Leslie Sharp

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I noted earlier that, to my surprise, I found no reference to Jean-Pierre Lafitte in Ralph Ganis's book The Skorzeny Papers (2018)--even though Coup in Dallas (2021) claims Skorzeny was "chief tactician" and Jean-Pierre Lafitte immediately under Skorzeny was "project manager" of an international conspiracy which assassinated JFK. However I was unaware when I wrote that of the actual true reason why Lafitte is missing in Ganis's book.

The true reason was explained by Leslie in a different thread that I did not see until yesterday. The reason is because Ganis had developed significant skepticism about the Lafitte datebook, the only document known that purports to connect Jean-Pierre Lafitte either to Skorzeny or to the assassination of JFK.

Therefore without the Lafitte datebook, whose authenticity Ganis considered questionable, there was no other basis or reason for including any mention of Lafitte in a book dedicated to arguing that Skorzeny assassinated JFK, even if there had not also been a non-disclosure agreement.

The non-disclosure agreement prevented Ganis from discussing the Lafitte datebook, which Albarelli, who lived in North Carolina for two years with access to Ganis's Skorzeny papers, did not allow Ganis, who lived in North Carolina, to see in the United States, or to cite the Lafitte datebook even if Ganis had believed it to be authentic. 

From the thread, "Skorzeny's papers in context of Albarelli's 'Coup in Dallas'", Leslie Sharp, July 4, 2023:

 

"A research friend recently asked: What does Ganis say about Souetre and/or his relationship with Skorzeny? Does Lafitte appear in the book as well? 

"My response: I believe Major Ganis [author of "The Skorzeny Papers: Evidence of the Plot to Kill JFK"] relies primarily if not solely on Otto's Skorzeny's papers along with open source material related to OAS Captain Jean Souetre. The dissolution agreement of the Ganis-Albarelli collaboration prohibits him from including anything Hank may have shared in confidence from the Lafitte datebook about Souetre's movements in November 1963. 

 

"Major Ganis was also prohibited from mentioning Pierre Lafitte in context of the Dallas plot for the same reason. It is my understanding that he developed significant skepticism about the datebook so he was entirely comfortable with the restriction. He argued with me that Hank never showed him the physical instrument. I've made attempts to explain to him that — to my knowledge — Hank did not actually take physical possession of the datebook until November 2018; he invited the Major to meet him in London for the launch of authentication and Ganis declined the invitation. By then, their collaboration was "in trouble" primarily over the characterization of Otto Skorzeny as a "FORMER" N.a.z.i.. Hank contended Skorzeny wasn't a "former" N.a.z.i. (see, for example, evidence in the film footage from his 1975 military funeral.)

"Lafitte hints strongly at an active fascist ideology fueling the plans for the assassination in Dallas. We now realize that "Rudel", Hitler's ace pilot Hans-Ulrich, appears in Lafitte's '63 notes, and that after more than a decade in pursuit of a visa for entry into the US, he suddenly landed one, and landed on the continent around October 9 to attend a conference at Wright-Patterson. The October 9 Lafitte datebook entry spells out active contributors to the plot for Dallas, including Jean Souetre. 
 

"On Hank's behalf, I should make clear he also believed strongly that the information from Ganis's Skorzeny collection which he presented in "The Skorzeny Papers" would some day prove invaluable to serious historians." (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29299-skorzenys-papers-in-context-of-albarellis-coup-in-dallas/)

Have you crossed paths with Valery Aginsky and/or Oliver Thorne?

4 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DJ-

We are just on different pages on this one. 

There are people better versed than me on the practices of authenticating documents. The bare minimum is the placement of document into secure location, and review by an independent panel of experts---experts who also conduct their review in a transparent, accountable manner. 

I would prefer the datebook be authenticated before presenting it to the world as proof of a Nazi-inspired JFKA. This seems basic to me. 

Much of the info in the datebook may be accurate. That could be the result of reverse-engineering from public records. Find something in the public record, place a hint to it in the datebook, using period paper and pens. 

It has been known for decades that Isaac Levine wanted to make a film blaming commies for the JFKA. Stick a mention of Levine into the datebook.

Ditto two rifles into the building--the Caster story. 

As for motives to create a bogus datebook, that is beyond my ken. The motives are unimportant. Only ascertaining the authenticity of the datebook is important. 

Why was the phony McCone-Rowley memo fabricated? 

In other circumstances, phony docs were created for monetary reasons. The Hitler Dairies. 

In this case, possibly the motive is to create phony doc that is received with acclaim in he JFKA community, and then is spectacularly debunked. 

Or possibly to lead researchers away from the true assassins--Miami exiles--and onto Nazis. 

Verifying or debunking the datebook is a crucial first step. 

 

@Benjamin Cole, I'm reassured that you are capable of having a reasonable discussion; I wish you had exercised similar decorum when we first engaged.

Certain of your observations are valid; I'll challenge those that aren't:

It wasn't known that Levine was "assigned" to Marina as early as November 28, or that Declan Ford — Marina's host for a brief period in his home in Richardson in early 1964 where Levine showed up to talk with her — had been the deGolyer MacNaughton man on the ground in Madrid during the Algur Meadows - Otto Skorzeny oil scheme.  Nor was it known that Clifford Foster shared a friendship with Levine's benefactor - China Lobby founder - s well as Otto Skorzeny.  Ref. to John McCloy of the Warren Commission who seconded Dulles' recommendation that Levine's book on a lone assassin profile be considered as the "bible" during WC deliberations, was the exec. officer of Chase Bank; his representative in Madrid was Victor Oswald, global arms dealer in business with Otto Skorzeny who had proposed that McCloy support his plan to maintain a 200,000 man reserve made up of "retired" Nazis.

We only note that the November 20 datebook entry related to arms in the building coincides with Warren Caster's lunchtime shopping trip. We've yet to draw a conclusion.

Have you studied the evolution of the Hitler Diaries? I have, and I see no parallels to Hank's gumshoe detective work that landed him on the doorstep of a widow who had never attempted to "sell" her husband's private records.
 

In this case, possibly the motive is to create phony doc that is received with acclaim in he JFKA community, and then is spectacularly debunked. 

Or possibly to lead researchers away from the true assassins--Miami exiles--and onto Nazis. 

Valid concerns, Ben, among several we have considered over the past four years. To your first concern, had we sought acclaim in the "community" we probably would have gone about it differently, I assure you. The reaction was split from the outset ... not moderately, but significantly with very few tepid reactions to Coup, as anticipated. You would need to be more familiar with the character of those who contributed to ensuring this project through to publication to understand why I might be defensive. To a person, they have demonstrated nothing but integrity and objectivity. Fundamentally, they believed — as our publisher states — that Hank's investigation was worthy consideration. 

lead researchers away from the true assassins--Miami exiles--and onto Nazis.
I would posit that on the contrary — Coup has redirected the cold case murder investigation  to its original footing, the scene of the crime. Were the Miami exiles patsies?

24 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS-

I am not criticizing a book I have never read. 

I am doing what any member of the JFKA research community should be doing: demanding verification or debunking of the datebook, by an independent panel of experts, in a secure, neutral location. 

My position is entirely defensible, even a necessity. 

Any other course of action is not defensible. 

I believe that is unfolding here, Ben.  

I recognize experts on the assassination when I encounter them. Greg Doudna is not one.

However, and thankfully, there are several who are now engaging in the deliberations.

Those EF forum assassination experts that appear to be opting out of the discussion are doing so of their own accord.  

The disposition of the physical instrument is mine to make, so I trust you and others will cease making demands that are outside your legal standing.

9 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I don't think DPD planted them, they allowed it to happen.

agree.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Sorry, Paypal is no longer possible in SE Asia for non-nationals.

Also I am reluctant to spend money on--financially support--a possibly fraudulent operation. 

If you wish to send me a PDF, you can.

I prefer you cease criticizing a book you've never read.  Your opinion related to the datebook is, just that, an opinion; but you've no concept of the (potential) significance until you read Coup.

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

No doubt!  How in the world can anyone talk with any authority or believability without first reading the work being discussed?

@Benjamin Cole  You must have read up on CASTER before you started talking about him, writing about him, No?

Don't you think it a bit ingenuous? 

I deal with the same thing about Harvey and Lee all the time.  Read the flipping book before you comment. I read it, reviewed every footnote's source and talked to the author about the book for 2 years.

Which is why at this point all I can say is to begin comparing what the Lafitte notes say, with what we currently know about the assassination - and read the book.   Ben, you know I know my docs.  The notes talk about Oswald in Mexico with Thomas Eli Davis Jr at a hotel 20 miles south of the Cuban/Russian compound.  I proved the evidence about Oswald in Mexico - at those compounds or at that hotel - is bogus.  He wasn't at those locations.

But he could have been in and out of Mexico in the week when literally no one has any idea where he is... Sept 27th thru Oct 3rd.  So I was right, and it does not conflict with what the notes say.

I'm also very interested in the rifle as I've written and spoken extensively on the topic.  I've yet to read in COUP where the rifle comes from, or who may have put it in the TSBD.   "yes I ok I DPD" The first people in the TSBD are Elsworth and the rest of his ATF group... then it's Gerald Hill of the DPD, Mooney, Boone and Weitzman are all sheriffs.   If someone from the DPD planted it, when and who? 

btw - this is from the Italian manifest of Feldsott's purchase.  That's supposed to be C 2766.  It's not.   Point is, how can you effectively discuss the details of a complicated book, without actually reading the book?

  If someone from the DPD planted it, when and who? 

We're not arguing, specifically, that someone from the DPD planted the two rifles; Lafitte is saying that "DPD" is okay about it. I think that is who we're looking for.  Who was "ok"?

And, as I mentioned, it's possible those rifles were intended for the expert snipers deployed to the depository, not necessarily decoy rifles to confuse.

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DJ/RB:

Your animosity towards me is misplaced.

I am asking that the datebook be immediately placed into a secure, neutral location, and then be verified or debunked by an independent panel of experts. 

How can any member of the JFKA research community take umbrage with those positions? 

Side note: Can you imagine the Niagara of acid ridicule and feculent invective that will inundate the JFKA research community---we, to be indelibly established as conspiracy nuts and dupes---if the datebook receives wide acceptance and then is debunked? 

Right about the time of the 60th anniversary of the JFKA? 

Right when RFK Jr is running for President, with his plans to open up the JFK Records? 

Is it possible perps know the datebook is a fraud and are planning such a turn of events? 

 

 

I am asking that the datebook be immediately placed into a secure, neutral location, and then be verified or debunked by an independent panel of experts. 

Would you have the audacity to suggest the same demand be applied to Ethel Kennedy, Michael Scott, Ralph Ganis, among others?

Right, Hank sat on this project through the spring of 2019, knowing that Robert Kennedy would announce in 2023?  Why don't you think things through before you post, Ben.  

Do you know why Coup in Dallas was delayed beyond 2019?  Would I provide a link to Hank's obituary? You are insulting.
 

2 hours ago, David Josephs said:

No doubt!  How in the world can anyone talk with any authority or believability without first reading the work being discussed?

@Benjamin Cole  You must have read up on CASTER before you started talking about him, writing about him, No?

Don't you think it a bit ingenuous? 

I deal with the same thing about Harvey and Lee all the time.  Read the flipping book before you comment. I read it, reviewed every footnote's source and talked to the author about the book for 2 years.

Which is why at this point all I can say is to begin comparing what the Lafitte notes say, with what we currently know about the assassination - and read the book.   Ben, you know I know my docs.  The notes talk about Oswald in Mexico with Thomas Eli Davis Jr at a hotel 20 miles south of the Cuban/Russian compound.  I proved the evidence about Oswald in Mexico - at those compounds or at that hotel - is bogus.  He wasn't at those locations.

But he could have been in and out of Mexico in the week when literally no one has any idea where he is... Sept 27th thru Oct 3rd.  So I was right, and it does not conflict with what the notes say.

I'm also very interested in the rifle as I've written and spoken extensively on the topic.  I've yet to read in COUP where the rifle comes from, or who may have put it in the TSBD.   "yes I ok I DPD" The first people in the TSBD are Elsworth and the rest of his ATF group... then it's Gerald Hill of the DPD, Mooney, Boone and Weitzman are all sheriffs.   If someone from the DPD planted it, when and who? 

btw - this is from the Italian manifest of Feldsott's purchase.  That's supposed to be C 2766.  It's not.   Point is, how can you effectively discuss the details of a complicated book, without actually reading the book?

David, The first people in the TSBD are Elsworth and the rest of his ATF group... then it's Gerald Hill of the DPD, Mooney, Boone and Weitzman are all sheriffs.   If someone from the DPD planted it, when and who? 

This is the same Elsworth running a sting, or some operation to bust up a weapons transfer that morning?  I don't have the details in front of me, so disregard the specifics for now; but if you can, confirm this is the ATF guy? 

Our interest is that the warehouse office of Ferenc Nagy was within walking distance of the  Elsworth's car chase?  Was Nagy storing an arms shipment? Did the men who showed up on Odio's doorstep in Magellan Circle, Casa Linda, knock on the wrong door? Were they looking for Nagy?  Or was Odio living near Nagy for a reason?

 

On 7/28/2023 at 7:40 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Benjamin Cole writes:

That's a good point. With the sixtieth anniversary coming up, some elements of the media will be on the look-out for anything that might discredit JFK assassination research in general and critics of the lone-gunman theory in particular. A JFK-related equivalent to the Hitler diaries hoax would do the job perfectly, just as Best Evidence did a few decades ago.

Until this document is published in full and has been examined and declared authentic by accredited experts, there is no reason to place any trust in what it contains.

And there's no good reason not to get it fully examined as soon as possible. If it's authentic, it would be probably the most important single piece of documentary evidence in the case. If it's a fraud, the sooner it is exposed as a fraud, the better. It really should have been thoroughly examined by experts long ago. The fact that it wasn't, does tend to raise suspicion.

On the subject of suspicion, Greg Doudna's Fact#4 is an eye-opener. If Greg's conclusion is correct, and parts of the document really were added after the death of the supposed author of the document, that's the end of the matter, isn't it?

To the group of chancers who have claimed to have been the gunman on the grassy knoll, or the gunman in the storm drain, or the gunman on the sixth floor, or any of these gunmen's getaway drivers, or Oswald's girlfriend, or one of the three tramps, we could add the author or authors of the datebook.

The JFK assassination does tend to attract claims like that. Until the datebook is properly examined and declared authentic, you can't blame people for assuming that it's probably a fraud, can you?

@Jeremy BojczukThe coauthor of Coup in Dallas is "in the room."  You can address me directly.

And there's no good reason not to get it fully examined as soon as possible. If it's authentic, it would be probably the most important single piece of documentary evidence in the case. If it's a fraud, the sooner it is exposed as a fraud, the better. It really should have been thoroughly examined by experts long ago. The fact that it wasn't, does tend to raise suspicion. 

Unfortunately, you appear to be playing catch up.  I have been transparent since early 2022, two months after Coup was published, regarding the complexities of reigniting the datebook examination process. I have explained that Hank's sudden passing in June 2019 set in motion a string of complications — legal, emotional, practical. It was with a good deal of effort, pushing against significant forces, that this book made it into the public domain.  All goes well, the facsimile of the datebook will soon be as well.

Lectures like this, "it should have been" reveal a touch of arrogance. You have no idea what "we" have been through.

On 7/28/2023 at 5:35 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

In context of your positions related to current events, I realize why you attempt to derail this line of inquiry on every thread.--LS

What are you talking about? 

Why do my (imagined or putative) positions on current events have to do with the imperative and requisite need to verify the unverified datebook? 

What positions? 

I support the RFK Jr. candidacy, so I believe the datebook needs to be authenticated?

That COVID-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan?

That Russiagate was an "elaborate hoax" (Bret Stephens words, NYT). 

That Trump is a grifter? 

That Biden is a grifter? And not only, but a Puppet-Dictator-in-Chief for his snuff jobs on the JFK Records Act? 

Are you suggesting that the datebook will prove Trump is a Nazi asset? 

Let it rip, let's see what you say. 

 

Why do my (imagined or putative) positions on current events have to do with the imperative and requisite need to verify the unverified datebook? 

Robert's thread:
AECASSOWARY-29, 8th World Youth Festival, Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil, ZRPENNY, Project AERODYNAMIC, & Lee Harvey Oswald...

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Do you recall the name or any detail of the Madrid based researchers? 

I'm guessing they appear in credits for the film, and/or maybe even on IMBD.

Who was the American or British researcher you corresponded with? She might know.

I would be very interested to learn whether she pursued her project of identifying Nazis whose families settled in Dallas. Is it possible they were the initial conduit to Madrid and the Meadows- Skorzeny scheme? I think i mentioned that a new research friend in Valencia suggests there were no significant oil fields in Spain so they were probably pursuing No. Africa, Ethiopia, Red Sea.  Which leads us to Ed Berger's brilliant work on Yemen, Jack Crichton, Permindex, on another thread. Hope you followed it.

And has anyone attempted to converse with Major Ganis recently? Has anyone dared to suggest he turn over the Skorzeny Papers to NARA?  

4 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

No. I live offshore. You can send me a PDF. 

That's right.  I forgot.

I think Kindle is less than $10.

In the meantime, I'll repost the excerpts from the Postscript to Coup which so irritated your friend M. Koch.

21 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Please explain. 

 

Do you have a copy of Coup in Dallas?

1 minute ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"Again, I said public domain, not a government venue per se.

Let's see if America permits Trump to seize our executive branch first."--LS

Seriously? 

This is becoming farce. 

How very original:  Circus. Farce.

We would never relinquish this material to NARA with Trump or his MAGA predecessors in office.  Simple.

@Greg Doudna @Benjamin Cole @David Josephs @Andrej Stancak @Paul Brancato @Ron Bulman

Greg, what electronic version of the datebook entries that appear in the first edition, Coup in Dallas, are you working with to advance your analysis?

On 7/28/2023 at 1:49 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Let's see if I have this straight: 

Fact #1: Nobody alleged Skorzeny carried out the JFK assassination in a direct way before Ralph Ganis". {{Bold reflects an edit of an original "was connected to the JFK assassination before Ralph Ganis". A 1984 article by Mae Brussell argued for a possible worldwide post-ww2 Nazi connection to the JFK assassination in which activities of international post-ww2 Nazis are described including Skorzeny.}} 

Fact #2: there is no evidence Skorzeny and Lafitte knew, met, or had anything to do with each other outside of the Lafitte datebook itself (and a decades-later reported and wholly unverified claim that Ilse Lafitte claimed to remember knowing Skorzeny, reportedly told by her in the same sentences as equally unverified claims in which she claimed to relate multiple social meetings with Lee and Marina Oswald, Thomas Eli Davis, and French assassin Souetre). 

Fact #3: In Ganis's book on Skorzeny, The Skorzeny Papers (2018), there is not a single mention of Lafitte. In my paperback edition of Ganis, 2020, the name of Lafitte does not even appear in the index. Also, in Albarelli's two earlier books, A Terrible Mistake (2009) and A Secret Order (2013), I notice Skorzeny is not in either of the indexes of those books. 

Fact #4: This sequence (I found exact dates hard to nail down, due to lack of a published timeline, but this is ca. 2010's). Lafitte dies; followed by Albarelli meeting Ganis; followed by Ganis telling Albarelli about Skorzeny; followed by Albarelli not telling Ganis immediately but later telling Ganis he (Albarelli) had previously seen Skorzeny's name in the Lafitte datebook just before meeting Ganis; followed by publication of the Lafitte datebook (Coup in Dallas, 2021) with multiple entries in the Lafitte datebook referring to Skorzeny.

Prima facie the Skorzeny references in the Lafitte 1963 datebook appear to date the writing of those Skorzeny references in that datebook to the time Albarelli met Ganis, ca. half a century later than 1963.

Prima facie, it appears Lafitte is not the author of the multiple Skorzeny written references in Lafitte's datebook, since the allusions to Skorzeny appear to postdate Lafitte's death.

Provisional conclusion: at least some of the writing in the Lafitte 1963 datebook was written later than Lafitte. 

Suggested means of testing or falsification of provisional conclusion: analysis of handwriting; analysis of ink; recheck known public domain information (e.g. Mary Ferrell Foundation site) for any known references or discussions to Skorzeny as suspected involved in the JFK assassination prior to Ganis.

Suggested method in the absence of a credible, objective vetting/analysis of the datebook's writing for authenticity: distinguish and segregate what is known of the various characters independently of the datebook, from what is derivative from the datebook. Avoid mixing and conflating those two categories unless and until authenticity of the datebook is checked on the basis of physical examination by reputable questioned-document examiners.  

Prima facie there are credible grounds to suspect this may be a forged document, although there appears to be no knowledge or information concerning the identity of the forger, who was witting and who unwitting to the forgery, if that was the case. 

Those who believe the datebook entries dated 1963 are authentically from pre-Nov 22, 1963 may wish to make inquiry whether the entire datebook has been photographed, in a verified dateable record, since only some of the pages of the datebook are reported published in Coup in Dallas, and no authentication has been done. Unless there is a verified dated set of photographs of the entire datebook, there is no protection against tampering or additions, future "sensational discoveries" emerging from the remaining unpublished portions. Alternatively, if any of the unpublished pages did happen to have authentic writing of Jean-Pierre Lafitte, that could be checked against the handwriting of the sensational JFK assassination-related entries on the pages for which photographs have been published.

Fact #5: there are also many specific claims as to facts published in the Albarelli books which are difficult or impossible to verify, independently of the datebook. For example, I see in A Secret Order (2013) claims that Lafitte murdered Frank Olsen (p. 107); was tasked by Gottlieb to use botulism-toothpaste to kill Patrice Lumumba in the Congo (p. 149); in 1961 was traveling to Europe, the Middle East, and Africa doing assassinations for the CIA (p. 322); was QJ/WIN (p. 438); was very close to mobster John Roselli (p. 438) ... Are any of these claims true? None can be verified by anyone here, so far as I can tell. You cannot find any of these things verified on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site's documents, or anywhere else online to my knowledge. One might reasonably suspect these claims are all fabrications out of whole cloth (not saying Albarelli himself did the fabricating). (At A Terrible Mistake, 801, I see Albarelli credits "several retired CIA and FBI officials who asked to be unnamed" for some of his information on Jean-Pierre Lafitte.)    

~ ~ ~

p.s. on page 576 of Coup in Dallas, the Nov 20 entry is transcribed as "Lanny-Filiol ... call Storey ... DeM ... Frank B...."

However the photograph of the Nov 20, 1963 entry has only the first three of those four names. The fourth, "Frank B", is non-existent in the photograph, and instead (where "Frank B" would be) there is something different: "Rifle into building..."

Is that a typo, or is that a relic of an earlier composition draft by the author(s), prior to the writing of that entry in the datebook, inadvertantly surviving into the published book? 

Let's see if I have this straight, Greg:

 

Fact #1: Nobody alleged Skorzeny carried out the JFK assassination in a direct way before Ralph Ganis". {{Bold reflects an edit of an original "was connected to the JFK assassination before Ralph Ganis". A 1984 article by Mae Brussell argued for a possible worldwide post-ww2 Nazi connection to the JFK assassination in which activities of international post-ww2 Nazis are described including Skorzeny.}} 

Have you read Oglesby's "The Secret Treaty of Fort Hunt"?  

Fact #2: there is no evidence Skorzeny and Lafitte knew, met, or had anything to do with each other outside of the Lafitte datebook itself (and a decades-later reported and wholly unverified claim that Ilse Lafitte claimed to remember knowing Skorzeny, reportedly told by her in the same sentences as equally unverified claims in which she claimed to relate multiple social meetings with Lee and Marina Oswald, Thomas Eli Davis, and French assassin Souetre). 

(LS Who is Ilse Lafitte?)

LS Conversely, you have no evidence to discredit Rene's assertion that both she and Pierre knew Otto Skorzeny and Ilse Skorzeny; the family also asserted that Lafitte served briefly in the Charlemagne Battalion made up of French collaborators as the war came to a close. Rene also advised that Leon Degrelle wanted to pitch in on the expense of the assassination of John Kennedy because he despised him so much. She also said, "oil smoothes the way for sudden and sometimes deadly change."

Fact #3: In Ganis's book on Skorzeny, The Skorzeny Papers (2018), there is not a single mention of Lafitte. In my paperback edition of Ganis, 2020, the name of Lafitte does not even appear in the index. Also, in Albarelli's two earlier books, A Terrible Mistake (2009) and A Secret Order (2013), I notice Skorzeny is not in either of the indexes of those books.

LS and from that, you deduce what?   

Fact #4: This sequence (I found exact dates hard to nail down, due to lack of a published timeline, but this is ca. 2010's). Lafitte dies; followed by Albarelli meeting Ganis; followed by Ganis telling Albarelli about Skorzeny; followed by Albarelli not telling Ganis immediately but later telling Ganis he (Albarelli) had previously seen Skorzeny's name in the Lafitte datebook just before meeting Ganis; followed by publication of the Lafitte datebook (Coup in Dallas, 2021) with multiple entries in the Lafitte datebook referring to Skorzeny.

LS I recommend you interview those who have direct knowledge of trajectory of the Ganis/Albarelli collaboration, including me. Otherwise, suffice to say your rendering of the timline and the circumstances is — as kindly as I can put it — factually incorrect.

Prima facie the Skorzeny references in the Lafitte 1963 datebook appear to date the writing of those Skorzeny references in that datebook to the time Albarelli met Ganis, ca. half a century later than 1963.

LS What are you talking about?

Prima facie, it appears Lafitte is not the author of the multiple Skorzeny written references in Lafitte's datebook, since the allusions to Skorzeny appear to postdate Lafitte's death.

LS Based on what evidence do you assert, "it appears Lafitte is not the author"? 

Provisional conclusion: at least some of the writing in the Lafitte 1963 datebook was written later than Lafitte. 

LS I'll skip over  portions of your  "provisional conclusion".  For the most part, it is purely subjective.

Suggested means of testing or falsification of provisional conclusion: analysis of handwriting; analysis of ink; recheck known public domain information (e.g. Mary Ferrell Foundation site) for any known references or discussions to Skorzeny as suspected involved in the JFK assassination prior to Ganis.

LS Have you crossed paths with Valery Aginsky and/or Oliver Thorne.

Suggested method in the absence of a credible, objective vetting/analysis of the datebook's writing for authenticity: distinguish and segregate what is known of the various characters independently of the datebook, from what is derivative from the datebook. Avoid mixing and conflating those two categories unless and until authenticity of the datebook is checked on the basis of physical examination by reputable questioned-document examiners.  

LS Have you crossed paths with Valery Aginsky and/or Oliver Thorne.

Prima facie there are credible grounds to suspect this may be a forged document, 

LS What are your credible grounds  to suspect this may be a forged document? 

although there appears to be no knowledge or information concerning the identity of the forger, who was witting and who unwitting to the forgery, if that was the case. 

Those who believe the datebook entries dated 1963 are authentically from pre-Nov 22, 1963 may wish to make inquiry whether the entire datebook has been photographed, in a verified dateable record, since only some of the pages of the datebook are reported published in Coup in Dallas, and no authentication has been done. Unless there is a verified dated set of photographs of the entire datebook, there is no protection against tampering or additions, future "sensational discoveries" emerging from the remaining unpublished portions. Alternatively, if any of the unpublished pages did happen to have authentic writing of Jean-Pierre Lafitte, that could be checked against the handwriting of the sensational JFK assassination-related entries on the pages for which photographs have been published.

LS Once again, have the courtesy to  review the limited analysis presented by respected Kennedy assassination investigative journalist Dick Russell of the datebook entries in the Front Matter of Coup in Dallas; or, please see the excerpts from Dick's analysis I've provided on this and other EF threads.

Fact #5: there are also many specific claims as to facts published in the Albarelli books which are difficult or impossible to verify, independently of the datebook. For example, I see in A Secret Order (2013) claims that Lafitte murdered Frank Olsen (p. 107); was tasked by Gottlieb to use botulism-toothpaste to kill Patrice Lumumba in the Congo (p. 149); in 1961 was traveling to Europe, the Middle East, and Africa doing assassinations for the CIA (p. 322); was QJ/WIN (p. 438); was very close to mobster John Roselli (p. 438) ... Are any of these claims true? None can be verified by anyone here, so far as I can tell. You cannot find any of these things verified on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site's documents, or anywhere else online to my knowledge. One might reasonably suspect these claims are all fabrications out of whole cloth (not saying Albarelli himself did the fabricating). (At A Terrible Mistake, 801, I see Albarelli credits "several retired CIA and FBI officials who asked to be unnamed" for some of his information on Jean-Pierre Lafitte.)    

LS Your lack of professionalism knows no bounds.  Hank is not here to defend his work. I recall that when I challenged your assessment of Coup in Dallas which — for those who don't recall — was based solely on the coauthor's statement on provenance and authenticity instead of Hank's own introduction which lays out in detail how he stumbled on to the Lafitte material, how he took possession etc., you didn't stoop to this level. In fact, you actually expressed admiration for Hank's previous work. Here, perhaps as a last resort, you have slammed his overall investigative professionalism and his career, for what? to discredit the datebook and Coup in Dallas. Why? Desperate moves by desperate men is my guess.

@Greg Doudna

Extending my list of questions of you and your "professional" efforts toward solving the cold case murder investigation:

When you researched Gen. Walker, did you come across the name Hilaire du Berrier?

21 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

"Er ... uh ... er.... ... whaddabout xyz over there ... mumble mumble ..." 🙂

There you go being logical Roger.

She has said the owners have abandoned it. She says she is "considering other possibilities for public viewing", meaning she has the ability and possession of it, to do so, if she chooses. 

Be careful though. Even though you don't have anything to hide from your teenage years fifty years ago, Leslie will offer a trade not to insinuate something unspecified about your teenage years fifty years ago if you quit asking for verification of what is currently on-topic which she snarls and casts as not trusting her!! 

You can't make this up. What a circus.

Pushing a button, Greg?

Woven into your "professional" questions related to verification are flagrant insinuations, to the extent several have asked if I intende to bring this up with the moderators or take it even further.

Do you really think you can pull this wool over everyone, all the time, by clinging to those Dead Sea Scrolls as a credential?

Tell me why you didn't ask Paine about Odum; why you didn't ask Curington about Rothermel; why Armstrong was such friends with a tyrannical regime that likely sanctioned the assassination of Patrice Lumumba; why you won't address the Katanga Freedom Fighters in context of Jack Crichton?

If you're purportedly interested in H. L. Hunt's possible role in the assassination, why have you ignored the information I provided you about Rothermel's appearance in the Lafitte ledger sheets?  

But Mostly, why do you avoid answering my question: HAVE YOU CROSSED PATHS WITH VALERY AGINSKY AND/OR OLIVER THORNE?

and, are you in correspondence with Jeffrey Sundberg?

14 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

LS:  And NO to NARA. I've discussed this with a close colleague who has a direct contact inside the archives.  I think you can appreciate that historically, material has gone missing, suffered damage, etc.. while in custody of the very government many accuse of killing our president.  We're simply not "there" yet.

RO:  This isn't a case of records being lost or destroyed, Leslie.  You would retain a copy of the datebook.  You could write another book based on it. So could others if it was public. 

One  of the reasons I raised NARA, besides the fact that if it is authentic that's where it belongs (you did say it should be in the public domain), is the possibility that offering it to NARA could get the authentication process off dead center. A good thing, no?

Again, I said public domain, not a government venue per se.

Let's see if America permits Trump to seize our executive branch first.

9 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

LS:  And NO to NARA. I've discussed this with a close colleague who has a direct contact inside the archives.  I think you can appreciate that historically, material has gone missing, suffered damage, etc.. while in custody of the very government many accuse of killing our president.  We're simply not "there" yet.

RO:  This isn't a case of records being lost or destroyed, Leslie.  You would retain a copy of the datebook.  You could write another book based on it. So could others if it was public. 

One  of the reasons I raised NARA, besides the fact that if it is authentic that's where it belongs (you did say it should be in the public domain), is the possibility that offering it to NARA could get the authentication process off dead center. A good thing, no?

That possibility was part of my deliberations with the "insider." I was told it was highly doubtful they would fund the process.  

The records I listed, with exception of possibly Wiegman - Darnell, have not to my knowledge been destroyed.  They are being withheld, private collections or otherwise.  A member of the forum insists that the Datebook belongs to the public (paraphrasing), and I'm asking why don't the Win Scott diaries, the RFK investigation files, and the Jean Souetre research collected at great risk and expense by Shaw and Fensterwald, belong to the public?

Why does a private (albeit cloaked in a foundation) citizen, Oliver Curme OWN the Mary Ferrell Collection (assuming I understand the tax filings accurately)?

How long have Mae Brussell's files been batted around from pillar to post? Where are the prize finds of Talbot, Russell, Scott, O.Stone, di Eugenio at al? The one exception I'm familiar with is Bill Simpich who appears to have operated under the code of ethics ... this belongs in the public domain, full stop.
 

Just now, Paul Brancato said:

Is it the group in Madrid who did the video about Skorzeny recently that has some of that collection?

Meaning did they purchase the smaller collection?  I have no idea because the auction listing indicates "withdrawn" suggesting it didn't attract high bids?

11 minutes ago, David Butler said:

In case anyone is interested the original auction listing from 2012 is here

https://www.alexautographs.com/auction-lot/the-personal-archives-of-the-most-dangerous-man-i_B64273C68C/

Thanks, David.

We've been curious why a fairly sizable portion of the collection was withdrawn from auction a few years ago.  Have you come across that? I believe the price tag was close to $10,000.

This org chart is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced without express permission. Any alterations made to the chart will be subject to copyright laws.

37 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

If authenticated, the date book is a JFKA record and belongs in NARA's JFK Record Collection for all to see.  It would seem, under these circumstances, NARA would want to do its own authentication before including it. I wonder what they do to insure records added to the Collection are authentic.

Andrej, Leslie, would you be in favor of Bill and Larry adding the date book to its list of records it wants the Court to order NARA to pursue in MFF's law suit?

To your last question, NO, not at the moment.  I'll discuss this in private with you, Roger.

And NO to NARA. I've discussed this with a close colleague who has a direct contact inside the archives.  I think you can appreciate that historically, material has gone missing, suffered damage, etc.. while in custody of the very government many accuse of killing our president.  We're simply not "there" yet.

And, in case you haven't seen my recent post:

1) Why hasn't the Robert Kennedy family allowed access to the files he accumulated during his private investigation into who killed his brother? Isn't RFK Jr. now in the prime position to advance interest in this cold case investigation? Coup was edited by the same editor, published by the same publisher on the same date as Robert's Fauci book. I think Albarelli would have been especially impressed by that particular High Strangeness and Synchronicity.

2) Why haven't expert(s) on Win Scott published the remaining diaries in his private collection?  A single reference is made in Our Man in Mexico to Scott's post as the Western European division of Office of Special Operations "overseeing all espionage operations collecting intelligence in the friendly nations of West Germany, France, and Great Britain.: We know now that the machinations of Madrid-based Otto Skorzeny crossed Win's desk in the early years of the Cold War. 

3) Why hasn't the DC attorney(s) made available to the "community" writ large the Shaw/Fensterwald records and research on Jean Rene Souetre provided to the HSCA?

And we can add NBC/Wiegman - Darnell to the list?  

Or is Mary Ferrell Foundation on top of that?  And if so, why not the other examples I list above?

We're considering other possibilities for public viewing of the physical datebook, as well as publication of a facsimile as supplemental to Coup in Dallas.  (see my previous comments on this thread.) I presented the original at two conferences in Dallas in 2022; I've also invited a number of authors and researchers to see the datebook in (convenient to all) private settings.

16 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Leslie would it be possible for you to stop further deflecting (most recently on my east Texas personal history, as if trying to make that some focus of attention, as if that is relevant) and at long last say straight, who is the legal owner of the datebook? 

And, who would financially benefit if, hypothetically, the legal owner were to choose to sell it?

Do you have a financial interest in the appraisal value of the datebook (the physical item), affected by whether it is authentic or forged? 

I will make a trade, Greg.  You cease with insinuations that I'm attempting to profit from a fraud perpetrated on me by Hank perpetrated on him by a "conman," and I'll resist publicly positing my questions/hypothesis related to your history and motivations.

Have you crossed paths with Valery Aginsky?