Leslie Sharp

July 29, 2023

12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

My concern regarding Lafitte's datebook is also that of authenticity of the document. The JFKA case has been badly damaged by false data and made-up stories, hence the reluctance to jump in on Albarelli's account of Lafitte's datebook.

However, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.

It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

Even the enhanced version of this record does not allow unequivocal interpretation of some of the words or syllables, e.g., the one highlighted with arrow. Why the word "buiding" (?) is missing an "l"? Is this misspelling consistent across the datebook? How frequent was it and in which records did it occur?

My point is that the datebook needed to be scanned with the highest possible resolution in the first place, and if it has not been done yet, a new scan is required. Referring to my notes above, the datebook would preferably be in possession of the NARA (in the best case) and a high-resolution copy of the datebook needs to be available to the public. Before reading about a widespread conspiracy involving Nazi elements, I would first like to analyse the primary evidence.

@Andrej StancakHowever, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.

I've given serious consideration to the question of subpoenas and have in fact sought legal counsel related to the possibility of a civil suit.

Please see my previous comment that lists three specific instances that in my view warrant similar consideration. Perhaps a class action civil suit for a long list of repositories of possible evidence is in order. Would you like to spearhead the effort?

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?

Until then, this datebook remains private property.

We are, however, considering publication of a facsimile of the datebook as a summpluent to Hank's Coup in Dallas because as an American who is watching the possible death knell of our democracy because we didn't "solve this cold case murder investigation decades ago," this evidence should be in the public domain. I've remained faithful to Hank's commitment to his sources; they have abandoned the datebook; I trust he will understand the position I'm now in and will support this next step.

If the facsimile project progresses, the question becomes: have I actually weakened its impact, its admissibility as "metaphorical" evidence?

July 29, 2023

12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

My concern regarding Lafitte's datebook is also that of authenticity of the document. The JFKA case has been badly damaged by false data and made-up stories, hence the reluctance to jump in on Albarelli's account of Lafitte's datebook.

However, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.

It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

Even the enhanced version of this record does not allow unequivocal interpretation of some of the words or syllables, e.g., the one highlighted with arrow. Why the word "buiding" (?) is missing an "l"? Is this misspelling consistent across the datebook? How frequent was it and in which records did it occur?

My point is that the datebook needed to be scanned with the highest possible resolution in the first place, and if it has not been done yet, a new scan is required. Referring to my notes above, the datebook would preferably be in possession of the NARA (in the best case) and a high-resolution copy of the datebook needs to be available to the public. Before reading about a widespread conspiracy involving Nazi elements, I would first like to analyse the primary evidence.

@Andrej Stancak Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

We worked with (and continue to) the original datebook.

Can you expand on why this particular entry may be relevant to your perspective — your reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald?

July 29, 2023

35 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Speaking of George (Hunter-White),since he's mentioned in the datebook more than once, and, he was an associate of Pierre Laffite, who reputedly introduced him to James Jesus Angleton, I think I'll park this article on him I stumbled across yesterday here.

The Diaries Of a CIA Operative - The Washington Post

Great find, Ron.

fwiw, I've long thought that Hank became intrigued by Hunter White much much earlier than he indicated in ATM. Hank was hired as investigator for Carter's Office of Personnel early in the administration, 1977. This WaPo article on Hunter White came out in September. Hank would have been in a position to develop long-term relationships in DC during those four years.

July 29, 2023

11 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

My concern regarding Lafitte's datebook is also that of authenticity of the document. The JFKA case has been badly damaged by false data and made-up stories, hence the reluctance to jump in on Albarelli's account of Lafitte's datebook.

However, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.

It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

Even the enhanced version of this record does not allow unequivocal interpretation of some of the words or syllables, e.g., the one highlighted with arrow. Why the word "buiding" (?) is missing an "l"? Is this misspelling consistent across the datebook? How frequent was it and in which records did it occur?

My point is that the datebook needed to be scanned with the highest possible resolution in the first place, and if it has not been done yet, a new scan is required. Referring to my notes above, the datebook would preferably be in possession of the NARA (in the best case) and a high-resolution copy of the datebook needs to be available to the public. Before reading about a widespread conspiracy involving Nazi elements, I would first like to analyse the primary evidence.

@Andrej Stancak It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

I appreciate your remarks, and it's understandable that anyone following the assassination research would have a subjective feeling about what is right or wrong in this field of inquiry:

I've asked myself:

1) Why hasn't the Robert Kennedy family allowed access to the files he accumulated during his private investigation into who killed his brother?

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?

4) How many private archives sit idle?

July 29, 2023

11 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

My concern regarding Lafitte's datebook is also that of authenticity of the document. The JFKA case has been badly damaged by false data and made-up stories, hence the reluctance to jump in on Albarelli's account of Lafitte's datebook.

However, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.

It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

Even the enhanced version of this record does not allow unequivocal interpretation of some of the words or syllables, e.g., the one highlighted with arrow. Why the word "buiding" (?) is missing an "l"? Is this misspelling consistent across the datebook? How frequent was it and in which records did it occur?

My point is that the datebook needed to be scanned with the highest possible resolution in the first place, and if it has not been done yet, a new scan is required. Referring to my notes above, the datebook would preferably be in possession of the NARA (in the best case) and a high-resolution copy of the datebook needs to be available to the public. Before reading about a widespread conspiracy involving Nazi elements, I would first like to analyse the primary evidence.

We used the original as the source for what you see published in Coup in Dallas.

You are welcome to your own interpretation, but the entry reads as I've presented.

DUUM is Latin for the French word "deux". Lafitte (fluent in French, btw) is noting that two rifles are in the building. on November 20.

July 29, 2023

7 hours ago, Doug Campbell said:

@Leslie Sharp A question, Ma'am: Have you yourself ever actually seen the datebook in person? Held it in your hands?

@Doug Campbell Yes. and Yes, as have more than a dozen respected researchers and authors in addition to all interested attendees at the Chris Gallop day-conference in November 2022, and all interested attendees at the David Denton Historic Group in Dallas, November 2022.

July 29, 2023

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thanks for this (I have added the bold above), clarifying that various pressures understandably "impacted bringing a perfectly edited version of our M/s across the finish line under pressure of the last available pub date".

But do you see, this comes close to looking like an indication of forgery.

For there is a clear, non-trivial, non-typo difference in the final element of the Nov 20, 1963 entry, between a written transcript source (call that "T") reflected in the publication of the book, and what shows in the photograph which was actually handwritten in the datebook (call that "D").

Now there are only two possible ways this can go, and the question is which was first in chronological sequence: creation of T, or creation of D?

Option #1 (D is first). In this reconstruction, D reflects handwriting of Jean-Pierre Lafitte on Nov 20, 1963. Much later, in the ca. 2000s or 2010s, someone looked at the datebook, saw with their eyes in the photo "Rifle into building —yes/ok/DPD —(DUUM)" ... and transcribed that as "Frank B".

Is that a plausible error that anyone could easily make? Think about it.

Or Option #2 (T is first). In preparation for a forgery, at some point well after 1963, the true author first prepared a draft of the various entries which in planning to be, at a final stage, handwritten into a 1963 calendar book with handwriting falsely purported to be that of the late Jean-Pierre Lafitte.

After planning and preparing what would be written in the datebook (making use of, in some cases, later-date-available JFK assassination lore and details, e.g. the ones identified by Dick Russell), at a final stage (not the first stage), the planned entries would be, and were, handwritten into the physical datebook by the forger.

In that process, the forger "improved" the Nov 20 entry, changing the final item for that date entry to allude to the story of Castor taking a rifle in to the TSBD on Nov 20.

However, through an oversight, the already-existing transcript or working copy, T, prepared by the forger, was not updated and not corrected by the forger to match what the forger actually wrote in the datebook for Nov 20.

Through the circumstances you describe, that discrepancy was overlooked and went undetected. No one manually at the editing stage cross-checked the forger's transcript (or copy thereof), T--which preceded the forger's writing in the datebook--to update and harmonize T with what was actually in the datebook for Nov 20.

Under this scenario, Option #2, the transcript for Nov 20 published in Coup in Dallas reflects a stage of composition development prior to when the Nov 20 entry was handwritten in the datebook.

The very lack of editorial checking and harmonization between the two (T and D), that you have confirmed, at the point of publication of Coup in Dallas, therefore explains how the earlier stage of the forger's composition, T, survived to publication in disagreement with D, the final production of the forger.

In Option #1, D precedes T, consistent with authenticity, but suffers from questionable plausibility as to mechanism of the error.

In Option #2, T precedes D, meaning forgery, with plausible mechanism/explanation for the discrepancy.

Disclaimer: I would not consider this point stand-alone proof of forgery in itself, considered in isolation, because I have enough experience with study of errors in handwritten copies of ancient texts to know that copyist errors can happen (Option #1).

However, I also know from experience in studying scribal copying errors the most common kinds and causes of copying errors, with names such as homeoteleuton (eye-skip due to words or phrases having the same ending); homeoarchy (eye-skip due to words or phrases having the same beginning); dittography (mistaken repetition of a sequence); transposition or metathesis (switching or reversing the order of words, or letters in a word); contamination (extraneous element from elsewhere mistakenly copied on the page); and deliberate alteration (copyist acts as editor to correct and improve the original) ... and the discrepancy under consideration in this case is not one of those.

The problem here is the error which must be supposed in Option #1 (consistent with authenticity of D) does not easily fall into a common and known cause or kind of copying error.

Defenders of Option #1 should seriously consider how such an error in copying could occur like that, and if there is no good explanation, compare that to the ease or natural explanation for the discrepancy under the scenario of #2, forgery.

So while not decisive (to me), this error does look funny, and is on a continuum with other things suggestive of suspected forgery.

Although I do not regard this point as ultimately decisive, and others' individual judgments may vary, all else being equal I believe this point adds weight in favor of the datebook being a forgery, rather than authenticity.

I also add this: if Option #2 is true, then it is a forgery; that is evidence of forgery. If it is Option #1, it could be authentic (it would be consistent with it being authentic) but that is not positive evidence that it is authentic.

@Greg Doudna

Would you please respond to my question:

Have you crossed paths with Valery Aginsky?

July 29, 2023

5 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

I'm re-printing this article from this evening's WaPo for non-subscribers.

Good for some laughs. 🤪

Worried by Florida’s history standards? Check out its new dictionary!

By Alexandra Petri

July 28, 2023

Well, it’s a week with a Thursday in it, and Florida is, once again, revising its educational standards in alarming ways. Not content with removing books from shelves, or demanding that the College Board water down its AP African American studies curriculum, the state’s newest history standards include lessons suggesting that enslaved people “developed skills” for “personal benefit.” This trend appears likely to continue. What follows is a preview of the latest edition of the dictionary to be approved in Florida.

Aah: (exclamation) Normal thing to say when you enter the water at the beach, which is over 100 degrees.

Abolitionists: (noun) Some people in the 19th century who were inexplicably upset about a wonderful free surprise job training program. Today they want to end prisons for equally unclear reasons.

Abortion: (noun) Something that male state legislators (the foremost experts on this subject) believe no one ever wants under any circumstances, probably; decision that people beg the state to make for them and about which doctors beg for as little involvement as possible.

American history: (noun) A branch of learning that concerns a ceaseless parade of triumphs and contains nothing to feel bad about.

Barbie: (noun) Feminist demon enemy of the state.

Biden, Joe: (figure) Illegitimate president.

Black history: (entry not found)

Blacksmith: (noun) A great job and one that enslaved people might have had. Example sentence from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R): “They’re probably going to show that some of the folks that eventually parlayed, you know, being a blacksmith into doing things later in life.”

Book ban: (noun) Effective way of making sure people never have certain sorts of ideas.

Censorship: (noun) When other people get mad about something you’ve said. Not to be confused with when you remove books from libraries or the state tells colleges what can and can’t be said in classrooms (both fine).

Child: (noun) Useful laborer with tiny hands; alternatively, someone whose reading cannot be censored enough.

Christian nationalism: (noun) Certainly constitutional; probably what the Founding Fathers would have preferred!

Classified: (adjective) The government’s way of saying a paper is especially interesting and you ought to have it in your house.

Climate change: (noun) Conspiracy by scientists to change all the thermometers, fill the air with smoke and then blame us.

Cocaine: (noun) A substance discovered in the White House; the only fit subject for news cycles.

Constitution: (noun) A document that can be interpreted only by Trump-appointed and/or Federalist Society judges. If the Constitution appears to prohibit something that you want to do, take the judge on a boat and try again.

Coral: (noun) Superfluous refuge for fish, others who have failed to adapt to life on land.

DeSantis, Ron: (figure) Governor who represents the ideal human being. Pronunciation varies.

Disney: (noun) A corporation, but not the good kind.

DOJ: (noun) Schrodinger’s legal entity that is both good and evil simultaneously, used for investigating legitimate country-shaking crimes (Hunter Biden possessing a firearm) and conducting illegal raids (Donald Trump kindly opening his home to some classified documents).

Election: (noun) Binding if Republicans win; otherwise, needs help from election officials who will figure out where the fraud was that prevented the election from reflecting the will of the people (that Republicans win).

Elector: (noun) Someone Mike Pence should or should not have accepted, depending.

Emancipation Proclamation: (noun) Classic example of government overreach.

Firearm: (noun) Wonderful, beautiful object that every person ought to have six of, except Hunter Biden.

Florida: God’s paradise on Earth; sometimes Ohio; see “The Courage to Be Free”! All parts of the country at once. Real estate here will only get more valuable.

FOX: News.

Free speech: (noun) When you shut up and I talk.

Gun violence: (noun) Simple, unalterable fact of life, like death but unlike taxes.

Alexandra Petri: We will stop at nothing to protect the children

Immigration: (noun) When someone leaves their country of origin to seek a better life elsewhere; huge insult to the receiving country, to be prevented at all costs.

Independence Day: See Jan. 6.

Jan. 6: (noun) A day when some beautiful, beloved people took a nice, uneventful tour of the U.S. Capitol.

King Jr., Martin Luther: (figure) A man who, as far as we can discern, uttered only one famous quotation ever and it was about how actually anytime you tried to suggest that people were being treated differently based on skin color you were the real racist. Sample sentence: “Dr. King would be enraged at the existence of Black History Month.”

Liberty: (noun) My freedom to choose what you can read (see Moms for Liberty).

Moms for Liberty: (noun) Censors, but the good kind.

Nature: (noun) Something it is okay to boil, probably. Like soup.

Orca: (noun) Enemy of the state, vessels.

Orwellian: (adjective) When people are mad about a book written by Josh Hawley or another Republican, not when people try to erase slavery from history.

Pregnant (adjective): The state of being a vessel containing a Future Citizen; do not say “pregnant person”; no one who is a real person can get pregnant.

Queer: (entry not found)

Refugee: (noun) Someone who should have stayed put and waited for help to come.

Slavery: (noun) We didn’t invent it, or it wasn’t that bad, or it was a free job training program.

Supreme Court: (noun) Wonderful group of mostly men without whom no journey by private plane or yacht is complete.

Trans: (entry not found)

United States: (noun) Perfect place, no notes.

Unfree: (adjective) The best way for thought and people to be.

Tragicomic (with a strong dose of hilarity!)

July 29, 2023

52 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

There are multiple reasons McCloy was known as the Chairman of the Establishment, a book I have but have not yet found time to read much of, it's 600 + pages.

"This fellow Levine is in contact with Marina to break the story up in a little more graphic manner and tie it into a Russian business, and it is with the thought and background of a Russian connection, conspiracy concept."

- John J, McCloy, Warren Commission Jan 21, 1964

Page 449, Coup in Dallas

He's the guy who also told his fellow Warren Commissioners they were there to "settle the dust".

Levine will deal with Marina.
the Lafitte datebook, November 28, 1963

July 29, 2023

Looks great, Pete.

July 29, 2023

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

It is possible the datebook was fabricated later, as in the 2000s.

That remains an explanation for everything in the datebook until the document is authenticated, or debunked, by an expert (seriously expert) panel of independent examiners.

I take it at present there are parties, who may have conflicts of interest, who have access to the datebook. The datebook can thus be "updated" as we speak?

That is to say, the datebook has not been placed under lock-and-key at a secure location chosen by independent experts, and careful records kept of all who come into contact with the datebook.

It has been written in this forum there are items of information in the datebook not revealed to the general public, until the recent 2023 partial JFK doc release.

I have asked for two examples of this.

Benjamin, You must have missed my response on Monté's AECASSOWARY thread:

It reads in part:
fyi, simply because information in the Lafitte materials has not been available to the general public in the form of documents until 2023."--RM

I believe Monté is referring to the broader issue of government documents released in 2023. Specific to the datebook entries as I've shared previously, Dick Russell provided a limited analysis of the 1963 Lafitte datebook. (His full analysis can be found in the Front Matter of Coup in Dallas.) Dick focused on the following names that appear in Lafitte's datebook, six of which did not surface in public records — news reports, interview notes, FOIA responses, government citations, etc. — until the mid-to-late 1970s, with the remaining names surfacing in the 1990s.

Dick writes,

Let me here offer my insights into some of the names and dates in the datebook, and their potential significance in revealing the identities of the perpetrators behind what’s been called “the crime of the century.” I should add that the datebook also contains references to individuals whose names have not appeared before in assassination-related documents. From the datebook, it can only be concluded that Lafitte was directly involved with a number of people covertly connected to the assassination.

SOUETRE. This clearly is Jean Rene Souetre, whose name appears in a number of entries between April 25 and December 4. It appears that Souetre was part of a “kill squad” who showed up for meetings in New Orleans, Madrid, and Mexico City prior to the assassination. Souetre’s name first appeared in the “assassination literature” following a 1977 release of CIA documents, which stated that “he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination . . . to either Mexico or Canada.” According to what the FBI told a Souetre acquaintance whom I interviewed, he’d been “flown out that afternoon by a private pilot . . . in a government plane.” Souetre was a known hitman for the OAS, a terrorist group in France that had targeted President de Gaulle.

WILLOUGHBY: Until my first book came out in 1992, assembling circumstantial evidence linking retired General Charles Willoughby as a possible “mastermind” of the assassination, no one had raised such a possibility before. The datebook cites the far-right General Willoughby numerous times, specifying: “Nov 22 – Willoughby backup – team [with a strikethrough of the word team] squad – tech building – phone booth/bridge.” Prior to that, an April 12 entry states: “Willoughby soldier kill squads.”

SILVERTHORNE: That same datebook entry says: “Silverthorne – Ft. Worth – Airport – Mexico.” The name of Silverthorne did not appear publicly until the late 1970s, when CIA officer William Harvey’s handwritten notes about the agency’s QJ/WIN assassination program were released. Silverthorne was a pilot who traveled “for a certain federal agency” to “countless countries” for “reasons best left unsaid,” according to author Albarelli’s 1996 interview with him.

ANGLETON: Listed in the datebook by his last name as well as initials (JA and JJA), the then-head of Counterintelligence for the CIA appears to have been involved in “high-level gathering in DC'' during which “Lancelot planning” was discussed. The Lancelot reference is to a plot to kill JFK. The datebook’s final mention of James Angleton,(December 5, 1963) states: “JA – CLOSE OUT LANCELOT.” Angleton’s name was not generally known until the mid-1970s, when he was forced out of the CIA following revelations that he’d organized an illegal domestic spying program.

GEORGE W.: The several references in the datebook, including one (August 29) regarding “shipment of LSD for New Orleans & Dallas – Texas laws?” are clearly referencing George White. He was a key operative in the CIA’s top-secret MKULTRA program to control human behavior using drugs, hypnosis, and other means. He worked undercover for the same narcotics agency as Lafitte. White’s name never came to light until 1977 during a congressional investigation.

TOM D.: Also referred to in several entries, this was Thomas Eli Davis, Jr., first mentioned in 1978 in the assassination literature as having trained anti-Castro Cubans and had been acquainted with Jack Ruby. The September 27 entry about Mexico City says: “Oswald – Comercio Hotel – meet with Tom D. at Luma.” It was stated by the Warren Commission that Oswald had been to the Comercio; the Hotel Luma was first mentioned in my 1992 book as a meeting point. The September 29 datebook implies (“Tom at embassy – done”) that Davis, who resembled Oswald, had impersonated him in visiting either the Cuban or Russian embassies in Mexico City.

CRICHTON: The name of Jack Crichton, who was connected to Military Intelligence and arranged the first translators for Marina Oswald after the assassination, appears several times in datebook entries in advance of the assassination.

A. L. EHRMAN: This July 30 entry clearly refers to Anita L. Ehrman, a foreign correspondent whose body was found that day in her Washington apartment. The only other reference to this appears in my 1992 book, citing a notebook seized from Richard Case Nagell by the FBI on September 20, 1963 but not released until 1975. That entry says: “ANITA L. EHRMAN. 7-30-63 WASHINGTON, D.C.” Nagell was involved with Oswald in an assassination plot.

(Dick was careful to close with, 'assuming the datebook is authentic, the aforementioned stands.')

July 29, 2023

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

duum

Wiktionary

https://en.wiktionary.org › wiki › duum

An inflected form of duo (“two”) from Old Latin, where the use of -um instead of -ōrum (cf. Latin duōrum) at the end of second-declension nouns was an ...

‎Latin · ‎Numeral

OK, so the word "duum" is in the unverified datebook.

And Warren Caster brought two cartons of rifles into the TSBD on Nov. 20, which he showed to associates and made no attempt to hide.

Are you purporting the datebook entry of "duum" refers to the two rifles brought into the TSBD by Caster?

Can you explain why you contend that? Explain the datebook entry in context?

Then, are you contending that Caster played a key role in perping the JFKA?

Was Caster an unwitting tool of Nazis, or a Nazi sympathizer himself?

Are you contending one or both of the rifles brought in by Caster were in fact used in the JFKA, and that the datebook anticipated or confirmed that?

I'm asking you to explain the coincidence.

July 29, 2023

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Friend--

I wrote about Warren Caster for EF-JFKA, and related details.

I am asking how the word "DUUM" various capitalizations in the unverified datebook, which might mean drum, or divide, or two, relates to Caster, in context.

(Duum), Latin for the French word two (2), is noted under a phrase referring to rifle(s)* into building on the same date that Warren Caster brought two rifles into the depository building.

Instead of sticking around on November 22 to watch the motorcade of the president of the US pass directly in front of his office at 411 Elm, Caster opted to keep an appointment with Vernon Payne at North Texas U in Denton?

*David, can you see if you identify an s?

July 28, 2023

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

and coincidently the same number of rifles brought into the building by Warren Caster on November 20.--LS

And this means....what?

Please explain this and provide context.

A detective you're not.

July 28, 2023

@Greg Doudna Have you crossed paths with Aginsky and/or Thorne?

July 28, 2023

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Book: Charles Hamilton, Great Forgers and Famous Fakes (1996)

"... Well-executed forgeries and fakes have fooled dealers and collectors for more than a century. This thoroughly documented book, containing hundreds of examples that show how to identify the best that the most skillful forgers have produced, will provide the expert and the amateur with tools for self-protection. Great Forgers and Famous Fakes is also a chronicle of the careers of America's most adroit and colorful manuscript forgers, telling who they were and how they swindled their victims. The fascinating stories of forgers and their works include: -the poet who forged hundreds of Robert Frost manuscripts -the multimillionaire industrialist and founder of RCA who got his start as a forger-and years later got fooled by his own fake -the American Nazi who forged John Howard Payne's "Home, Sweet Home" -a round-dozen forgers of Abe Lincoln's handwriting..." (https://www.amazon.com/Great-Forgers-Famous-Fakes-Manuscript/dp/0944435408 )

About the author:

"Charles Hamilton, world's foremost handwriting expert, forensic document examiner, and literary historian made full use of his more than half a century in the manuscript field to detail the secrets of forgers and famous fakes using over 400 illustrations. Hamilton, the author of eighteen books, passed away in 1996. His recent books are William Shakespeare & John Fletcher, Cardenio or The Second Maiden's Tragedy, The Hitler Diaries; and In Search of Shakespeare."

One of the Amazon reviews...:

"With lots of righteous anger, Charles Hamilton, an earlier incarnation of America's Most Wanted Bill Walsh, tears through an ever-growing list of forgers who dare dump their wares on an unsuspecting, greedy public and stupid scholars. Hamilton's list of rogue forgers is really just small time criminals, some of who are pretty good at copying someone's handwriting and style. Some of the forgers are incredibly lazy, and mostly depend on 'the art of the con' to see them through. Since his caseload is pre-1980, there is no discussion of modern forgeries, with obvious advanced sophistication. The almost certain downfall of all the forgers is that they work alone, and suffer 'pride of authorship,' so they cannot look at their work with a critical eye, and avoid short-comings and missteps. Hamilton died in 1996, and I understand that he was more flamboyant in reality, than he appears in this scholarly/technical work. A good read, but, I'm sorry, Charlie, but I found myself rooting for the forgers."

Another article: "The Forged Texts of the Middle Ages: why Europe's holy men turned to counterfeiting" (2021)

"The desire to deceive – and be deceived – is universal, and the forging of documents as old as writing itself. In ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, local priests – the experts in literacy – forged inscriptions in the names of earlier pharaohs and kings, claiming rights of preferential treatment. And scarcely a society can be found since in which such skulduggery was not practised in some form or another. But few regions in world history can rival medieval Europe for the sheer scale of forging. As modern scholars have established, over half of the surviving texts in the names of the Merovingian rulers of early medieval France and Germany (c481–752) are fakes; a third of those in the names of the Lombard rulers of northern Italy (568–774) are suspect; and similar figures hold true of the nearly 2,000 documents of pre-Conquest England. The vast majority of these texts were forged in the Middle Ages, in most cases between the 10th and 13th centuries. Those responsible were not a small cadre of recalcitrant rogues, but leading figures within the church – men such as Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg and Gilbert Foliot, abbot of Gloucester and later bishop of Hereford. . . . (https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/the-forged-texts-of-the-middle-ages-why-europes-holy-men-turned-to-counterfeiting/ )

I think even you will admit that yours is an embarrassingly unscientific argument, and possibly an unconscious projection of an early experience during your own education or career? You seem obsessed with conmen; growing up in Texas there was no greater religious conmen than the radio evangelists Herbert and Garner T. Armstrong.

I've been reticent to provide an essay on East Texas which addresses the socio-political-religious ethos and how that spirit fueled the assassination of John Kennedy. Specifically, and briefly, it can be argued that the heart of the Texas branch of the Military - Industrial Complex was East Texas = Lone Star Steel, Le Tourneau Mfg., Delta Drilling, and the munitions plant at Daingerfield. Big Sandy was/is a pivot point in the geographic setting. Armstrong found it fertile soil for his satellite college, and you apparently were drawn there for some reason. I can also walk you through the possible implications of Armstrong's friendship with King Leopold in context of Jack Crichton and the Katanga Freedom Fighters if you're interested. Crichton joined the Hunt Foundation the summer of 1963. Crichton of deGoyler Macnaughton (whose employee Declan Ford was posted in Madrid for the life of the project) and Empire Trust, along with Al Meadows of the Howard Corp. (RNB Callas), Joe Zeppa of Delta Drilling (who was with GHWB and Al Ulmer the morning of the assassination) joined SS Otto Skorzeny in Madrid to pursue an "oil scheme" with the blessing of Spanish fascist dictator Franco.

Of particular interest to us, you've defended Ruth Paine without considering the possibility she played a conscious role in helping maneuver Oswald via Marina into place as indicated in Lafitte's record; you've interviewed Curington but haven't pursued Paul Rothermel; in the process I contend you've missed several key moments involving the Hunts; to my knowledge, you've not written about Bard Odum, likely caretaker for LHO when de M left town; I don't think you've pursued Everett Glover who actually served as conduit between Ruth and LHO - Glover appearing twice in Lafitte's records.

So, linking examples of fraud stories over the decades is not an argument; it's a deflection.

July 28, 2023

2 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

duum (Sundanese)

Verb

duum

to divide

to split

Latin for French word deux: 2.

and coincidently the same number of rifles brought into the building by Warren Caster on November 20.

Incidentally, Caster lived out his years in ABQ; as did DAP's brother.

July 28, 2023

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Yes I did a little outside of my taped interview of Curington, in which Rothermel did not come up. Curington did not volunteer anything re Rothermel beyond what is generally known. He did not speak ill of him, but he just did not say much. I wish I had more but sorry I do not. By the time I talked to Curington Rothermel was of course dead (from a fall from a roof according to Joan Mellen in Our Man in Haiti).

Rothermel in a confidential FBI interview sort of trashes Curington: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9963#relPageId=117

Here is the only obituary I could find of a Paul M. Rothermel, same name, same city of address (Richardson, Texas) as the FBI interview of HL Hunt's assistant Paul M. Rothermel ... same ex-FBI history ... but no mention in the obituary of having worked for H L Hunt. https://obits.dallasnews.com/us/obituaries/dallasmorningnews/name/paul-rothermel-obituary?id=51426158.

I've realized that what isn't in an obit is often important; case in point FBI SA Bard Odum. His obituary makes no mention of the K assassination or his role in the investigation — the crime of a career. The late Raymond Gallagher wrote a great monograph on Odum titled the Ubiquitous Bard. He was "everywhere" in the first 48 hours and the subsequent investigation yet was never called before the WC.

I was also going to ask whether you asked Ruth Paine about "Hart", or have you seen the photo of Odum with Marina holding the baby with translator standing by?

But I digress ...

The Lafitte ledger sheet reads:
... Rothermel says no on gas ——— guns but T says ok....

This led us to consider that H. L. and/or Bunker Hunt were privy to if not involved in something that Lafitte played a direct role in as well. Rothermel was the acting rep. for the Hunts. If the "kill teams" referenced in the datebook are Bunker and his daddy's private militia AVG, then the Lafitte ledger sheet makes sense ... and yet may not be specific to the Lancelot Project.

I'm sure you're aware that Paul Rothermel and Hunt were locked in a legal battle related to wiretapping during the silver debacle; and yet, apparently Rothermel never talked out of school. Falling from a roof, a-la Win Scott is interesting, regardless.

July 28, 2023

34 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Leslie... Can you look again and see maybe it actually says DruM, as in where the rifle would be hidden until needed to be planted? Oil "DRUMS" were used as garbage cans among other things.

Nothing for D.U.U.M. comes to mind. But we're at the right place to elicit some help...

Latin for deux. 2.

July 28, 2023

Greg, I will answer your queries one by one, beginning with the last:

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?

Greg, good sleuthing, and Iwon't make excuses, but suffice to say: Hank's unexpected (and personally destabilizing) death, complications with access to the datebook in the early months, Covid, and life, impacted bringing a perfectly edited version of our M/s across the finish line under pressure of the last available pub date.

Frank B here does not appear in the November 20, and yes, a relic of the pre-final edit of the M/s.

I am looking at the original text as I type. November 20 reads:
Lamy - Filiol at

hotel (names)

Call Storey - Duvall

DeM.—

Rifle into building —

yes/ok/DPD —

(DUUM)

(I'm anxious to get with David J. to determine whether the last word or acronym, or string of letters is DUUM. If so, I believe I have an interpretation.)

Reference to Brandstetter appears in the October 21 entry:

Frank B. here - others

Jack - 1/day - MC

July 28, 2023

7 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

July 28, 2023

44 minutes ago, Ed Berger said:

@Greg Doudna writes:

Interestingly, we can establish some circumstantial evidence that Pierre Lafitte did, at the very least, swim in some of the same circles as Roselli. One of the sections in CiD discusses Lafitte's business entanglements—this time entailing a securities fraud involving Canadian Javelin, a very suspicious Newfoundland-based company (as an aside, I had conducted an in-depth study of Javelin a full year prior to reading CiD, so frankly I was caught very off guard by its appearance in the book). Below I've attached two newspaper clippings, the first from the Bangor Daily News, dated March 10 1962, and the second from the Times Argus, same date. Both mention Lafitte in conjunction with the affairs of one Ralph Loomis, a holder of Canadian Javelin stock.

This FBI document shows that Canadian Javelin's chief, John C. Doyle (an insider of the Teamsters Pension Fund shenanigans, a whole other host of misdeeds) established something of a sister company to Javelin, called the Jubilee Iron Corporation. Javelin and Jubilee even shared the same New York City offices.

The FBI recounts that one of the holders of Jubilee stock was John Roselli, who had purchased through L.J. Forget & Company Ltd. after he had been "vouched for" by George Pallay, a resident at the infamous Desert Inn. Pallay, the document notes, was a close friend of Javelin/Jubilee chief John Doyle, indicating a relationship between each of these parties prior to the purchase of Jubilee stock. Another FBI document states that Pallay had known Roselli for many years.

There are, of course, problems here. Lafitte being involved in scheme around Canadian Javelin stock doesn't necessarily mean that he knew Javelin's John Doyle (though any involvement with Javelin is in my mind very suspect, since Javelin's entire existence is born out from the legacy of figures from the World Commerce Corp in Newfoundland). Another is the fact that Lafitte gets in trouble over Javelin and related things in 1962; Roselli buys into Jubilee in 1965—a not insignificant lapse of time. But by the same token, we have the FBI reporting on the one hand that Doyle was very close to Pallay, and that Pallay in turn had known Roselli for years.

One thing that stands out in my mind as a way to tighten this web is to try and verify something stated in CiD: that Lafitte brought Harold Meltzer into the fold for his schemes with funny stock activities.

Ed, I'm impressed you understood the Javelin angle to this investigation.

Like you, Hank and I looked under the rocks, chased characters that danced between the raindrops (John Wilson- Hudson was a favorite), kicked tires no one was willing to - or perhaps better said, bee hives.

Hank was contacted by a woman who knew the Lafitte children having spent summers at a resort together. When Hank asked about the Loomis case, she immediately recognized the m.o. Lafitte had defrauded her own father in an exotic flower scheme. She later provided me with a caricature of Lafitte that I'm unable to post on EF due to the size of the file. I've attempted to get some guidance from our hosts, so hopefully I can add more visuals soon. One in particular may be of interest: Thomas Grattan Proctor, featured in Coup, in a full blown Heil Hitler salute.

Not to switch gears, but in the event Greg Doudna remains interested in this thread, I want to call attention to the appearance of 'Rothermel' in the Lafitte records. @Greg Doudna, did you discuss Paul Rothermel at length when you interviewed John Curington?

July 28, 2023

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Lots and lots of interesting information. I hope you will tie all this information together in a book.

I would just be careful about automatically assuming that every single German who worked for the Third Reich was a devout fascist or Nazi. Many of them were not fascists but were ardent anti-communists who supported democracy and disliked the SS. This was true even for a small minority of SS personnel.

I agree with your caution, Michael, and have stressed repeatedly that the information in the datebook is specific to individuals, e.g., Skorzeny, Rudel, (and in Hank's notes) Leon Degrelle, all of whom remained active and committed to their Nazi ideology; adding in fascist sympathies of others: Willoughby, Walker, Angleton, Harvey, Dalzell, Hunter-White, Tom Proctor, Tom Davis, et al, named in the Lafitte material, we have concluded that ideology provided the glue for an assassination set for Dallas and no other city — a city whose powerbrokers had worked with Skorzeny in the past; a city known for its arch-convervative capitalism and virulent anti-communism; a city that was home to the Republic National Bank of Dallas referred to by Albarelli as the Southwest headquarters of the agency.

Many of them were not fascists but were ardent anti-communists who supported democracy and disliked the SS.

Hank's dissolution with Major Ganis came about when this argument was posed: Skorzeny was a friend of democracy and doing America a favor by taking out Kennedy. I too push back when it is suggested fascists support democracy. Consider what unfolds as we speak.

July 28, 2023

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I do not posit my myself as a "royal," but rather foot soldier among JFKA researchers.

As such, I prefer complete and total transparency regarding JFKA artifacts and documents.

There was the Richard Case Nagell situation, in which he claimed he had materials that could break the JFKA case open, and after he secured his pension then maybe he would reveal the docs.

Then he said the key docs were held in a purple trunk in New Mexico, which was never found, even after his death.

Many of Nagell's docs were of uncertain provenance, including his purported Hidell ID card.

Nagell could provide no documentation he had ever warned Director Hoover of the pending JFKA.

In short, vapors.

It is even possible someone (not you) has planted an incredible "the Nazis did the JFKA" storyline (utterly zany-sounding to the general public and M$M), that can be discredited shortly before the 60th anniversary, and effectively diffuse and ridicule interest in the aging case.

Trust...but verify.

We cannot verify.

It is even possible someone (not you) has planted an incredible "the Nazis did the JFKA" storyline (utterly zany-sounding to the general public and M$M), that can be discredited shortly before the 60th anniversary, and effectively diffuse and ridicule interest in the aging case.

@Benjamin Cole You've ignored the facts I've provided, so this will be my final exchange with You on the question of the datebook.

Judging from your pushback on the fact that active Nazis Otto Skorzeny, Hans-Ulrich Rudel, and Leon Degrelle surfaced in Hank's investigation, it's clear to me that you're filtering these facts thru your defensive lens. In context of your positions related to current events, I realize why you attempt to derail this line of inquiry on every thread.

July 28, 2023

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I believe in transparency, and that I am part of the JFKA research community, and that I owe the community whatever I learn.

I will address questions to you only where everybody can see those comments. I hope your reply, civilly, in the same way.

I will address RM, also only in public so to speak, to try ascertain what is going on regarding the datebook.

Benjamin, I hope this will help clarify: I have provided access to screenshots of the full datebook to a select number of researchers / authors, including Monté. All have agreed to / or signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Once the facsimile of the datebook is in the public domain, hopefully by the 60th anniversary, that aspect of the NDA is rendered mute; the parties understand that information related to Hank's sources, and his professional and personal history with this project, remains under the original confidentiality agreement.

I'm sure you understand that there are dozens of investigative journalists with "works in progress" who feel no obligation whatsoever to provide "you," the Royal you of this community with their research until they are ready to do so.

Mine are unique circumstances: my first responsibility, legally and professionally, is to honor Hank's commitments and to advance his last investigation; I'm also a dedicated researcher of some thirty years with a long-standing philosophy that information related to the assassination in Dallas belongs in the public domain, full stop. For that reason, having wrestled with the question for four years, I decided to pursue publication of a facsimile of the datebook. However, there remain a number of issues to be ironed out.

In the meantime, with all due respect, any efforts to goad me, or (presumably) Monté, into breaching Non-Disclosure Agreements is futile.

fyi, simply because information in the Lafitte materials has not been available to the general public in the form of documents until 2023."--RM

I believe Monté is referring to the broader issue of government documents released in 2023. However, specific to the datebook entries and as I shared recently on a previous thread ('Getting down to the nuts and bolts . . .' ), Dick Russell provided a limited analysis of the 1963 Lafitte datebook. (His full analysis can be found in the Front Matter of Coup in Dallas.) Dick focused on the following names that appear in Lafitte's datebook, six of which did not surface in public records, e.g., news reports, interview notes, FOIA responses, government citations, etc., until the mid-late 1970s, with the remaining surfacing in the 1990s.

Dick writes,