Charles Donald Ford

[David Andrews]

Also,sometimes I wonder it there might be a connection between this undeservedly harsh view and the utter lack of interest in his assassination at least in comparison with that of his brother. This question is particularly bothersome, given the ease with which many could be convinced that the investigation into the RFK murder was one of the most ridiculous farces of them all.

Strange neglect indeed. Are audiences being divided? Is the neglect in some way orchastrated?

I wonder if the difference in interest isn't circumstantial/phenomenological, at least where it isn't being influenced:

1) JFK was the president, RFK was not. We tend to ascribe importance to size/position, and give a president weightier enemies than a candidate, even such a candidate.

2) JFK was the first major assassination of the 20th century, and the longest unsolved.

3) Sirhan was at least verifiably in the room, firing a pistol. Oswald - more dicey.

4) Dealey Plaza was a larger space for shot angles, conspiracy players, escapes - it's the great Field of Mysteries at broad noontime, which is why everybody wants to "solve" JFK. But to many people, the Ambassador is just the dark hole of its convention hall, followed by a kitchen that might as well have been the ocean floor, spot-lighted by camera floods.

5) Having grown up in the 1960s, my sense is that fewer "average Americans" suspected conspiracy in RFK, or fewer were exposed to the facts.

6) Anyone who lived through JFK, however young they were, would be somewhat jaded by the time of MLK-RFK (even if they might not care to admit it). The one-two punch of 1968 may have left people shellshocked.

Is it largely exposure, location, position? Sadly, sometimes it is.

Bobby, remembered on History Channel and other networks, has gotten a lot of "Last Great Hope before Obama" press, a lot of hagiography for his newfound humanity and humility after Dealey, even for his purported death-wish fatalism. But I think the above points put his assassination where it is now, perceptually, well before HSCA convened. I wish it wasn't so. But if anyone wanted a non-CT explanation, here's mine. I really don't remember who older "average Americans" thought killed him at the time (I was nine), other than "Them." Some of the best RFK assassination writing, though, was done within five years of the event.

Edited August 6, 2009 by David Andrews

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Also,sometimes I wonder it there might be a connection between this undeservedly harsh view and the utter lack of interest in his assassination at least in comparison with that of his brother. This question is particularly bothersome, given the ease with which many could be convinced that the investigation into the RFK murder was one of the most ridiculous farces of them all.

Strange neglect indeed. Are audiences being divided? Is the neglect in some way orchastrated?

I wonder if the difference in interest isn't circumstantial/phenomenological, at least where it isn't being influenced:

1) JFK was the president, RFK was not. We tend to ascribe importance to size/position, and give a president weightier enemies than a candidate, even such a candidate.

2) JFK was the first major assassination of the 20th century, and the longest unsolved.

3) Sirhan was at least verifiably in the room, firing a pistol. Oswald - more dicey.

4) Dealey Plaza was a larger space for shot angles, conspiracy players, escapes - it's the great Field of Mysteries at broad noontime, which is why everybody wants to "solve" JFK. But to many people, the Ambassador is just the dark hole of its convention hall, followed by a kitchen that might as well have been the ocean floor, spot-lighted by camera floods.

5) Having grown up in the 1960s, my sense is that fewer "average Americans" suspected conspiracy in RFK, or fewer were exposed to the facts.

6) Anyone who lived through JFK, however young they were, would be somewhat jaded by the time of MLK-RFK (even if they might not care to admit it). The one-two punch of 1968 may have left people shellshocked.

Is it largely exposure, location, position? Sadly, sometimes it is.

Bobby, remembered on History Channel and other networks, has gotten a lot of "Last Great Hope before Obama" press, a lot of hagiography for his newfound humanity and humility after Dealey, even for his purported death-wish fatalism. But I think the above points put his assassination where it is now, perceptually, well before HSCA convened. I wish it wasn't so. But if anyone wanted a non-CT explanation, here's mine. I really don't remember who older "average Americans" thought killed him at the time (I was nine), other than "Them." Some of the best RFK assassination writing, though, was done within five years of the event.

David your points work more as descriptions than explanations in my view. The RFK assassination was the death of the left liberal section of the democratic party. If that was not so apparent at the time it is abundantly clear now, but not openly discussed much.

Still I would argue that this assassination was just as laden with policy implications as that of JFK.

With the incredible record of LAPD bungling Beyond Bunuel Does Keystone Cop, this case is the easiest to prove that there was coverup at a very high level. If there was a poltical will to do so that is. Your suggestion that the JFK assassination was harder to prove and would therefor make it MORE popular is not logical in my view. With a greater number of people reaching the conclusion that there was indeed a coverup and conspiracy in the second murdered Kennedy, there are much deeper structural questions about the nature of our political system that would naturally follow.

Instead we get only more evidence of high level disinformation including the Si Newhouse involvement in the destruction of the Turner Christian book. Then there is the communications aspect of Police Chief Reddin being the only chief to ever go directly to network news anchor from chief with no journalism background. And at a salary that would be around a million a year in today[s dollars. Then their is the pure puff piece cover story that known CIA friendlies at Time magaxine did on Reddin in July 68 A COVER STORY NO LESS WHEN REDDIN WASN'T EVEN IN CHARGE DURING THE RIOT IN LA, WHILE THE COVER STORY WAS ABOUT POLICE REACTION TO THE RIOTS IN GENERAL Then there is his fascination down the hall relationship with Many Pena. There is at least as much there there as with the death of his brother. If anything the attitude toward Vietnam was sharper. None of your reasons seem convincing as explanations why audiences would naturally be THAT MUCH LESS INTERESTED. Again, its a question of degree. Even if one alows for more interest in JFK it is the COMPLEET AND ABJECT NEGLECT OF THE RFK assassination that begs discussion, and it probably wont get it.

On the other hand the case seems loaded with examples of top down efforts to dissipate interest. I cannot understand why assassination researchers often seem so obedient. The RFK section on this forum is a ghetto that I don't even bother to look at anymore. Recently it seems to have been demoted even beneath Jack the Ripper. What has Joan Mellon become a mod? Why is this so. I in no way think that it is anything intrinsic to the case itself. Nobody who has read the Turner Christian book, or the Melanson book on the trial could ever think that.

The very proximity of Sirhan in the room to the witnesses that you describe is a reason for more certainty not less. There were more witnesses who testified that Sirhan did not fire the shots. There was smaller amount of physical evidence that could be tampered with and a greater percentage of it that was, yielding a simpler picture that again would lead more people to the conclusion that there definitely was a conspiracy in a shorter amount of time spent reading about the matter. There is if anything a surfeit of credentialed professionals who have written that they believe there was a conspiracy including the worlds leading expert in hypnosis at Columbia University.

Overall the argument that the closer one gets to certainty of a conspiracy THE LESS attention the event should receive is not a logical one, though it could well be the logical intention of disinformation campaigns some of which are quite subtle.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[David Andrews]

David your points work more as descriptions than explanations in my view. The RFK assassination was the death of the left liberal section of the democratic party. If that was not so apparent at the time it is abundantly clear now, but not openly discussed much.

Still I would argue that this assassination was just as laden with policy implications as that of JFK.

I don't disagree with you one bit on the Democratic Party policy implications of RFK's assassination, especially when I consider some of Eugene McCarthy's associations. I don't disagree with LAPD-CIA connivance, in a city that rivals Dallas and Chicago for police corruption. I don't disagreee about big media's avoidance of, or coloring of, the issues. I'm just recalling how Americans in my pre-teen years, c. 1968-1972, reacted to cultural and media phenomena surrounding the deaths of RFK, MLK and JFK.

It was a different world out there before the release of the Zapruder film and the convening of HSCA: together those opened a "Modern" realm of study on the assassinations, compared to what we might call the "Original" realm, which is roughly from Mark Lane/Sylvia Meagher through Robert Kaiser's "RFK Must Die!" (Robert Sam Anson's "They've Killed the President!" is perhaps the first CT book in the Modern realm.) There was a certain sense of fatalism from 1968 through the mid-1970s, especially after the quashing of Garrison's investigation, which was at least within the larger boundaries of people's wishes for a JFK investigation, and, thanks to the media, was actually more important than they were left believing once it was gone.

Sorry to seem superficial - look on it as a reflection of what I absorbed from my elders at the time. By the time I saw Mark Lane lecture on the Z-film, in (if I recall) the winter of 1974, I was no longer absorbing those attitudes.

Why would I disagree and yet be here? I believe that violates certain laws of mental physics. I was just describing those physics as I understood them before the mid-1970s. Wish you'd been there, but glad you got some points off in response today.

A bit of rebuttal:

"Your suggestion that the JFK assassination was harder to prove and would therefor make it MORE popular is not logical in my view" - I don't think it's harder to prove, given that no one's proven anything about JFK or RFK. (Check out Robert Groden's interview about his court case in episode # 433 of Len Osanic's Black Op Radio for how so and wherefore.) I'm saying that, because of the public location and the great wash of media and investigation, JFK is a hide-in-plain-sight situation in a bright public space, compared to the private-property-enforced-by-LAPD scene at the dark Ambassador (no longer with us, along with the best evidence). Dealey stirred indignation, idealism, optimism - the Ambassador criminal obscurantism and a popular fatalism. Dealey compelled; the Ambassador deterred.

A lot of my interest in the assassinations is becoming psychological, cultural, perceptual, phenomenological. I'll try not to bore by working it out here.

Edited August 8, 2009 by David Andrews

[John Simkin]

Given the fact that James Wagenvoord is now a member of this forum I thought it might be worth reviving this thread.

[William Kelly]

interesting. Is "Bayo" Capt. Eduardo Perez Gonzalez? what were the names and nationalities of the nine men who went missing on "Bayo" raid? Are the men in the Ford report among the missing? Did LIFE publish the story at any time or was it covered in Cuban press or anywhere else? What did Billings or Spencer report after the fact? Martino, Billings and Spencer, Pawley bailed on the trip, who else opted out? Is the only official inquiry where raid is mentioned the Hall interview? HSCA? WC? Did HSCA investigators inquire this matter on either or both trips to Cuba? Does Baku raid figure in this? Someone might have the history handy-I'm a bit lost on this again. thanks

[William Kelly]

With the release of the "Costume" Family Jewels, the documents re: Henry Kissinger quoting Richard Helms that among the real CIA Family Jewels are the records of the assassination plots against Castro that RFK managed.

This sirred up more of the Bobby ploted to kill Castro stories, and focused my attention on one guy - Charles Donald Ford.

While the newspapers, following the lead of the National Security Archives, made new news of Kissinger's statements, I found that Thomas Powers [in his book Intelligence Wars, American Secret History from Hitler To Al-Qaeda (NYRB 2004, p.229) and in his NYRB column of Nov. 30, 1997 "Marilyn Was the Least of It"), wrote:

"...According to notes obtained by (Black Slyde) Hersh,...Hersh also learned that in 1962, while the assassination efforts involving the Mafia hit men were still under way, Bobby Kennedy was assigned his own operaitonal officer in the CIA, a man named Charles Ford picked from the staff of Task Force W, then commanded by (William) Harvey. Ford's job was to handle contacts with Mafia chiefs while traveling under the pseudonym of Rocky Fiscalini, a name (along with Ford's own) that appears in Bobby Kennedy's office logs for 1962. But what Ford actually did for Kennedy remains unknown."

"Hersh provides no definitive history of the CIA's attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, a subject that is complex, factually dense, and spotted with missing pieces. But he has dug up numerous pieces of new information, many of them significant for any serious history even if they fall short of being sensational headline material. His account of the CIA's campaign makes clear what the CIA officers have been stressing for twenty years - that the driving force behind the all-out effort to get rid of Castro was the blast furnace of pressure form the Kennedy brothers."

"This is not shocking. The basic facts, if not all the details, ahve long been known by those who desire to know. But it is painful to read about assassination planning by the very man whose murder was probabl; the greatest single traumatic event in American history..."

Then in another NYRB review (The Black Arts,Feb. 4, 1999) Powers wrote (IW,p.373 - & not noted in the index):

"...The secrets at the heart of secrets are rarely confided to official paper or the appropriate files...One such surfaced recently when the Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB) released a two-page 'Memorandum of Conversation' from the Gerald Ford Presidential Library recording some comments of Henry Kissinger on January 4, 1975, during a discussion of news sotires by Seymour Hersh claiming extensive wrongdoing by the CIA. According to Max Holland, who is writing a book about hte Warren Commission, Kissinger, then serving as both Ford's secretary of state and his national security advsor, had sought a blanket denial from the agency but had been informed by William Colby that some major secrets remain hidden. A former director, Richard Helms, was summoned back to Washington from his post as ambassador to Iran to fill in the details for Kissinger at a breakfast meeting dhortly before Kissinger met in the White House with President Ford and Brent Scowcroft, who was taking notes."

"'Helms said all these stories were the tip of the iceberg,' Kissinger said, as recorded by Scowcroft during the meeting with Ford. 'If they come out, blood will flow. For example, Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro.'"

"The friends and defenders of the Kenendy brothers say it isn't so; but there it is on paper, written down in the heat of a government crisis, the words of a man in a position to know, recorded on the day, perhaps even within the very hour, they were uttered."

"Holland and Hersh, sill on the case, also learned recently the name of the CIA intelligence officer named to serve as liaison with the attorney general during the year in which he continually pressed the CIA for results in getting rid of Castro - a career intelligence officer, now dead, named Charles Ford."

"According to Ford's office-mate Sam Halpern [Also now dead], a CIA officer assigned to Task Force W in the agency's effort to get rid of Castro, Ford traveled hither and yon about the country on Robert Kennedy'ss business, but there public knowledge comes to an end."

"Hersh's book The Dark Side of Camelot, published in 1998, includes some additional ancillary detail. Whether still-classified CIA files can fill out the story of Ford's work for Bobby remains unknown but it's likely, ust as it is likely no one will be given free range of the files until many, many additional years have passed, f then....Does it matter whether we are permitted to haul up the last piece of paper to the light of day before letting it rest? There is no right answer, just personal prefeerence: some would rather know, and some would rather not."

It didn't take long to locate a half-dozen NARA JFK Riffs re: John D. Ford, a note no his passing from Princeton allumni notes and a death notice for his CIA-office mate, Sam Halpern [RIP March 7. 2005].

The Riffs make note of Ford's use of the alias Rocky (misspelled Siscalini) Fiscalini, the CIA documents that refer to Ford and his Mafia contacts, and the fact that there are additional records among the NARA JFK ARC under Ford's name in JFK-M-O3-(F6) Box 3.

The earliest RIFF refers to an OSS record from 1945 that includes Charles D. Ford among the OSS officers assigned to China, along with J. Walton Moore, who later became George DeMohrenschildt's CIA Domestic Contacts Divsion debriefer in Dallas.

The Princeton alumni notes his graduation from Princeton in 1948, his middle name was Donald, that he went by the name of Don, was born in Atlantic City, N.J. and attended high school there.

Which makes me wonder if he knew John Martino from the old hood, or Jessica Wilcox (aka Candy Jones, wife of Long John Nebel).

More to come on this,

Bill Kelly

For those who still claim that JFK and RFK knew about, approved or ordered the assassination of Castro, I call your attention to Charles D. Ford.

BK

[Paul Brancato]

RFK, and the Kennedy clan, were victims of a CIA campaign to ruin them, rewrite their history. RFK Jr. names Sam Halpern as the spearhead.  Charles Ford was part of this operation. At least that’s how I read it.