Leslie Sharp

It Was The Best of Times! 🙂 You may have missed my response to you yesterday: And speaking of the back door: "At approximately 2 p.m., November 22, 1963, I was informed by an unidentified policeman of the DPD that a suspect had been seen entering the back door of the Texas Theater. I immediately proceeded to the Texas Theater...." — FBI SA Bardwell Dewitt Odum And as I noted in my response to Jim H. today, I've found no documentation to confirm that Odum drove straight to the back of the theatre based on the info provided him by the unidentified policeman. It's possible he was in front watching an Oswald being "dragged out" and never actually saw another suspect being "carted off." Did Bard file a report and I've overlooked it?

This question comes into better focus with a review of Dick Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much. In essence for those who haven't studied Dick's book, Richard Case Nagell warned Oswald he might be being set up. After his return from Mex City, Oswald had a bit of a meltdown according to Lafitte who wrote on October 6, Oswald — issue (!) check [checkmark] with caretaker... [*] Contributing to our understanding of the sequence of events, an October 15 classified ad in the DMN read, Running Man, please call me. Please. Please. signed "Lee." The following day, Oswald went to work at the depository. It appears from Lafitte's notes that the "issue" was resolved because by October 25 when Lafitte called Angleton in DC to determine that O[tto] says done — Oswald set in place —call Walker & Others, it's apparent that the strategist was satisfied to some extent that the patsy component of the assassination plan was back on track. On November 2, Lafitte records Runner Runner [FBI] w/ T 4 p.m. indicating another meeting was scheduled related in some way to Runner who we argue corresponds with the Oct 15 DMN classified ad signed by Lee. With that string of communication in mind — coupled with all that had transpired since April 1963 including Oswald's encounters with Richard Case Nagell who got himself arrested to avoid being implicated — is it reasonable to argue Oswald was completely in the dark as he walked in the door Friday morning? *NOTE: The primary candidate for caretaker is still FBI SA Bardwell Odum.

Only his statement that he had been advised by an unidentified police officer that a suspect had been led out the back entrance, leading to the logical argument that Odum drove straight to the back of the theater. I haven't seen evidence he was in front as an Oswald was dragged out. ' . . . Less than an hour after the rifle discovery, Bard Odum, along with Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department, was photographed leaving the depository building with the alleged rifle used by an alleged assassin from the sniper’s nest. Lt. Day later stated that en route to headquarters, SA Odum had used his car radio to contact the Dallas FBI office and described the rifle. As Gallagher pointed out in 1998, there didn’t seem to be a record of this communication, but there is no doubt that early descriptions of the rifle set in motion rampant confusion as to the official identification of the alleged weapon. Odum, an agent of the federal government, was at the DPD headquarters only briefly before dashing to the Texas Theater where a suspect in the shooting of a Dallas police officer was about to be apprehended. It has yet to be explained what prompted Odum to attend that particular arrest in the middle of what should have been the most aggressive manhunt in the nation’s history. Why would his boss, SAC Gordon Shanklin pull one of his prize protégés from the search for Kennedy’s assassin to pursue a local shooting, unless of course, Shanklin had already been advised that Lee Oswald would not only be charged with gunning down Officer J.D. Tippit, but that he would soon be charged with the assassination of Kennedy. Once Oswald was in custody at the Texas Theatre, Odum, instead of tracking federal arrests being made in critical hours of the assassination, inexplicably spent another hour and a half in pursuit of the Tippit shooting along with nearly a dozen DPD staff. Federal detentions in the Dallas area during that twenty-four hour period—persons of interest to the Feds since the spring of 1963—stand out: Jean Rene Souetre and Michel Mertz and possibly Michel Roux. Rather than being ordered to question Souetre and or Mertz or Roux, Odum seems focused on Tippit’s murder, even taking time to interview Helen Markham who had witnessed a young male fleeing the scene. In another rarely heralded essay published in the Fourth Decade in 1997, researcher Tom Wallace Lyons summed up Odum’s early influence over the Tippit investigation, asserting that Odum sewed the confusion that contributed to Markham being labeled as an inconsistent, unreliable witness for decades to come. In another noteworthy timeline, while Odum is biding time in Oak Cliff, pursuing a case that was technically outside his jurisdiction, Lee Oswald’s various addresses were being nailed down at the school book depository. Meanwhile, Oswald was being driven to police headquarters in Car Number 2 under the custody of Jerry Hill and his colleagues. According to Bill Simpich, another researcher who has long recognized that the elusive Bard demands close scrutiny, Jerry Hill had been on the sixth floor of the depository building when Mannlicher-Carcano shells were found and reported as a match to the rifle that Bard Odum escorted to police headquarters. Either the police department and the FBI were stretched thin that afternoon, or this was one of numerous serendipitous coincidences that would unfold in the next few days. . . . Researcher/author Simpich also references records that indicate the confusion facilitated by Odum around the identification of a Minox camera discovered in the Paines’ garage, discrepancies that were fueled by Michael Paine’s sudden realization that the camera was his. Simpich then reminds us of perhaps the most intriguing fact relevant to the pursuit of the real caretaker: SA Odum and Oswald had shared the same Irving barber, Cliff Shasteen. Absent the official records of Odum’s work schedule throughout 1963 to determine who he may or may not have been assigned, Shasteen provides perhaps the single most solid clue in support of the hypothesis that Odum was the Oswald caretaker named by Lafitte beginning in March 1963. — CiD

If I could hug you I would! I fought that battle for months and months on Morley's site, attempting to point out just that: A Patsy is Not Effective if Captured on Camera During the Assassination. And the hubris of Aussies claiming to be experts in interpreting the local vernacular was especially offensive to this Texan who spent fifteen years inside the beast that was Dallas in 1963. (caveat: Greg's research in a number of other areas appears solid.) With that out of the way, I wasn't being coy in my initial comment on this thread. We have never corresponded so I thought the Texas Theatre arrests (plural) would serve as an ice breaker. Odum's appearance on the scene is significant to our investigation. If he arrived at the back of the theatre at the prompting of an unidentified DP, he wouldn't appear in the photos in front. Without photos or additional testimony beyond Odum's affidavit, we have no way of knowing who he witnessed being removed from the back. If he was there, if he saw another O being walked out the back entrance, then he's even more complicit in the cover up than has been alleged.

Thanks, Jim. Before I respond in full about Westbrook, I'm trying to get my head around what's at stake here for the "Prayer Man" camp who appear to be represented on this thread. How do two arrests conflict with the hypothesis they've argued so vehemently (and dare I add obnoxiously, having been on the receiving end) for years?

So, in all the confusion, Odum's statement he had been advised that a suspect had been seen ENTERING the back door is irrelevant, or it might translate to "Applin was taken OUT the back door"? Does anyone venture a guess why an FBI agent was on the scene for the arrest of a suspect in the murder of a city cop? (I belive there may have been more than one federal agent at the theatre.) Was a suspect pointed out in the balcony, regardless of possible resemblance to Oswald?

On the Question of Herminio Diaz Garcia as a Shooter in Dealey Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli> Jan 16, 2019, 5:07 AM to me, A FYI From: Hank Albarelli Date: January 16, 2019 at 7:06:54 AM EST To: dick Subject: Note to Angleton There’s a very interesting post-assassination note to Angleton from Lafitte (this from you [sic] the Angleton family member) that points up two things: there was an assassin referred to as “Ostrich” that Lafitte agrees w/ Angleton as being very good (but seemingly not used in Dallas); and Lafitte agrees with Angleton on the merits of having not used Cubans in “direct capacities.” I [sic] pretty certain I know who Ostrich is/was but will only say once I’m absolutely there. [Ludwig Nebel] sharp <lesliemsharp17> Jan 16, 2019, 11:47 AM to Alan, Hank It is indeed. I wonder if the comment warrants a prominent place - perhaps very early in the book. Alan Kent <alanlkent> Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 11:56 AM to Hank, me I don't know where it ideally belongs, but it would be a very effective answer to the inevitable questions about the Cuban shooters who populate a great many scenarios. And "direct capacities" implies to me that Cubans may have been utilized in "other capacities," which I believe that a small number were. sharp <lesliemsharp17@gmail.com> Jan 16, 2019, 12:14 PM to Alan, Hank Hank and I had a similar discussion by phone this morning. But I don't know that we can leap from "having no direct capacities" to "may have been utilized in 'other capacities,'" at least not if we are relying on evidence from Lafitte and or Angleton. The Cubans were working for the CIA, no doubt, but does that mean they were involved in the assassination of Kennedy. I realize that tomes have been written on the topic, which makes this exchange between Lafitte and Angleton all the more explosive ... ergo a fairly prominent place in the book. I have frequently argued that in the end, the Cubans were used as patsies. Hank makes a strong argument that Cubans could not be trusted. leslie sharp <lesliemsharp17> Jan 16, 2019, 1:37 PM to Hank, Alan I said 'huge', because it indicates to me at least that Cubans were hardly instrumental in the assassination, contrary to what many researchers have argued . It is also huge if it can be determined that Lafitte / Angleton did not employ any Cubans - at all - in any capacity - in the operation. Alan makes a sound argument that Cubans may have been used in 'other capacities' in his monograph about Umbrella Man and Radio Guy, among others, but if those characters haven't surfaced in any Lafitte material, the claim that Cubans were on the ground will need to come from other sources. Alan, I haven't read your work in that area for a month or so. I'll revisit it in light of this new development. I do remember being impressed by the logic and by the conclusions, but now I have to ask, why didn't those characters surface in Lafitte's writings, particularly when he actually referenced 'Cubans' not being utilized in a 'direct capacity'? Could it be he wasn't privy to them being used? Hank Albarelli Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 12:30 PM to me, A When I worked at the White House I was told by a Cuban “leader” to never trust a Cuban with anything you don’t want known or much else. Filed it away in my head. Andreas hated JFK as he blamed him for having killed his parents. Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli> Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 2:41 PM to me, Alan I think it’s important to consider that Lafitte, Angleton, and Harvey shared a cultural bias against Cubans... obviously they stuck with “their own” — Americans, French, Italian, Jews/Israelis, a few others. QJ/WIN no Cubans... worth thinking about... Alan to Hank, me I think that point is important - and the ethnic bias in favor of "their own" plays into this. They believed that the Cubans talked too much, and probably that half of the radical Cuban community was infiltrated by Castro's G-2. Another, complementary point, is that using Cubans as gunmen in Dallas would have been far more dangerous than using white men who spoke multiple languages. A greater chance that a person of color would be noticeable at that time and place. Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli> Jan 16, 2019, 5:06 PM to A, me Great points!

Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli> Jan 16, 2019, 5:07 AM to me, A FYI From: Hank Albarelli Date: January 16, 2019 at 7:06:54 AM EST To: dick Subject: Note to Angleton There’s a very interesting post-assassination note to Angleton from Lafitte (this from you [sic] the Angleton family member) that points up two things: there was an assassin referred to as “Ostrich” that Lafitte agrees w/ Angleton as being very good (but seemingly not used in Dallas); and Lafitte agrees with Angleton on the merits of having not used Cubans in “direct capacities.” I [sic] pretty certain I know who Ostrich is/was but will only say once I’m absolutely there. [Ludwig Nebel] sharp <lesliemsharp17> Jan 16, 2019, 11:47 AM to Alan, Hank It is indeed. I wonder if the comment warrants a prominent place - perhaps very early in the book. Alan Kent <alanlkent> Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 11:56 AM to Hank, me I don't know where it ideally belongs, but it would be a very effective answer to the inevitable questions about the Cuban shooters who populate a great many scenarios. And "direct capacities" implies to me that Cubans may have been utilized in "other capacities," which I believe that a small number were. sharp <lesliemsharp17> Jan 16, 2019, 12:14 PM to Alan, Hank Hank and I had a similar discussion by phone this morning. But I don't know that we can leap from "having no direct capacities" to "may have been utilized in 'other capacities,'" at least not if we are relying on evidence from Lafitte and or Angleton. The Cubans were working for the CIA, no doubt, but does that mean they were involved in the assassination of Kennedy. I realize that tomes have been written on the topic, which makes this exchange between Lafitte and Angleton all the more explosive ... ergo a fairly prominent place in the book. I have frequently argued that in the end, the Cubans were used as patsies. Hank makes a strong argument that Cubans could not be trusted. leslie sharp <lesliemsharp17> Jan 16, 2019, 1:37 PM to Hank, Alan I said 'huge', because it indicates to me at least that Cubans were hardly instrumental in the assassination, contrary to what many researchers have argued . It is also huge if it can be determined that Lafitte / Angleton did not employ any Cubans - at all - in any capacity - in the operation. Alan makes a sound argument that Cubans may have been used in 'other capacities' in his monograph about Umbrella Man and Radio Guy, among others, but if those characters haven't surfaced in any Lafitte material, the claim that Cubans were on the ground will need to come from other sources. Alan, I haven't read your work in that area for a month or so. I'll revisit it in light of this new development. I do remember being impressed by the logic and by the conclusions, but now I have to ask, why didn't those characters surface in Lafitte's writings, particularly when he actually referenced 'Cubans' not being utilized in a 'direct capacity'? Could it be he wasn't privy to them being used? Hank Albarelli Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 12:30 PM to me, A When I worked at the White House I was told by a Cuban “leader” to never trust a Cuban with anything you don’t want known or much else. Filed it away in my head. Andreas hated JFK as he blamed him for having killed his parents. Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli> Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 2:41 PM to me, Alan I think it’s important to consider that Lafitte, Angleton, and Harvey shared a cultural bias against Cubans... obviously they stuck with “their own” — Americans, French, Italian, Jews/Israelis, a few others. QJ/WIN no Cubans... worth thinking about... Alan to Hank, me I think that point is important - and the ethnic bias in favor of "their own" plays into this. They believed that the Cubans talked too much, and probably that half of the radical Cuban community was infiltrated by Castro's G-2. Another, complementary point, is that using Cubans as gunmen in Dallas would have been far more dangerous than using white men who spoke multiple languages. A greater chance that a person of color would be noticeable at that time and place. Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli> Jan 16, 2019, 5:06 PM to A, me Great points!

Thanks, Ron. Your timeline is persuasive and I agree that it's possible Bush was in Dallas Thursday nite, flew back to Tyler, and returned to Dallas after the announcement. My interest in reviewing this episode is to establish whether Barbara Bush deliberately sowed misinformation with that letter. Her friends in Tyler who knew precisely their whereabouts would be complicit in the 'cover up' if they knew George spent the night in Dallas following the AAODC meeting yet Barbara claimed otherwise; she very effectively established an alibi for George by writing that Zeppa flew them to Dallas on Friday, but she also left open a window in the event that George's speech at the AAODC Thursday evening had been announced. If she wittingly obfuscated the itinerary and the Ulmers and Zeppas were complicit — at least by omission — then there must be a reason beyond that of friendship. From there, I'm keenly intrigued to realize in hindsight that Russ Baker was "on to" the oil scheme in Madrid that relied heavily on Joe Zeppa's Delta Drilling. But why did he fail to recognize the significance of timing that Al Ulmer (who was in Tyler with the Bush couple and the Zeppas during the week of the assassination) was posted in Madrid at the time Otto and Ilse Skorzeny 'set up shop for the World Commerce Corp created by Ulmer's boss Allen Dulles and his former OSS boss Bill Donovan? Is Skorzeny the "connection within the fascist Franco regime" referenced by Russ? If so, why did he avoid naming him, or Degrelle, or perhaps Rudel who was in and out of Madrid as well. Did any of those involved in the Texas consortium file tax returns to reflect that business deal in Spain? Or, did Russ just not come across Otto's involvement because he was more focused on Jack Crichton who represented a compelling factor in the overall thesis developed in FOS — George Bush was involved in the assassination. For me, this is a lesson in only seeing what we're looking for. Was Skorzeny simply a bridge too far for far too many researchers. How much further along might we be had investigative reporters chosen to coalesce rather than compete.

So, Burroughs didn't confirm LHO — or an Oswald Look Alike — was in the balcony; he only concluded he (one of the Oswalds) had been in the balcony because one of them entered the concession area through the other access doors? But, isn't there additional testimony that someone in the theatre pointed to someone in the balcony, that's the guy you're looking for (paraphrasing)? And speaking of the back door: "At approximately 2 p.m., November 22, 1963, I was informed by an unidentified policeman of the DPD that a suspect had been seen entering the back door of the Texas Theater. I immediately proceeded to the Texas Theater...." — FBI SA Bardwell Dewitt Odum Is this why Odum was never called to testify? From the outset, he knew too much? He had walked with Lt. Day out of the TSBD carrying the alleged rifle; he's partially responsible for the misidentification of that rifle; he rushes to the Texas Theatre to witness the arrest of an alleged police killer in the middle of a manhunt for the assassin of the President; he discredits Helen Markham; he receives the photos from MC and takes them to show Marguerite in spite of Hosty telling him, "that's NOT Oswald;" he interviews Sylvia Odio; he is known personally to both Michael and Ruth Paine prior to the assassination; he's involved in the confusion regarding CE 399 . . . and yet, his obituary some decades later does not make a single reference to his role in the investigation into the assassination of the president in Dallas.

Let me walk you through this slowly: Two Oswalds are in the theatre. Both are Caucasian. One opts to sit in the main auditorium. Another climbs the stairs to the Coloreds Only balcony. 1) Why didn't both white guys sit in the auditorium? 2) Why would LHO — who was raised in the South and knew segregation protocol — risk calling attention by heading for the balcony? 3) If Look Alike Oswald sat in the balcony was it to guarantee he would be spotted? 4) Was the poorly lit balcony the safest place for LHO to meet up with his handler?

Ron was gracious enough to link to the relevant forum discussion. Oswald's frequent references to those personal experiences that informed his politics provides insight into what he was cognizant of in 1963, including racial segregation n America. You continue to reveal how unqualified you are to contribute to threads focused on specifics of the investigation.

Thanks very much, Ron. Has it been determined whether the Oswald taken out the back is the same Balcony Oswald who Burroughs sold popcorn to? And does the Stringfellow statement that Oswald was arrested in the balcony align with both?

Jonathan, you made the assertion and cited Douglass so I think the burden is on you? Oswald born in New Orleans grew up in the South and would be cognizant of the significance of heading to the balcony; he would only do so if in solidarity to the African American community OR to meet someone in the dark of the balcony. Ergo, the importance of identifying whether there were two Oswalds in the theatre during the critical episode.

Can you be more specific, Jonathan? Appealing to the authority of Douglass doesn't do him justice. Please provide detail. Also, do you know why an Oswald would head for the balcony of a movie theatre in a still highly segregated city?

@Jim Hargrove Can you refresh my memory as it's been years since I studied Armstrong and I don't have a copy of his work at hand. Does he address the possibility of two Oswalds in play during the arrest at the Texas Theatre?

But . . . Russ leaves room for the possibility of a Friday flight from Tyler to Dallas. in writing about the syndicate that used connections in the fascist Franco regime to acquire rare drilling rights in Spain, an operation handled by Delta Drilling, he notes that the owner of Delta Drilling was Joe Zeppa of Tyler, Texas "— the man who transported Poppy Bush from Tyler to Dallas on November 22, 1963." An interesting exercise was to identify when precisely the American Legion scheduled their 1964 national conference. The timing was not particularly suspicious although I was surprised that size conference could be pulled off a year in advance. It might be prudent to determine when Pepsi put their convention in Dallas on the books; convention halls have to be reserved, hotel accommodations blocked etc. Did Pepsi only schedule Dallas after rumors Kennedy would head for Texas toward the end of the year, or was the event booked in 1962 allowing sufficient time for preparations. Frito/Lay was based in Dallas so it was "a natural." (Don Kendall and Nixon had been allies for years.) Most conventions of any size are booked three-five years in advance in order to reserve hotel space. All by way of arguing that Nixon's appearance in Dallas at the Pepsi convention is not out of the ordinary UNLESS Pepsi booked their convention after the announcement of Kennedy's potential trip to Texas and that's fairly implausible. (and, of course one can ask whether Kennedy's trip was scheduled around Pepsi?) It's also possible that Bush and Zeppa returned to Tyler Thursday night, only to turn around Friday once the announcement was made; final hurdle of this analysis is the scheduled event in Tyler on Friday. What if anything do we know with certainty about that?

@Cory Santos @W. Niederhut Hiding in plain site. FOS photo collection (unindexed): The Dallas Morning News. Wednesday, November 20, 1963 CLUB ACTIVITIES American Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, 8:30 p.m. Thursday, November 21. Sheraton-Dallas Hotel: George Bush, president Zapata Off-Shore Co.

Cory, I recommend this well footnoted monograph by Anthony Kimery from Covert Action 1992. https://covertactionmagazine.com/2018/12/05/george-bush-and-the-cia-in-the-company-of-friends/

Our take on BBH, Mallon, Republic National Bank of Dallas . . . The history of Dresser Industries, rising from a simple Oklahoma based pipeline business that serviced the oil industry to a conglomerate composed of long-established military contractors on a global scale, is complex. In the late 1920s, having survived as a solid but unexceptional business—except for the coveted patents they held—the Dresser family sold out to a fledgling private banking firm, Brown Brothers Harriman. In it what is alleged to have been a purely serendipitous moment, Ohio native and Yale graduate Henry Neil Mallon ambled through the doors of BBH, only to have Roland Harriman, a founding partner, spot him and cry out, “Dresser!” In spite of having no specific training in the specialized pipeline industry, Mallon, who was a friend of banker and politician Prescott Bush who had joined the Harriman banking firm, assumed the presidency of Dresser. During WWII, Mallon also mysteriously established a line of communication with NY lawyer and fellow OSS agent, Allen Dulles who would eventually control the Central Intelligence Agency, suggesting that Mallon long had the backing of close friends in positions of power. The roots of Mallon’s benefactors extended to 19th century England. BBH was the result of a merger of Alex, Brown & Sons and the old-line Harriman family interests in the US. One of the first American financial organizations to help finance post-war rehabilitation in Europe, the firm boasted some of the country’s most notable executives and directors in the field of finance including George Herbert Walker of St. Louis and lawyer/statesman Robert A. Lovett of Texas whose father was a founding member of BBH. It was Lovett junior who a young President Kennedy would consult how best to fill his first cabinet. Another propitious nepotistic hire at BBH was George Walker’s son-in-law Prescott Bush, the congressman who would spawn generations of politicians including US presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. During the 1930s, the son of railroad tycoon E. Roland Harriman, W. Averell Harriman and his banking firm BBH had turned a blind eye to the rise of fascism in Germany, and continued to do business with both communist Soviet Union and Germany long after Hitler’s invasion of Poland. Particularly odious is that he did so from a unique post as US Ambassador to the Soviet Union beginning in 1943. The firms that BBH, and by extension Harriman, profited from during the war included: Union Banking Corporation—the American arm of German steel magnate and “Hitler’s Angel,” Fritz Thyssen who helped fund the rise of the Nazis; Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation; Holland-American Trading Corporation and Silesian-American Corporation whose records reveal that Harriman’s partner, Prescott Bush of BBH was board member; and Dresser Industries. Eventually, Neil Mallon had gobbled up on behalf of BBH and Dresser a significant number of military-related industries to create one of the country’s most important cogs in the “defense of freedom.” According to his obituary, Mallon “. . . built Dresser from an obscure pipeline equipment concern to a world leader in energy related products . . . Dresser currently employs 40,000 people in North America and reported earnings of $172.3 million in 1982 on revenues of $4.16 billion.” Mallon proved to be an enigma in early Kennedy assassination research. Little is reported about his birth and childhood, perhaps because it lacked luster, perhaps because his early life has been deliberately obscured, or perhaps because he was a tool of US intelligence in league with the military industrial complex who benefited from decades of cover. However, Mallon may also be one of the more significant characters lurking behind the curtains, pulling strings. It has been credibly established that he was not only responsible for Prescott Bush’s son, George H. W. Bush’s move to Texas, but that he was an early investor in Bush’s oil venture Zapata Oil with operations in the Gulf of Mexico made available to US intelligence as needed. Although it is not the mandate of this book to debate whether Mallon’s protégé, George H. W. Bush was privy to information, let alone an active participant in the events in Dealey Plaza, no assessment of the “lay of the land” of the assassination or analysis of Dresser and Neil Mallon—with his entrenched friendship with James Angleton’s boss, Allen Dulles—would be complete without considering Bush. The fact is, nowhere in the records of Pierre Lafitte who was clearly possessed of specific and detailed information related to the planning and execution of the coup in Dallas, is there a direct reference to Bush. It could be argued that given the aforementioned history, Neil Mallon and those with whom he had fraternized within the petroleum industry and the intelligence community long before his young protégé (thirty years his junior), is as much a candidate for being privy to plans for the hit in Dallas as GHW Bush. According to freelance investigative journalist Anthony Kimery’s monograph, “George Bush and the CIA: In the Company of Friends,” available online at CovertAction Magazine, December 2018, “Mallon was a friend to numerous ranking Cold War era intelligence officials, including Allen Dulles—an OSS veteran and ground floor official of the CIA . . . Mallon steered prospective candidates for spy work to Dulles and often provided cover employment to CIA operatives . . . ” According to Kimery, among them was George de Mohrenschildt, another particularly important operative with whom Mallon was well acquainted, who had been part of the spy network Dulles ran inside Hitler’s intelligence organization. Mallon personally introduced the Count to a young twenty-four year old from Connecticut, George Bush at about the same time he handed Bush the highly sensitive responsibility of negotiating Eastern-bloc deals. It soon became apparent that Bush was able to wheel and deal with the communists’ petroleum experts without the slightest grimace by US authorities. In fact, writes Kimery, “when a Yugoslavian oil industry official came to the US in 1948 to talk to Dresser Industries, the State Department barely flinched and he went straight to neophyte salesman George Bush in Midland, Texas.” Bush and de Mohrenschildt, whose mutual focus on Yugoslavia is well documented, joined a cadre of young men who served as Mallon’s (and by extension Dulles’s) eyes and ears, arms and legs in the petroleum industry during the Cold War. From his perch in Dresser headquarters in the Republic National Bank building, Mallon, who served on the board of Republic National, was the ideal conduit for his friend Allen Dulles, and his fellow board member at Republic National, Algur H. Meadows leads us to the second location under scrutiny.

I'm looking for an article that reported the meeting and his speech, or perhaps a programme that establishes GHWB was at the AAODC meeting Thursday evening. If we're relying on Russ Baker for the citation, he doesn't provide one that I can find. His FOS footnotes prior to the reference to the meeting and following it don't provide clues to his source. It makes complete sense that Bush and Zeppa were both there, but is there a specific source to corroborate? I'm not an apologist for Bush, but he was campaigning heavily for Senate so any venue would be attractive and particularly one related to the oil industry; that the President was scheduled to arrive on Friday — drawing significant crowds — would make his presence all the more logical whether it was Thursday and/or Friday. I'm trying to identify the evidence he was in Dallas Thursday night which would indicate as has been posited that Barbara deliberately misrepresented their schedule to cover for him. In turn, such evidence would implicate the Zeppas, the Ulmers and others in Texas who could attest to their precise whereabouts. If both Joe Zeppa and Al and/or brother Dan Ulmer knew what was in play for the 22nd, they were complicit as well — yet we only hone in on Bush?

We could probably establish when the official Andover break was scheduled but that wouldn't preclude the possibility he left for Texas early. Like I said . . . I agree Barbara's note is Jane-Austin-esque, and had I not been familiar with the significance of Zeppa and especially at the time Lone Star Steel whose board included one Prez or CEO from each of four of Dallas' largest banks and one in Wichita Falls — and Zeppa's position on small board of Petroleum Reserves (with a representative from ITEK who worked for Cerro mining whose chairman was ambassador to Belgium in the lead up to Lumumba's murder*) with offices at the International Building in Manhattan where Dulles occupied an office following his 'retirement' — I wouldn't have considered Barbara's note as possibly legitimate. Remember she mentions that she had started the letter several days prior, so mentally her children weren't in Houston, right? I always thought Russ established a powerful circumstantial argument that GHWB was directly involved in the conspiracy but imv he failed to land the plane (no pun intended). No testimony or documents prove beyond doubt George met to discuss the strategy nor does Russ offer any indication he was directly involved in preparations on the ground nor do we see his hand on the cover up until later. However, as you pointed out, his connections in Midland/Odessa are as significant as any ... Neil Mallon mentoring him on behalf of Prescott and Brown Bros. Harriman's investment in Dresser; Mallon's decades-long friendship with Allen Dulles who shows up in Dallas on October 28-29 to speak about Algeria as Africa's Cuba before the WCA which provided both men the opportunity for a briefing on "Lancelot Planning" described by Lafitte on those dates. I believe it's that kind of evidence Russ lacked ... he has the who, what, why, but he didn't identify the "HOW." I'm aware Russ is now highly skeptical of the datebook which he reviewed first hand in early 2022 at my invitation. He was interested initially but it's my understanding he subsequently determined it's most likely not a legitimate record (my words not his). Had there been a clear indication George Bush was in on the Lancelot Project, I suspect Russ might have been more receptive, as is the case with many detractors of Coup.

Tks. I don't think I've read that GHWB was taken to the sheriff's office. Is preppy plaid jacket guy a photo of GWB on another occasion? Fwiw, to my naked eye the guy in profile shots isn't Dubya. Puggier features.

Col. Charles Askins (continued) In another account by an avid gun historian, we learn that Askins "did not hesitate to shoot opponents regardless of race or nationality but didn’t consider those of minority status worth counting in his tally." Askins himself said that he hunted animals so avidly because he wasn't allowed to hunt men anymore. An expert on the use of lethal force and editor and contributing columnist to two of the country's most read gun magazines wrote, “I knew Charlie Askins as a man who was fun to drink with, but a man you wouldn't want to get drunk with. He was an adoring husband and father, a lover of horses and a sucker for stray dogs. When his many fans wrote him, he answered them promptly and (usually) politely. Perhaps it was a natural compensation for the part of him that went beyond survival euphoria in the pleasure he took after killing a man… There were facets of Charlie that I wouldn't want in a cop. There was racism. There was a killer instinct, too strong, strong enough to sometimes slip its leash.”