7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I find it so interesting to read Waverly Root’s research, but I’m unable to find it on Google, though his long history as a food writer and historian is easy. Did Hank find his articles for WAPO and others? 
 

I've seen the article firsthand, and hopefully have it saved in a file.  Will go in search.

7 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Leslie, my comment you asked about belongs in  the " Oswald and the shot at Walker : Redressing the Balance " thread. I put it in that thread, also.

Thanks Chuck. 

Kovacs, Ortiz and Joly

There is no clear evidence that any of these three men, or a combination of, were present in Dallas on November 22, 1963, so perhaps the reader might question why they end up in these pages. Simply put, they appear among the outstanding items for research left on the desk of author Albarelli.

       A February 26, 1962 exposé “Neo-N-azis Linked to Algeria French” by correspondent Waverley Root, then living in Paris, published in The Washington Post, reveals that European extremists—known as Ultras—in Algeria were “now tied in with the worldwide clandestine neo-National Socialist organization which has existed ever since the end of the war, built around a core of Hitlerites who escaped post war justice. The head of this international N-azi underground has always been believed to be Madrid’s man of mystery, Otto Skorzeny, the SS trooper who rescued Mussolini from his captors.” More chilling, Root continues, “Skorzeny is reported to maintain contacts with former N-azis scattered throughout the world, especially in Latin America and the Middle East. They have not given up hope that N-azism may yet triumph throughout the world, and they seem prepared to lend their aid in any desperate venture of like political ideology which might achieve a Rightest authoritarian government anywhere.” (emphasis added.)

       Root’s informed sources said that “two of four defendants in the trial escaped and made their way to Spain.” The trial he refers to was the result of the arrest of those involved in the 1957 bazooka attack on General Raoul Salan. The far-right extremists were convinced that the general wasn’t fully on their side to halt the movement toward independence from France in Algeria. All charged with the attack had been found guilty. Among them was Doctor René Kovacs, who was sentenced to death in absentia following his escape. A physician by training, Kovacs was born in Algeria of [notably for our purposes] Hungarian parents. Along with his aide, Joseph Ortiz, a restaurateur and fellow far-right extremist, the two fled to Spain. 

       Root contends that Algerian Europeans devoted to far-right politics had long been alleged to have international connections. “Thus gave birth to any imperfectly known organization called the Red Hand,” writes Root, referring to a mysterious terror group organized to counter the National Liberation Front (FLN) in Algeria. According to freelance journalist Joachim Joesten, among the earliest sleuths to arrive in Dallas in pursuit of the facts of the assassination of Kennedy, the creator of the Red Hand was none other than the head of France’s DST—a man readers are now familiar with—Roger Wybot. Author Ralph Ganis, who pursued Joesten’s findings in depth, tells us that the Red Hand operated in the manner of paramilitary groups that sprang up after WWI of which Otto Skorzeny participated. Writes Ganis, “It was also very similar to the old Cagoule, the ‘hooded ones.’ 

Waverley Root also concluded that Kovacs and Ortiz, both of whom fled to Spain, were involved in the Skorzeny ring. Rounding out the triad with Kovacs and Ortiz, Root tells us that Belgian citizen Pierre Joly, “turns up regularly in French extreme-right activities of a conspiratorial nature. Joly [whose duties appear to have included propagation of extremist ideology on the printed page] was among those who appeared in Madrid when the refugees from the revolt trial arrived there.” Root then summarizes the significance of these figures ending up in Spain:

From there, the correspondent highlights the current crisis in Katanga, a break-away province from the Republic of Congo, which had contributed to the January 17, 1961 assassination of Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. The success of the operation has been attributed to, among others, Otto Skorzeny.

      Root draws attention to the likely role played by Algerian Ultras operating outside Toulouse—long a hotbed of French Algerian activity—in delivering three French jet planes from a factory outside Toulouse to Katanga. Of note, on September 25, 1963, Pierre Lafitte writes “LeCatet”; research strongly suggests this could be a location within the commune of Montbeton, north of Toulouse where a number of airfields were located, perhaps related to training camps. 

      As we learned, the American Committee for Aid to Katanga Freedom Fighters included Jack Crichton, the Dallas oilman who had been in business with Otto Skorzeny since 1952 and served as his point man on the 22nd of November.

4 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

 Steve, no I cannot do that- I do not have the Kross book.  The foonotes in "Coup in Dallas"  go from p. 587 to page 642.  Paul, I hear you.  My investment in my time is reading / understanding " Coup in Dallas"  , not the Kross book.   I have no opinion of the Kross book.  

Chuck, I'm at a disadvantage. Has Steve commented on this thread?

4 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

As i said i dont want to debate anything about the war (or the holocaust)(or the Nuremberg or Dachau or Berlin trials etc).

But i have zero tolerance for krappynomicysts & their krappynomix -- eg idiots like Schacht.

Re the jfk saga -- i solved the whole thing (ie what happened in Dealey Plaza on that day) in late 2022 -- but i do glance at the forums -- there have been a number of revelations etc by some very clever members.

But revelations karnt of course change what [i said] happened in Dealey Plaza -- what [i said] happened being 100% true.

This present thread is i think about some kind of conspiracy, & it might be 100% true -- but it wont of course change what [i said] happened in Dealey Plaza.

Apologies if I've overlooked your summation of what happened in Dealey, Marjan.  Is it available on EF or elsewhere?

It seems you're attempting to redirect the focus of this discussion from the series of significant revelations germane to the assassination in Dallas — specifically that Ilse Skorzeny and Hjalmar Schacht were at the Old Warsaw restaurant in the Maple/Oak Lawn neighborhood of Dallas on November 7, discussing $ with a character we are persuaded was Tracy Barnes — to whether or not Hjalmar Schacht was an astute banker.  Am I mistaken? 

22 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Marjan -  Leslie is certainly not an official jfk record keeper. Most of us are not that. 

Paul, the reference was to the records maintained (i.e., kept) here: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/nuremberg-trial-defendants-hjalmar-schacht

Admittedly, Marjan's responses are a bit confusing:

MR: Yes there was a conspiracy -- but it was not on German soil. Once again that there wording is all krapp.

Does he mean there — as in a location? or their, in which case — who are they?  Does he mean the wording in our book is all krapp, or the wording in the initial post of this thread is all krapp? Or does he mean that the the thorough account of Schacht's role in Hitler's Reich is all krapp?

MR: And, England & France declared war on Germany.

Is he defending the N-azis and rationalizing the Holocaust?

MR: All of that stuff is of interest to me but not worth arguing over today.

Why then is he actually arguing today — albeit in soundbites?  

4 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Krappynomix is a word that i invented -- to be used in place of krappy ECONOMICS. 

Krappy is based on the standard jargon KRAP or KRAPP.

Nomix is my way of spelling --NOMICS, ie the last parts of econ-nom-ics.

Were u around in Shakespeare's era? U would have loved giving him advice.

But, back to my  question(s).........

..... Why are u on  this forum if u believe the official jfk record keepers?

..... Is it to push the official jfk narrative(s)?

..... Why duz this jfk ed forum exist if everyone should believe the official jfk record keepers?

The record keepers referred to in my post are those whose ancestors experienced the Holocaust, Marjan. And according to their records, Hitler's former favorite banker Hjalmar Schacht should have been sentenced to a term in prison for his  assistance in the earlier phase of the conspiracy was an important factor in enabling the conspirators to seize the German state and thus pave the way for their later crimes. 

You are diverting from the essence of the post which is to reveal that certain US authorities colluded to assure Schacht would resume his career in service to those responsible for his release, and that the relevance of his direct ties to Ilse and Otto Skorzeny and the assassination of Kennedy in Dallas surfaced during Albarelli's investigation.

14 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

My main concern was that some readers might get the impression that Schacht was a genius -- he was the typical economist, an idiot.

Otherwise i dont care much about the war -- except that i have spent years reading the non-official records.

But i have zero tolerance for krappynomix. 

But, i thort that this whole jfk ed forum was about members knowing more than the official record keepers.

Your search - krappynomix - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

• Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
• Try different keywords.
• Try more general keywords.

41 minutes ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Yes there was a conspiracy -- but it was not on German soil. Once again that there wording is all krapp.

And, England & France declared war on Germany.

All of that stuff is of interest to me but not worth arguing over today.

If you would like for us to believe you know more than the official record keepers, you'll need to expand beyond "there wording is all krapp," which, btw, makes no sense whatsoever.

It's not worth arguing over today, yet you took the time to launch an argument?

I'm curious why you bother with a thread that you consider "krapp"?
 

 

2 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Ok -- except.

Schacht was an idiot (ie like 99.99% of american economists).

Schacht was sacked by Hitler.

Schacht had zero to do with Hitler's economic miracle.

Schacht committed  zero war crimes.

And the rest of your jfk wordage is krapp too.

JOSEPH MAIER DESCRIBES HJALMAR SCHACHT AT THE NUREMBERG TRIAL. . . with one exception — made the same impression on me,  a very sad, drab impression — the one exception because he had an extraordinary I.Q. was Hjalmar Schacht ... the former Reichsmark president had a very good I.Q.... — Joseph Maier,  from 1940 to 1943 assistant editor for a New York German-Jewish newspaper. In 1944, he worked in the American embassy in Britain as a propaganda analyst. He went to Nuremberg, Germany, as an interpreter in 1946. 
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/oral-history/joseph-maier-escribes-hjalmar-schacht-at-the-nuremberg-trial

E. SCHACHT'S LOSS OF POWER DID NOT IMPLY DISAGREEMENT WITH THE CONSPIRATORS' PROGRAM OF AGGRESSIVE WAR. 

(1) His resignation as Minister of Economics and General Plenipotentiary for War Economy. In November 1937, Schacht resigned his offices as Minister of Economics and General Plenipotentiary for War Economy. At the same time, he accepted appointment as Minister without Portfolio, and continued as President of the Reichsbank. It is submitted that the evidence shows at Schacht's resignations were merely the outgrowth of a clash between two power-seeking individuals, Goering and Schacht, over methods of creating a war economy. and over who should have final authority to direct the completion of the task. So far as appears, Schacht was in full accord with the other conspirators upon the desirability of providing Hitler with the means by which he eventually could carry out his planned aggressions. 

The basic differences between Schacht and Goering date from a period shortly after Goering became head of the Four-Year Plan Office. The latter office was created by Hitler in September 1936, and in connection therewith, Goering was "given far reaching powers to issue directives to all the highest offices of the State Party". Goering conceived of his function as head of the Four-Year Plan Office "within four years to put the entire economy in a state of readiness for war" (EC-408). 

Schacht was in agreement with the "aim and idea" of the Four Year Plan. He promised Goering his complete support and cooperation, and urged that Goering draw upon Schacht's long experience in economic affairs. . . .

 

. . . "*** to waste time in our situation would be the greatest reproach that history could make upon us. 

"May I beg, therefore, once more that the arrangement mentioned be expedited, and that I be notified accordingly." (EC-248) 

Finally, on 7 July 1937, Schacht and Goering signed an agreement of reconciliation in Berlin, wherein it was said that the tasks of Goering and Schacht "are being solved in closest mutual cooperation," and that "no doubt exists about the fact that the Commissioner General for War Economy has the position of a supreme authority of the Reich" 

Schacht resumed his duties as General Plenipotentiary with renewed vigor. On the day following his formal agreement with Goering, he wrote to General von Blomberg on "Measures for the preparation of the conduct of war," pledging continued cooperation in their mutual . . .

 

. . . There is nothing to indicate that Schacht's withdrawal from the Ministry of Economics and the Office of Plenipotentiary for War Economy in any sense represented a break with Hitler on the ground of contemplated military aggression. He consented to retain his position as President of the Reichsbank, where he remained undisputed master, and accepted the post of Minister of Portfolio, in order to be Hitler's "personal adviser." In the letter accepting Schacht's resignation as Minister of Economics, Hitler said: 

"If I accede to your wish it is with the expression of deepest gratitude for your so excellent achievements and in the happy consciousness that, as President of the Reichsbank Directorium, you will make available for the German people and me for many years more your outstanding knowledge and ability and your untiring working strength. Delighted at the fact that in the future, also, you are willing to be my personal adviser, I appoint you as of today a Reich Minister." (L-104). 

As President of the Reichsbank, Schacht continued to carry out Hitler's policies. . . . 

. . . Although Schacht apparently sought to convey the impression to Ambassador Bullitt that he desired to stay Hitler's hand but was powerless to do so, it is clear that he was actually in complete sympathy with Hitler's objectives. Despite the mounting tension which followed his conversation with Ambassador Bullitt, Schacht remained as President of the Reichsbank, and in that capacity established, in advance of the invasion of Austria, the rate of exchange between Marks and Austrian Schillings which was to prevail after the absorption of Austria (EC-421). 

Moreover, under his direction, the Austrian National Bank was merged into the Reichsbank (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1938, I, 254). His speech of 21 March 1938, to the employees of the former Austrian National Bank on the occasion of its obliteration as an independent institution, betrayed his true feelings. After inveighing against "the dictates of Versailles and St. Germain", -Schacht stated: 

"Thank God, these things could after all not hinder the great German people on their way, for Adolf Hitler has created a communion of German will and German thought, he bolstered it up with the newly strengthened Wehrmacht and he then finally gave the external form to the inner union between Germany and Austria." . . . 

. . . (3) Conclusion. Schacht's assistance in the earlier phase of the conspiracy was an important factor in enabling the conspirators to seize the German state and thus pave the way for their later crimes. His 'work was indispensable to the rearmament of Germany and to the economic planning and preparation required to launch the German wars of aggression. As long as he remained in power, he worked as eagerly for the preparation of aggressive war as any of his co-conspirators. He personally was favorably disposed towards aggression, if "Lebensraum" for Germany could not otherwise be attained. He knew that Hitler intended to and would break the peace, and with this knowledge, he willingly and purposely contributed his efforts. His withdrawal from three of his four posts reflected no moral feeling against the use of aggressive warfare as an instrument of national policy; he withdrew for reasons wholly unrelated to Hitler's program of illegal aggression. By the time of his withdrawal from these three positions, he had already provided his co-conspirators with the physical means and economic planning necessary to launch and maintain their wars of aggression; and he continued in his lucrative fourth position (Minister without Portfolio) until January 1943-until, in short, it became doubtful ether the conspirators could maintain the successes which they had gained in the wars they had illegally launched and were waging.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/nuremberg-trial-defendants-hjalmar-schacht

On 4/13/2023 at 7:42 AM, Michael Griffith said:

Leslie, if someone is going to criticize Clarence and Ginni Thomas for accepting lavish vacations from a billionaire who collects Third Reich souvenirs, they should never quote or cite, much less praise, L. Fletcher Prouty. Prouty had a close and disturbing relationship with Liberty Lobby, an anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying group founded by the notorious Willis Carto. Prouty even volunteered to serve as a character witness for Carto in the IHR trial. 

As for Harlan Crow, it turns out that he also collects other historical souvenirs, including documents signed by George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower's helmet, French Foreign Legion gear, and statues of Communist leaders. Crow's mother was a survivor of a ship sunk by the Germans in WWII. Even Israeli newspapers have noted that Jews who know Crow insist that he is actually pro-Israeli and is not pro-N-A-Z-I in any way. (That being said, having been raised Jewish for a brief period in my childhood, having lived in Israel for a short time, and having Hebrew as my second language, I personally could not stomach having any Third Reich memorabilia in my home.)

Michael,
I'm not sure how you moved from SCJ Thomas to Col. Prouty, but I do find the analogy of Crow and Carto fascinating considering the latter's close affiliation with General Edwin Walker. That said, nothing I've read suggests that Trammell Crow was an extreme right ideologue in spite of his business dealings with those who were, including oilman Clint Murchison. Crow Sr. was in favor of anything that was pro-business, and Harlan appears to have inherited a similar political philosophy.  A quick glance at one of his 501c.3s doesn't tell us much about his sense of social responsibility, although his brother seems to have put his shoulder to the wheel calls himself A Green Republican. I believe their sister carried on the family tradition of supporting the arts.


Would you be curious about the conversations around the room that houses those "souvenirs" or while strolling thought the sculpture garden?

Would an African American Supreme Court Justice discuss with his friends, the Crows, his ancestor's experiences?  Would SCJ Thomas compare the atrocities of slavery with the Holocaust ... knowing that the Germans had first experimented with the concepts in Namibia?  

In general, do you think collecting "souvenirs" of heinous behavior educates or elevates?

15 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

@Roger Odisio
[see italics]
I agree. From what we know about his training, discipline, and loyalty it would be totally out of character and therefore implausible for Souetre to "get drunk" and implicate himself and those he had served and trained with for years.

 

RO:  We're talking about real people with real emotions who sometimes make mistakes. Not your idea of a toy soldier in which training and discipline eliminates all of that.

LS: We're also talking about a highly trained paramilitary leader and former OAS Captain who might prefer an American death sentence to the reprisals of, say, SS Otto Skorzeny, not to mention the far right psychopaths, Lamy, Filiol, and Litt who wouldn't hesitate to slit the throat of a rat.

 

I think the Montreal scene does however fit to a degree with what is known about Mertz.

 

RO: If you think Mertz could have been the source of the story that means you think he was expelled.  How does that work, Leslie?

 

LS: Roger, I assume that we're all engaged in this analysis with the same end goal: to resolve the numerous anomalies to finally satisfy skeptics that Souetre was an essential cog in the plot to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas.  Has it occurred to you that Mertz was a plant in Montreal?  Did you review the caption to the photos of Soutre that reads . . . It is the agent of the DST Michel Mertz, from two different angles, infiltrator of the OAS environment . . .

I also agree that the following are problematic and hint to a possible deliberate obfuscation on the part of some or all who were involved in this communique.

 

“Subject [singular] is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter..."

 

If he was "well known" to the French, they would never say, "he was believed to be..."

 

If the French knew he was deported, how could they not know when or where?

 

RO:  Both of these thoughts are confused nonsense that hints at nothing of the sort. 

LS: Again, I think that relying on what the French did or did not include in the early 1964 communique could well be a distraction from what are the most essential documents — Dallas INS reports and the subsequent files fowarded to HQ in D.C. Names and descriptions should be in those reports.

I do agree that the original French inquiry leaves us clues, but as has been noted, the document  actually poses as many questions as it answers, perhaps deliberately. 

I hope you read my response to them in my comments to Steve. 

Until we establish whether the Dallas INS reports were either destroyed or remained classified for the past sixty years, we can only speculate why the French reached out in early 1964.  

 

RO: No, we know why the French inquired about Souetre to the US.  It was because they looked into the expulsion story, interviewed the reporter, and concluded both the story and the possible threat from Souetre to DeGaulle were real.

LS: Does this not beg the question why the French relied on a reporter rather than established official US channels? For example, Souetre was known to have met with reps from the agency in the spring of '63. Are you thinking the French weren't apprised?  Are you aware that Philippe de Vosjoli was still with SDECE at the time regardless of reports he had become frustrated with his own bosses?

And until we get to the bottom of the status of the files the HSCA received from Shaw/Fensterwald as well as those Blakey later referred to as "still classified so I have to be careful",  those who refuse to consider Lafitte's records will continue to shadow-box. We on the other hand are moving swiftly to determine the chain of command within INS that caused the expulsion of French citizen(s), incidents that may well have been red herrings.  We do know Souetre flew out in a plane piloted by Joseph Silverthorne. 

 

RO:  The CIA had their own planes and pilots.  You just named Silverthorne as the pilot who flew Souetre out of Dallas.  If you think Souetre was there, undoubtedly the planners would have had a plan in place to expell him after the job.  Secretly.  Without involving commercial airlines or the INS. Without any record of him having even been in Dallas.

LS: and now we arrive at the dilemma.  Was Souetre detained and expelled? If so, Lafitte does not appear to be alarmed.  He quite deliberately refers to Jean's gone out, and to Silverthorne and Red, presumably Redbird airport.  Our hypothesis is that the expulsions were red herrings.

Yet, here we are, focused on those herrings instead of the clues left by Monsieur Lafitte that lead us to who sent him to Dallas that lead us to why.

 

Aeeemit-Tessandier's reporting wouldn't and shouldn't be accepted as solid evidence on its own, and a similar standard should apply to Souetre's own claims not to mention those of his friends that he wasn't in Dallas. 

 

RO:  No one is accepting A-T's reporting on its own.  I am giving weight to the French investigation of it, including the police interviewing of A-T, which led them to send an urgent inquiry to the US about why Souetre was expelled and to where. If someone can tear the article apart, I'm all ears.

LS: I appreciate the significance of Tessandier's reporting. Similarly, I place significant value, as did Hank, on Duffy's National Enquirer exposés placing Jean Rene Souetre in Dallas; and 
Paul Gluc's letters of admonition to Dir. Hoover that Souetre was involved and his statement, 
 
 

Mr. Director, only you can clear OTTO SKORZENY of guilt

of being (an) agent in the Dallas operation with (the) passive

complicity of Allen Dulles —Paul Gluc, March 14, 1975

43 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Roger,

The description of Roux, as desribed to them by a man named Gachman,  comes from at least two FBI docs:

“The FBI's Michel Roux was born on August 31, 1940 at Soyaux, Charaente, France.
 In 1964, he was described as a white male, 25-27 years old, 5'8”, 148-150 pounds,
 black hair.fair to olive complexion”

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83399#relPageId=3
also: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83410#relPageId=7  page 7

Steve Thomas

It has been established with near certainty that the Michel Roux, known personally to the Gachmans of Fort Worth is not the "Roux" detained in Dallas. The "Gachman's Roux" was not a known, trained assassin. 

Without the Dallas INS reports, we have no official record that either of the two Frenchmen detained — one of whom was collected from jail and the other near Gaston Ave —  used the alias "Roux".

The operative word in this ongoing debate is, "alias."

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Leslie - that your source disappeared is unsettling. Not only are the pics clearly of two different people, but it purports to come from French files and says Mertz was impersonating Souetre in Dallas. I would think it safe to assume this did not in fact come from official French files because of the glaring discrepancy in the photos. But since the French aren’t sharing we don’t know if they ultimately concluded that Mertz was in Dallas, but if that part is true it makes it easier to understand why they wouldn’t share the info. 

The party who shared the DST photos with caption insisted it was pulled directly from an official agency file.

When I challenged his assertion, pointing out that it appeared to me to be a commercial media publication, he became obstinate and insisted that he had been "inside" French officialdom at some point in his career so of course he knew the source.

He also claimed to know members of the Souetre family as well as Mertz's relatives, and warned me they might show up on my doorstep.  

The threat is not entirely dissimilar to recent threats I have received stating that Hungarian  Lajos Marton - who as you know Hank wrote was traveling with Jean Souetre — the subject of this very debate — might sue us. Said party who issued the threat has now contacted our publisher, so I'm in the process of determining whether his alleged credential with the University of Arizona is even valid, and why has he taken it upon himself to carry the legal mantle on behalf of an accused assassin living in Europe?

The coincidences are intriguing:  the vehement defense of Souetre on Ed Forum, and vehement defense of Lajos Marton by someone who apparently follows the forum from the shadows. 

In what Hank might refer to as High Strangeness, I received a menacing phone call within  two weeks of my posting excerpts from Coup in Dallas on the Ed Forum, many of which seem to have stirred the particular ire of a now former EF member.  Within days of his expulsion, having apparently waited some months if not a year or so of reading Coup, said ex-member posted a negative review of our book — his prerogative, obviously, but the timing suggests "revenge" might have been the motivator. Three days after the review and the menacing call, I received the Marton-related emails — the most recent of which referenced having followed Steve Thomas on Ed Forum — that threaten law suit.  High strangeness indeed.  

I determined that the best armor is sunlight so I took the string of coincidences public. The threats, legal and physical, have subsided; however, I've yet to hear directly from said ex-forum member so we will not drop our guard. 

On 4/12/2023 at 7:01 AM, Chris Barnard said:

You’re confusing that with calling out bad behaviour, Ron. There is a straight up mistruth repeated in this exchange which I can easily prove. Am I to assume that you are not able to process that? 

If you are referring to our private exchanges, Chris, you have my permission to copy / paste verbatim. It's even more obvious to me that you and a former member of the forum share a predisposition for silly memes in lieu of complete sentences to convey your frustrations. 

14 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Paul,

I wondered about that.

Do you have a physical description of  Michel-Victor Mertz?

Steve Thomas

see the composite photo.

11 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

And I believe that you or somebody here said that he was dark haired and 5’9” or thereabouts. Is that correct? 

The caption to the left of Souetre standing is roughly translated from French, This poor quality photograph is a unique piece. It is the agent of the DST Michel Mertz, from two difference angles, he was in Dallas November 22 where he pretended to be Souetre.  His presence in Texas is proof that the French services knew that Kennedy was going to be assassinated that day.

Obviously the standing photos are of Jean Rene Souetre.  My source for the article insisted this was pulled directly from official French files.  Unfortunately he disappeared just days after sharing it when I asked for clarification of the date of the publication, and why  a French agency would misidentify Souetre. 

42 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Paul,

I wondered about that.

Do you have a physical description of  Michel-Victor Mertz?

Steve Thomas

I've posted photos of Mertz earlier in this thread as I recall.

3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Roger,

A couple of things we might want to keep in mind:

1) The story by Louis Aeeemat-Tessandier might not be true. It might be a plant. What do we know of the author, or the paper?

2) In my years of studying Jean-Rene Souetre, I've never run across any accounts of him being a drinker. On the other hand, Michel-Victor Mertz was a known scoundrel and heroin dealer and after his double-cross of the OAS in the attack on DeGaulle at Pont-Sur-Seine in September, 1961, he was either exiled to, or fled to Montreal because he had been "outed"

3) Maurice Philipps, in his blog, "I Have Some Secrets For You:

https://somesecretsforyou.blogspot.com/2006/01/photo-gallery-2-from-de-dallas.html

says that it was Mertz who was deported from Dallas, not Souetre. If you ever get the chance, read his book,

From Montreal to Dallas

 

4) One has to read that memo carefully. Some of that is coming from the French, but some of it also is coming from the American writer of the memo. For instance, you can't say,

"Souetre and his aliases were well known to the French", but then follow that up with,

“Subject [singular] is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter..."

If he was "well known" to the French, they would never say, "he was believed to be..."

If the French knew he was deported, how could they not know when or where?

Steve Thomas

 

Steve, @Roger Odisio,
 I agree. From what we know about his training, discipline, and loyalty it would be totally out of character and therefore implausible for Souetre to "get drunk" and implicate himself and those he had served and trained with for years. I think the Montreal scene does however fit to a degree with what is known about Mertz.

I also agree that the following are problematic and hint to a possible deliberate obfuscation on the part of some or all who were involved in this communique.

“Subject [singular] is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter..."

If he was "well known" to the French, they would never say, "he was believed to be..."

If the French knew he was deported, how could they not know when or where?

Until we establish whether the Dallas INS reports were either destroyed or remained classified for the past sixty years, we can only speculate why the French reached out in early 1964.  

And until we get to the bottom of the status of the files the HSCA received from Shaw/Fensterwald as well as those Blakey later referred to as "still classified so I have to be careful",  those who refuse to consider Lafitte's records will continue to shadow-box. We on the other hand are moving swiftly to determine the chain of command within INS that caused the expulsion of French citizen(s), incidents that may well have been red herrings.  We do know Souetre flew out in a plane piloted by Joseph Silverthorne. 

Aeeemit-Tessandier's reporting wouldn't and shouldn't be accepted as solid evidence on its own, and a similar standard should apply to Souetre's own claims not to mention those of his friends that he wasn't in Dallas. 

It's possible SDECE Philippe de Vosjoli's fingerprints are on this, regardless of the official record asserting he had resigned earlier.  Resignation does not insist that one has severed all contacts with one's peers and subordinates.

 

41 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Yes, I read the article earlier this week. It's a bit one-sided and incomplete, wouldn't you say? Perhaps surprisingly, Israeli newspapers have been more measured in their stories on the issue, partly because they've spoken with Jews who know Crow.

I hadn't read about the real estate transaction Judge Thomas failed to disclose.  Propublica only published this today (which btw I should probably delete from this thread to avoid the ire of those who seem uncomfortable with historical context).

1 hour ago, David Boylan said:

Launch Meeting - Zoom

David, do you have another link? I don't seem to be able to connect. thanks.

Courts

Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Leslie, if someone is going to criticize Clarence and Ginni Thomas for accepting lavish vacations from a billionaire who collects Third Reich souvenirs, they should never quote or cite, much less praise, L. Fletcher Prouty. Prouty had a close and disturbing relationship with Liberty Lobby, an anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying group founded by the notorious Willis Carto. Prouty even volunteered to serve as a character witness for Carto in the IHR trial. 

As for Harlan Crow, it turns out that he also collects other historical souvenirs, including documents signed by George Washington, Dwight Eisenhower's helmet, French Foreign Legion gear, and statues of Communist leaders. Crow's mother was a survivor of a ship sunk by the Germans in WWII. Even Israeli newspapers have noted that Jews who know Crow insist that he is actually pro-Israeli and is not pro-N-A-Z-I in any way. (That being said, having been raised Jewish for a brief period in my childhood, having lived in Israel for a short time, and having Hebrew as my second language, I personally could not stomach having any Third Reich memorabilia in my home.)

Courts

Billionaire Harlan Crow Bought Property From Clarence Thomas. The Justice Didn’t Disclose the Deal.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus