greg Doudna @Benjamin Cole The discussion related to previous attempts at authentication is closed.

Please read the proposal, Benjamin, and perhaps you can persuade Greg to continue his quest for an ink analyst.

 

41 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Newman did mention in a public interview or podcast at some point over the past year or two that his office had been broken into and some stuff was taken. I don't remember the full specifics but his recounting of it largely matched what you've written just now.

Considering the files and tapes Hank amassed during the years he spent in contact with June, why wasn't his environment ever breached?

Why would thieves break in and steal June's small batch of files from Dr. Newman and not break into her own home - or Hank's? 

2 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I don't argue.

I am here to see what I can learn since two people (Murr and Hancock) opened a door to my discovery of questions to answers that I did not know existed.

If I contribute something to this Forum, that's fine.

However, some members of this Forum like David Von Pein who have preset and fixed ideas, will disagree with my statement, and that's also fine by me.

I agree that those here in good faith are "here to learn."  but I've always been concerned by the Marcello Did It argument when the most fundamental question — the cover up — can't be explained.  He did not have that power, and the suggestion that once Oswald was indicted, it all "just fell into place" makes no sense at all. Secret Service, SA Odum, Capt. Gannaway, Col. Crichton, Parkland, DA Wade, Asst. Alexander, Bob Storey, Leon Jaworski, Bethesda, Dulles, McCloy?   Marcello simply did not have that reach.

21 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

What I observe is that you are unwilling, or unable, to provide the JFKA research community the name and contact of an individual, or a lawyer for such an individual, who can open up the purported and possibly fraudulent datebook to review by uninterested experts. 

Why any conditions at all? 

I want to get the ball rolling on independent review of the datebook, and with you not involved. 

 

You're not listening, Benjamin.

Please see my proposal to Greg. Apparently he didn't like the terms and conditions since he proceeded to issue his own buried somewhere in the rubble of rehashing his accusations that Hank was either a fool or a fraud.
 

I'm trying to determine the credential either of you have to demand that "the community" should rise up and prohibit me from posting about this datebook on Education Forum?  You have yet to address the implications of a single specific entry and the conclusions one must draw. What about this has you so disturbed?

@Greg Doudna Don't either of you realize your vociferous refusal to even consider the potential breakthrough suggests to some observers that you might want this information suppressed? 

22 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This thread is 22 pages long.

How about you just put down a contact, or a lawyer or representative of a contact, who has the power to open up the purported datebook to review by a panel of respected experts? 

You cannot perform that simple, straightforward, aboveboard, task? 

Here ya go, Benjamin, I'll make it easy; and perhaps it might behove @Greg Doudna to review the following as well:

Greg in black; Leslie in purple:

Ok, but just to be clear I am doing you the favor here, not vice versa. I intend to try to make contact with Aginsky’s office tomorrow and request advice and perhaps contact referrals. I have said and I repeat that under no circumstances will I become responsible for payment or fundraising. That is not my problem or responsibility. 

With respect, and not to be contentious, but I’m curious: if it is not your problem or your responsibility why have you interjected yourself into the dynamic?

However it is possible—MAYBE—that if a top-rate examiner, credentialed and referred by Aginsky—could be found, I could ask, and maybe, just maybe, obtain, an offer to do so for research purposes with an intention of a scientific publication . . . 

If the ink and pen are, as you indicate here, being analyzed for research purposes only, with the intention of a scientific publication, I would insist on parameters related to which — if any — specific entries from the datebook could be incorporated in an article meant for scientific publication. 

I would expect to exercise editorial control over any references to Hank’s story regarding the history of the datebook and his access. I would be identified as joint-work copyright holder of Coup in Dallas: The Decisive Investigation into Who Killed JFK with H. P. Albarelli Jr., including all ancillary projects. 

The lab and expert examiners will agree to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement applicable to the information found in the 1963 datebook maintained by Pierre Lafitte.

You would also agree to the Non-Disclosure specific to the details contained in the datebook that are not yet in the public domain; you would not publish anything you learn during this exercise including preliminary reactions/comments made by the experts without prior agreement with me.

to which of course you would be invited to be on as coauthor with the scientists and I assume me. That will be my attempt or ask, of contacts vetted and recommended by Aginsky or his office and that otherwise are credentialed and experienced. 

I appreciate the time you may expend, but the document examiners currently under agreement to analyze the handwriting in the db obviously have contacts in the field. Based on the third-party assurance I have that Valery Aginsky was in the process of producing a final sufficiently positive report when the documentary project was interrupted by Hank’s untimely passing, the lead examiner has recommended I not go to the expense of another paper/ink analysis. 

I will assure them up front that their all parties concerned are committed to knowing the truth of the findings whatever they may be, . . . 

That should go without saying. It is also my prerogative to  exercise due diligence to determine the objectivity of your candidate before analysis is initiated.

and that there will be no non-disclosure agreement or control over their disclosure or discussion of their findings after the fact . . . 

The Non-Disclosure Agreement will cover the content of the datebook; I wouldn’t expect a non-disclosure agreement for the findings, providing the conditions established in the next paragraph are agreed to.  
 

. . . with the possible exception of a reasonable (e.g. 90 days) embargo period on public discussion or announcement after the lab and expert examination is concluded for the purpose of allowing you the exclusive opportunity to make first announcement, if you so wish.

I will make the announcement, and I would also be open to a joint statement if the experts so wish.

Yes, a 90-day embargo is acceptable and provides sufficient time for a second opinion if, after reading the report, I exercise the option.  

I must be assured you are serious about a serious offer, if such can be obtained. I will not risk insulting you by asking for that assurance explicitly but will assume it unless advised by you otherwise. 

Thank you.

if it is not possible to obtain a gratis research-purpose analysis, I will forward to you what I can obtain in terms of costs and in the best case see if it is within your means at your end.

That wouldn’t be necessary.

 I am assuming you will not be imposing non-disclosure restrictions on the results after the fact as a condition of payment or making the physical datebook available.

To repeat, the lab and expert examiners will agree to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement applicable to the information found in the datebook, not the results of their findings, with the understanding the results will not be revealed for 90-days; I will announce the results. 

I will not be funding the effort for reasons previously stated; and, if you are not funding the project, it wouldn’t be your place to determine conditions of payment either.

The logistics of the analysis will need to be worked out; I will not be releasing the datebook, so arrangements would need to be made for a speedy turnaround.

The aforementioned does not constitute a legally binding agreement; it is intended primarily to establish the spirit behind the effort. If your attempts in the near future are successful, we can enter into a more formal written agreement with the concerned parties.   

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This thread is 22 pages long.

How about you just put down a contact, or a lawyer or representative of a contact, who has the power to open up the purported datebook to review by a panel of respected experts? 

You cannot perform that simple, straightforward, aboveboard, task? 

Bullying as a last resort, Benjamin?  

Please read the terms and conditions I laid out in a response to Greg's offer to identify an ink analyst.  If you would like to participate in the effort, please share with me your qualifications and your intended contribution? Otherwise, you are an observer only.