Jump to content
The Education Forum

Gaeton Fonzi Response to Bugliosi


Recommended Posts

Bobby Kennedy knew who killed his brother -- a clique of operatives

of varying backgrounds whose desire for the US to take over Cuba lead

them to happily kill Jack.

Some of those guys made death-bed/drunken confessions to close

friends or family members.

I think the case is resolved to 95% (reasonable conclusion, but not 100%).

I find this resolution in the following:

THE LAST INVESTIGATION, by Gaeton Fonzi

BREACH OF TRUST, by Gerald McKnight

SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED by Larry Hancock

BROTHERS, by David Talbot

Add the following links (keyword: Lansdale)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

http://www.ratical.org///ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/g..._CIA_Agent.html

A partial list of perps for both murder & cover up (very incomplete but I believe it's accurate as far as it goes):

-LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON

-J. EDGAR HOOVER

-WILLIAM K. HARVEY

-DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS

-DAVID MORALES

-E. HOWARD HUNT

-FRANK STURGIS

-GERRY P. HEMMING

-ED LANDSDALE

-EDWIN ANDERSON WALKER

-GENERAL CURTIS LEMAY

-JOSEPH MILTEER

-HL HUNT

-NELSON BUNKER HUNT

-BOBBY BAKER

-JACK RUBY

-DAVID FERRIE

-CLAY SHAW

-GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH

-EMERY ROBERTS

-JOHNNY ROSELLI

-JIMMY HOFFA

-RAY HARGRAVES

-PENTAGON

-CIA/MOB/EXTREMIST ANTI-CASTRO CUBAN EXILES

-FBI

-DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT

-JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY

-SECRET SERVICE

Possible perps:

-Clint Murchison

-Richard Nixon

-John Rousselot

-J.D. Tippit

-Roscoe White

-Cord Meyer

-James Angleton

-William Pawley

-John McCloy

-Allen Dulles

-Earle Cabell

-SA Kellerman

-SA Greer

-Lamar Hunt

-Jesse Curry

-Bill Decker

-Carlos Marcello

-Charles Nicoletti

-Sam Giancana

-Eugene Hale Brading

-Ted Shackley

-Lucien E. Conein

-Alfredo Duran

-Rip Robertson

-John O'Hare

-Danny Arce

-Boris Pash

-Orlando Bosch

(I need to reread Larry's book; I'm spacing on some names.)

...

The JFK assassination (I'm 95% certain) was a failed false flag

attack designed to establish a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba.

A lot of individual agendas were fulfilled on 11/22/63, but the primary

objective -- convincingly pinning Oswald to Castro -- failed when the

patsy was captured alive.

How come they couldn't go ahead and blame Cuba & invade after Ruby killed Oswald?

Using a mobster to silence the innocence-proclaiming patsy put a gaping

hole in the frame job.

A memo from then-CJCS Lemnitzer in Feb. '62 establishes the critera the

super-hawks needed to meet for framing a successful pre-text to invade Cuba.

This is in reference to Operation Dirty Tricks, a contingency plan developed

by the Joint Chiefs to take advantage of John Glenn's 1962 flight should it

have exploded.

The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY

manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba

[sic]....This to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of

evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the

Cubans.

Operation Dirty Tricks came and went, so the Chiefs liked the

idea of mounting a false flag attack on Americans on American soil

(Operation Northwoods) -- and there had to be "irrevocable proof"

that the fault lay at the feet of Castro.

Had Oswald been shot the early afternoon of 11/22/63, he could have

been readily presented to the world as a Castro agent.

The FBI, the CIA, and military intel had the frame set. Oswald in Russia,

Cuba, Soviet and Cuban Embassies in Mexico City.

According to one account, Carlo Gambino blamed the CIA for

'Screwing up the Cuba thing. Screwing up the Kennedy thing."

I'd take that to mean the CIA had the ultimate responsibility to see

the frame through with Oswald's early demise -- and something went

awry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please add William Harvey to the list... he had all the right connections and associations, one heck of a motive, and the exclusive means.

I agree about Harvey Gene, and have him on my original list.

David Talbot gave details of Harvey in his book "Brothers" that make him seem like a prime suspect.

By "one heck of a motive" do you mean his job reassignment within the CIA after he pissed off the Kennedys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Myra:

Yes (sorry for late response). Putting myself in his proud and capable government 'shoes', and after all of his down and dirty (i.e. did the real dangerous field stuff) work in intelligence, he runs up against Bobby... and he ultimately gets creamed, and loses his rank and privlidge. It seems his career was done after RFK had him banished to Rome. A clear demotion. Projecting into his ego and professional pride... I think he got more than just mad. He got even.

Gene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gene Kelly wrote:

"Please add William Harvey to the list... he had all the right connections and associations, one heck of a motive, and the exclusive means."

"The exclusive means?" Oh, come on, now. Only Harvey had the means to kill JFK?

Bugliosi is wrong in most he writes but he is correct when he disparages those of us who believe in conspiracy who dwell on "means, motive and opportunity". Why if one employs that standard Jackie Kennedy would be high on the list of suspects. Well, of course I do not seriously propose her as a suspect and of course if she had planned to kill JFK she would not have arranged a sniper attack when she was sitting next to him.

But there were literally thousands of people who had means, motive and opportunity. JFK riding in open limousines provided the opportunity, and anyone with motive and money had the means to kill JFK by hiring professional assassins.

*********************************

Bugliosi: "In my years as a prosecutor, I never once used the phrase ["means, motive and opportunity"] and I personally don't know any seasoned prosecutor who has. . . Much more so than motive, "means and opportunity" are virtually worthless as evidence of guilt (unless of course one can show that no other living human, or few other living humans, had the means or opportunity)."

I think he is mostly correct there although most prosecutors will introduce evidence of all three items, and if the defense can introduce evidence that negates opportunity (e.g. an alibi) that can clearly demonstrate the absence of guilt. It would be interesting to ask Bugliosi to designate one of the murders he so successfully prosecuted in which he did NOT introduce evidence of motive and/or opportunity. I bet he would be hard put to identify a single case.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was the Colbert interview where Bugliosi said that all conspiracy theorists were insane or something equally derogatory. So, here we have Bugliosi and other lone nut proponents who 'know' that Oswald acted alone and that all the evidence points at him.

Reality: No one has yet been able to put the gun in Oswald's hands. Even Jessie Curry agreed with that. Isn't that reasonable doubt?

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gene Kelly wrote:

"Please add William Harvey to the list... he had all the right connections and associations, one heck of a motive, and the exclusive means."

"The exclusive means?" Oh, come on, now. Only Harvey had the means to kill JFK?

Bugliosi is wrong in most he writes but he is correct when he disparages those of us who believe in conspiracy who dwell on "means, motive and opportunity". Why if one employs that standard Jackie Kennedy would be high on the list of suspects. Well, of course I do not seriously propose her as a suspect and of course if she had planned to kill JFK she would not have arranged a sniper attack when she was sitting next to him.

But there were literally thousands of people who had means, motive and opportunity. JFK riding in open limousines provided the opportunity, and anyone with motive and money had the means to kill JFK by hiring professional assassins.

Tim,

In respondiong to Bugliosi one only has to deal with one issue - the Motive of his accused assassin - Lee Harvey Oswald.

Rather than look at the universe of people with the means, motive and opportunity to kill JFK, just identify the motive of the one guy they accuse of doing it.

It all comes down to that one question, and the motive Bugliosi attributes to him is a psycho-one, while those who understand the murder was a conspiracy, whether LHO the lone-gunman or not, recognize the political motive behind the assassination.

Those who claim LHO the lone-assassin, also refuse to recognize that if that is indeed the case, he was a real professional, ala the lone gunman of the Day of the Jackal, and not the bumbling, wife beating idiot who couldn't hold a job and as Boogliosi puts it, "would be the last person the CIA or Mafia would use."

If LHO was the lone-gunman, it was still not only a conspiracy but a covert intel op and a coup because of the political motive behind the assassination - elemination, and the accused assassin's military intelligence associations.

Bugliosi can't respond to that approach other than to refer to the two paragraphs in his book in which he concludes that Oswald himself didn't decide to kill JFK until the evening before hand, and wouldn't have done so if Marina didn't put off his request they move back together.

Of course, if it was a domestic situation, there wouldn't be any need to with hold any records.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Bill:

Well of course I agree with you that LHO was most likely a patsy as he so famously proclaimed. Had he shot JFK to go down in history, or to make some political point, he would not have denied his guilt.

But my point was to demonstrate the errors in the logic of those of us on the conspiracy side of the defense who designate "suspects" merely on the basis of "means, motive and opportunity".

And to James:

I believe Bugliosi makes the same point in his book (e.g. no rational person can disagree with his conclusion). As articulate as he is, that argument is about the most ridiculous I have ever heard. Clearly many rational people, whose intelligence and rationality equal those of Bugliosi, doubt the conclusions of the WC. I should point out that the JFK case is not the only example of Bugliosi's intellectual arrogance. In several books he has taken the position that he was the ONLY person to have discovered a point or to have made a point. Problem is that in at least one book ("Outrage") I think he was correct in that point: he was apparently the first legal commentator to point out the egregious errors made by the prosecution in the Simpson case.

AND I think that in the TV trial Buglioisi provided (by beating Spence) that a jury could convict LHO beyond a reasonable doubt. Not to say that is the correct conclusion, and of course there has been a lot of evidence developed since that confrontation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post, James. Very interesting that Curry doubted Oswald's guilt--but unfortunate that he only went public with his doubts when his book was about to come out.

It would be interesting to view the mock trial (or read the transcript) to determine how Bugliosi beat Spence. I do not want to disparage Spence's legal abilities but sometimes a lawyer will win a reputation based on a few trials and it is possible that Spence was just not up to the challenge of Bugliosi, who prepared for the mock trial as extensively as he would have for a real trial.

Query how many people are aware that Curry doubted the guilt of LHO? I presume those who indict the Dallas police force as institutional conspirators have missed Curry's comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...