Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hugh G. Aynesworth and the Assassination of JFK


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/boswella.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036b.htm

Q. Are you the person who made that mark?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what that mark signifies?

A. Well, at this late date, I have to assume. I remember that there is a--in the scalp there was a tunneling of the wound through the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and I think that is the direction that the tunnel went.

Q. Does that mean that there was a tunnel between the entrance point and the point where the bullet entered into the skull?

A. Yes.

Q. About what was the distance of the tunnel from the entrance point in the scalp to where the bullet entered the skull?

A. I would assume that that's 15 by 6 millimeters, 6 millimeters across, and that the tunnel itself was a centimeter-and-a-half.

Q. So the tunnel would be definitely shorter than an inch, less than an inch?

A. Less than an inch. About three-quarters.

Q. On the top of page 4, the portion that I showed you just a minute ago, it refers to a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 millimeters. What is the portion that is lacerated that is being referred to there? Do you know?

A. I'm sure that is the tunnel-like wound of entrance on the scalp.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arr...tml/Image03.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have repeatedly stated here, anyone who desires the answers to the question in regards to the EOP entry, merely need to make themselves a drawing in which the angle of entry/angle of attack through the skull of JFK comes to the 15mm length as measured and reported by the autopsy surgeons.

Of course, it also helps to look at the drawings which Dr. Boswell prepared.

Not to mention the aspect of actually discussing these issues with the man himself, in what most would consider to be proper research protocol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/boswella.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036b.htm

Q. Are you the person who made that mark?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what that mark signifies?

A. Well, at this late date, I have to assume. I remember that there is a--in the scalp there was a tunneling of the wound through the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and I think that is the direction that the tunnel went.

Q. Does that mean that there was a tunnel between the entrance point and the point where the bullet entered into the skull?

A. Yes.

Q. About what was the distance of the tunnel from the entrance point in the scalp to where the bullet entered the skull?

A. I would assume that that's 15 by 6 millimeters, 6 millimeters across, and that the tunnel itself was a centimeter-and-a-half.

Q. So the tunnel would be definitely shorter than an inch, less than an inch?

A. Less than an inch. About three-quarters.

Q. On the top of page 4, the portion that I showed you just a minute ago, it refers to a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 millimeters. What is the portion that is lacerated that is being referred to there? Do you know?

A. I'm sure that is the tunnel-like wound of entrance on the scalp.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arr...tml/Image03.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have repeatedly stated here, anyone who desires the answers to the question in regards to the EOP entry, merely need to make themselves a drawing in which the angle of entry/angle of attack through the skull of JFK comes to the 15mm length as measured and reported by the autopsy surgeons.

Of course, it also helps to look at the drawings which Dr. Boswell prepared.

Not to mention the aspect of actually discussing these issues with the man himself, in what most would consider to be proper research protocol.

Lastly!

Contrary to the protests of many, there exists a completely logical explanation as to how JFK received the EOP/skull entry wound with the bullet having actually struck lower in the hairline, as well as why the bullet had to pass through the edge of the coat collar just prior to striking the hairline.*

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

Along with the fully understandable reasoning as to why cerebral debri and skull fragments were blown in the direction of James Altgens as well as being blown forward over Nellie Connally and JBC as they hunkered down in the seat.

Now, the only question would be, exactly where did that bullet go to?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. FRAZIER: All of these things refer to the reconstruction and assuming particularly that the path of the projectile to the President was also the same path, the same angle as it went through his body and then on, and in that connection, yes.

In my opinion the bullet had to strike in the car, either the car itself or an occupant of the car.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully those here are familiar enough with the facts to know exactly who else in the Presidential Limo was in fact struck in the back by a whole/intact bullet.

*PS. JFK's head was fully down virtually with his chin on his chest with his head rotated to the right and leaning to his left at the same time.

Anyone who is a good artist can "re-work" the drawings and get a much better picture of exactly how the third/last/final shot struck as well as why this bullet virtually had to go through the coat collar in order to strike in the edge of the hairline.

P.P.S. Forgot to add also that this also helps to explain the "tunnelling" through the soft tissues of the neck from the point of impact with the scalp to the point of impact with the skull.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidenc.

It usually means that one just does not understand the evidence.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.P.P.S: Hopefully, for those who have not put all of the pieces of the puzzle together, this will also assist in explaining the elongated nature of the EOP skull entry wound as well.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/boswella.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036b.htm

Q. Are you the person who made that mark?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what that mark signifies?

A. Well, at this late date, I have to assume. I remember that there is a--in the scalp there was a tunneling of the wound through the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and I think that is the direction that the tunnel went.

Q. Does that mean that there was a tunnel between the entrance point and the point where the bullet entered into the skull?

A. Yes.

Q. About what was the distance of the tunnel from the entrance point in the scalp to where the bullet entered the skull?

A. I would assume that that's 15 by 6 millimeters, 6 millimeters across, and that the tunnel itself was a centimeter-and-a-half.

Q. So the tunnel would be definitely shorter than an inch, less than an inch?

A. Less than an inch. About three-quarters.

Q. On the top of page 4, the portion that I showed you just a minute ago, it refers to a lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 millimeters. What is the portion that is lacerated that is being referred to there? Do you know?

A. I'm sure that is the tunnel-like wound of entrance on the scalp.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arr...tml/Image03.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have repeatedly stated here, anyone who desires the answers to the question in regards to the EOP entry, merely need to make themselves a drawing in which the angle of entry/angle of attack through the skull of JFK comes to the 15mm length as measured and reported by the autopsy surgeons.

Of course, it also helps to look at the drawings which Dr. Boswell prepared.

Not to mention the aspect of actually discussing these issues with the man himself, in what most would consider to be proper research protocol.

Lastly!

Contrary to the protests of many, there exists a completely logical explanation as to how JFK received the EOP/skull entry wound with the bullet having actually struck lower in the hairline, as well as why the bullet had to pass through the edge of the coat collar just prior to striking the hairline.*

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

Along with the fully understandable reasoning as to why cerebral debri and skull fragments were blown in the direction of James Altgens as well as being blown forward over Nellie Connally and JBC as they hunkered down in the seat.

Now, the only question would be, exactly where did that bullet go to?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. FRAZIER: All of these things refer to the reconstruction and assuming particularly that the path of the projectile to the President was also the same path, the same angle as it went through his body and then on, and in that connection, yes.

In my opinion the bullet had to strike in the car, either the car itself or an occupant of the car.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully those here are familiar enough with the facts to know exactly who else in the Presidential Limo was in fact struck in the back by a whole/intact bullet.

*PS. JFK's head was fully down virtually with his chin on his chest with his head rotated to the right and leaning to his left at the same time.

Anyone who is a good artist can "re-work" the drawings and get a much better picture of exactly how the third/last/final shot struck as well as why this bullet virtually had to go through the coat collar in order to strike in the edge of the hairline.

P.P.S. Forgot to add also that this also helps to explain the "tunnelling" through the soft tissues of the neck from the point of impact with the scalp to the point of impact with the skull.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidenc.

It usually means that one just does not understand the evidence.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.P.P.S: Hopefully, for those who have not put all of the pieces of the puzzle together, this will also assist in explaining the elongated nature of the EOP skull entry wound as well.

Yea, but this doesn't square with the lower back hole in the jacket/shirt/body - so what's the use? It doesn't matter what the direction of the bullet that blew apart JFK's head to determine that's the shot that killed him.

Not from that back and the left, but from the front and the right, both literally and figuratively.

You don't need to explain the elongated nature of the skull entry wound to realize that it was an inside job, coup d'etat MO, national security violated, and all the rest is window dressing...

And what's this got to do with CIA asset Hugh Aynesworth again?

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugh Aynesworth did pen stories introducing the possibility that Oswald did not act alone. One such piece was published in 1964 and it focused on General Walker who Aynesworth quoted as saying that the Warren Commission was a 'white-wash'.

Another curiosity was a 1964 story Aynesworth did about a French aviator named Jean Dabry who along with other European flyers was in Dallas as part of a nationwide tour. Aynesworth reported that Dabry had said most Europeans believed that Oswald had accomplices and that it was most 'strange' that Oswald was himself killed.

There is also the question about the publishing of excerpts from Oswald's diary under Aynesworth's byline. Jesse Curry claimed that he had the diary locked up and did not share any details it contained. Who leaked the information would be of great interest.

FWIW.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugh Aynesworth did pen stories introducing the possibility that Oswald did not act alone. One such piece was published in 1964 and it focused on General Walker who Aynesworth quoted as saying that the Warren Commission was a 'white-wash'.

Another curiosity was a 1964 story Aynesworth did about a French aviator named Jean Dabry who along with other European flyers was in Dallas as part of a nationwide tour. Aynesworth reported that Dabry had said most Europeans believed that Oswald had accomplices and that it was most 'strange' that Oswald was himself killed.

There is also the question about the publishing of excerpts from Oswald's diary under Aynesworth's byline. Jesse Curry claimed that he had the diary locked up and did not share any details it contained. Who leaked the information would be of great interest.

FWIW.

James

James/William/et al, and FWIW:

I came across the Aynesworth/Oswald diary incident during my research on the wounding of John Connally, specifically in the surviving papers of Holland McCombs, as you shall see later in this posting. The following is a brief narrative summary of my understanding of this particular transaction/incident.

On Saturday, June 27, 1964, the Dallas Morning News ran a front-page article written by/accredited to Hugh Aynesworth under the heading caption, “Secret Diary – Oswald’s Thoughts Bared.” This was supplemented with a full page copyrighted article captioned, “The Lee Harvey Oswald Diary – October 16, 1959: I Want Russian Citizenship.” The article thereafter received (understandably) wide dissemination, not to mention notoriety, including synopsised versions in the various Washington, D. C. newspapers on the following day, Sunday, June 28th. The FBI’s original memorandum constructed in conjunction with the publication of the article, a memo written on June 28, 1964, by Walter Sullivan and addressed to Alan Belmont, stated that “the original diary was delivered by the Dallas Police to the Bureau and a photographic reproduction of it appeared as Exhibit 36 in the Bureau’s initial report on the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy.” The Sullivan memorandum went on to further state that “Aynesworth’s article carefully follows the diary and quotes voluminously from it. It is obvious he has a copy of the diary and that this is the basis for his article.” On this same date, June 28, ASIC of the Dallas FO was telephonically contacted by Bureau HQ at which time he advised Washington that he and the DFO “did not know the source of the information for Aynesworth.” However, it was further reported that “Aynesworth is a police reporter for the Dallas Morning News and has been anti-Bureau throughout the whole investigation.”(FBI: Record No: 124-10369-10009; Record Series HQ: Agency File No. 62-117290-Admin. Folder – V8; specifically: Record No. 124-10030-10464: Record Series HQ: FBI Case File No.: 105-82555-4377)

In this same memorandum Kyle Clark revealed to Bureau HQ that on repeated occasions Dallas Assistant DA, William Alexander, had “contacted the Dallas office and wanted photographic copies of all the property obtained by the police department and turned over to the FBI.” Alexander’s rationale for these requests was in order to aide DA Henry Wade in his testimony before the Commission. The requests were rebuffed by the Dallas FO and Alexander had been referred to the Dallas Police Department “as they had been given photographs of all of the property.” Because of the information Aynesworth had included in his article, and other items mentioned by Aynesworth, “ASAC Clark and SAC Shanklin are of the opinion that Alexander is probably the source of the (Aynesworth) leak.” At the time of the article, only the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police Department, and the FBI had copies of the Oswald diary. The Bureau “know we did not furnish the material to Aynesworth,” ruled out the Commission as the source of the leak, and concluded by “suspecting that Alexander or someone in the Dallas Police Department” as the source of the Aynesworth leak. The original memorandum constructed concluded further action “without making any direct inquiry,” instead alerting the Dallas office to “try and learn the source of the leak and advise the Bureau.”

The following day, June 29, 1964, Kyle Clark had a meeting with Capt. Will Fritz of the DPD at which time Fritz indicated that he had been unable, “to date,” to determine if the diary had been furnished to the Dallas Morning News “by anyone on the Dallas Police Force.” In response to this reply, Clark asked for, and obtained permission, to indicate to Fritz that the DFO felt that “it was William Alexander, the County Attorney, who sought the material in question” in the first place and thus was potentially under suspicion. Fritz’s reaction to this news was not recorded by Clark in his covering memorandum of the interview. On the same date, June 29, 1964, James Malley, FBI liaison with the Commission, discussed the article with J. Lee Rankin, advising Rankin “that reporter Aynesworth of the Dallas Morning News was not friendly and that while the Bureau would handle the Commission’s request if desired, it appeared a better approach would be for the Commission to directly contact the newspaper and request information from the newspaper as to the source of the article.” Rankin indicated to Malley that the matter would be discussed at an afternoon session with members of the Commission and the Bureau would be informed of future action.

On July 1, 1964, the Bureau received a letter “from J. Lee Rankin of the President’s Commission dated June 30, 1964, requesting a thorough investigation concerning the publication of the Lee Harvey Oswald diary by the Dallas Morning News. The letter contained the actual resolution passed by the President’s Commission,” and based upon this resolution, “ASAC Kyle Clark of the Dallas Office…was instructed to conduct immediate investigation in order that the results could be furnished to the President’s Commission at the earliest possible time.” Hoover made sure that this became “news” and an article captioned “FBI Requested to Investigate Leak of Portions of Oswald’s Diary” was published in both the Washington Post and the Washington Times Herald on June 30, 1964.

The eventual “investigation” lasted for almost eight weeks with the FBI questioning individuals from the Dallas Morning News, CBS News, Time-LIFE, the DPD and the DA’s office, though the main content of the matter was resolved, to the satisfaction of the Bureau and the Commission, by the first week of August, 1964. There were numerous investigative speed bumps along the way, with perhaps the largest one being an incident that arose on July 8, 1964. On that date Detective H. M Hart, Criminal Intelligence Section, DPD, relayed a letter to Captain W. P. Gannaway, Special Service Bureau, DPD, the “SUBJECT” matter of which is listed as: “Diary of Lee H. Oswald.” According to Hart, “confidential informant T-1” stated to Hart “that Representative Ford (fnu), a member of the Warren Commission, sold SUBJECT (i.e. Oswald diary) to the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Ford had a copy of the diary and took it to executives of LIFE magazine and also Newsweek magazine. Source states that these executives paid Marina Oswald, widow of Lee Harvey Oswald, $16,000.00 for the world copyright of the diary. Source further states that proof of this is in the hand of the Dallas County District Attorney’s office.” In an “Evaluation” statement added to the bottom of his letter, Detective Hart further indicated: “Informant considered reliable; possibly true.”(A copy of this correspondence can be found at two different locations within the Dallas City Archives holdings of the Dallas Police Department: Box 13, Folder 4, File # 51; and Box 18, Folder 4, File # 12)

Two days after the Hart letter, July 10, 1964, LIFE magazine published an article that included, once again, information from Oswald’s diary. On this same date, J. Lee Rankin sent Hoover a second letter in which “the President’s Commission requested the Bureau to conduct appropriate investigation concerning circumstances surrounding the obtaining and publication of Oswald’s diary in the July 10, 1964 issue of “Life” magazine.” J. Lee Rankin had been informed of the alleged Gerald Ford leak/sale of the diary, precise date unspecified, though surviving documentation would appear to indicate that this revelation took place no later than July 10, 1964. The confidential Hart “source”, informant T-1, was revealed in a Rosen to Belmont memorandum dated July 13, 1964, to wit: “Assistant District Attorney William Alexander, Dallas County, has intimated that Representative Ford was the source of the leak of Oswald’s diary to the news media.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10054-10322: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4401)

The day after the Rankin-to-Hoover letter, Supervisor Ludwig Oberndorf of the Washington Field Office “advised that the interview with Representative Gerald R. Ford, a member of the President’s Commission, had been approved…Representative Ford has requested that he be interviewed in order that he could go on record concerning this matter.” This particular communiqué had been “submitted for record purposes” only, by Rosen, though there appears little doubt that Rankin was informed of the identity of informant T-1. By the following day, July 14, 1964, the Bureau were identifying the

”two matters” of the Dallas Morning News article of June 28 and the LIFE magazine article of July 10 as being “directly related” and over the next three weeks numerous individuals were interviewed by members of the FBI though everyone interviewed “either denied or have refused to identify the source of the diary.” The investigation eventually involved members of the Washington, New York, Houston and Dallas Field Offices with a “breakthrough” occurring on July 22, 1964. On that date the Dallas FO furnished the Bureau Lab “one roll of 35 mm positive film containing photographs of the diary, as well as one roll of 35 mm negative film of this positive and Xerox prints of the pertinent pages of the Oswald diary. These 35 mm films and prints were obtained from the District Attorney’s Office in Dallas, Texas. In addition, the New York Office has furnished the original Xerox prints of the 12 pages of the Oswald diary that “Life” magazine obtained and published in their July 10, 1964 issue.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10048-10258: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4509) As a result of comparative analysis of this material, “Laboratory examination of these items has established that the 35 mm rolls of film obtained from the Dallas District Attorney’s Office contain imperfections in their original state that are reproduced in the Xerox copies used by “Life” magazine. This shows that the “Life” magazine copies originated from the 35 mm rolls of film from the Dallas District Attorney’s Office.” Further legwork established that the Dallas DA’s office acquired their copies of the Oswald diary material, and other evidence, from the Dallas Police Department, their film “taken to the Recordak Corporation in Dallas where a 35 mm positive, 35 mm negative and 3 sets of hard copies were made for the District Attorney’s office. The “Life” magazine prints are these same ‘hard copies’ or are ‘hard copies’ subsequently made from the District Attorney’s 35 mm film.” Though the correspondence on this issue is theoretically from W. D. Griffith and addressed to Bureau Lab Chief, Ivan W. Conrad, the stenographic notations present on the documentation clearly indicate that the comparative analysis and resulting conclusions were the work of “LLS,” Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt. On the same date as the lengthy “Shaneyfelt” memorandum on this matter, July 22, 1964, the information and results of the FBI Lab analysis were supplied to the President’s Commission by way of a letter sent to J. Lee Rankin. A memorandum attached to the letter that was to be sent to the Commission (Rankin) indicated the following, by way of updated “background” information: “Extensive investigation has been conducted by our Dallas, New York, and Houston Offices in this matter. Regarding the publication of Oswald’s diary in “Life” magazine, we have now determined arrangements for the publication were handled through Paula Aynesworth, who is the wife of Hugh Aynesworth, reporter for the Dallas Morning News and who published Oswald’s diary on June 27 and 28, 1964. Paula Aynesworth received $2500 for this information from “Life” magazine.”(Ibid prior footnote in this section, as well as: FBI: Record Number: 124-10034-10316: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-109060-1st numbered document after serial 3524)

The FBI identification of Paula Aynesworth as a paid source of information on the Oswald diary is accurate and confirmation of this is found within the surviving papers of Holland McCombs, Corbitt Special Collections, University Archives, University of Tennessee at Martin. On June 27, 1964, Holland McCombs sent Natalie Kosek, Life Picture Bureau, Head Office, New York, a “Rush” memorandum and package. Addressed to Will Lang, Life Magazine, Time and Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, McComb’s indicated the impending arrival of a copy of “Oswald Russian Diary,” a package air expressed via American Airlines, Flight # 92, due to arrive at Kennedy Airport at 9:43 pm on the evening of June 27, 1964, Waybill # 886657. In the package were “photostatic” copies of 12 pages from the diary, but there were attached McCombs constructed stipulations to be followed prior to publication in LIFE magazine: “In page 6 should cross out three or four lines that describe Zeger. Page 7…where ‘Zeger advises me to go back to the U.S.A., etc…page 9. ‘I confided in Zeger, ‘etc… Our thoughts are that Mr. Zeger would be seriously hurt by the Communists if this were run verbatim. In the writings of Hugh Aynesworth he has changed the name to Andrei Tovli when it was something risky and left Zeger in it as a place where Oswald partied occasionally…even mentioned the part about the daughters etc.” (Holland McCombs Collection, Corbitt Special Collections, University Archives, University of Tennessee at Martin. Box 153, Folder F-9)

In addition to the Oswald diary package, McCombs included a copy of a signed agreement between LIFE magazine and Paula Eby Aynesworth, a document dated June 27, 1964. The terms of this agreement stipulated that Paula Aynesworth was to receive the sum of $2500.00 “in cash or via Western Union money order addressed to 729 North Buckner Blvd., Dallas 18, Texas, by Tuesday, the thirtieth of June, 1964.” There were other clauses in this document, including the “understanding” that Paula Aynesworth would not be held responsible in the event that “copies of above document are released by other parties than Paula Eby Aynesworth.” In his letter of accompaniment McCombs boasts of him and LIFE having a “fast leg up” on the Oswald diary material with the added comment that “here’s hoping it will be worth the $2,500.” McCombs even went so far as to suggest that Time-Life send him a “rush check…first thing Monday morning…” so that he could cash same “and hand over the cash to Mrs. Aynesworth…” McCombs also enclosed a verbatim copy of “Aynesworth’s story of diary in Dallas Morning News.”

On July 27, 1964, five days after he received original communication on the Lab examination of the 35 mm film and hard copies, J. Lee Rankin received a second letter from Hoover, a document that once again was ghost-written by Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt. In the concluding paragraph, the following was indicated: “The Xerox copies of the diary obtained from the District Attorney’s Office and the Xerox copies obtained from “Life” magazine were all examined for latent fingerprints. Seventeen latent fingerprints and three latent palm prints were developed on the copies from “Life” magazine. Five latent fingerprints and four latent palm prints were developed on the copies from the District Attorney’s Office. One of the latent fingerprints on the copies from the District Attorney’s Office is identical with the left thumb print of a William Franklin Alexander, who may be identical with William F. Alexander, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas, Texas. The other fingerprints and palm prints have not been identified.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10044-10266: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-109060-3567.) This Hoover-to-Rankin letter was two pages in length, but there was a third page “Note For Dallas” attached to the letter, a note not sent to Rankin: “The Dallas Office should obtain, if possible, the fingerprints and palm prints of William F. Alexander and W. H. Davis, Jr., of the District Attorney’s Office. They should also obtain, if possible, fingerprints and palm prints of Hugh Aynesworth and Paula Aynesworth for comparison with the unidentified latent fingerprints and palm prints…”

On July 29, 1964, an interesting “Airtel” was sent to SAC, Dallas, from the Director. This three page document contained a number of suggestions for clarification for the individual responsible for generating reports on the Oswald diary information “leak,” SA Robert P. Gemberling of the Dallas FO. The very first “clarification” was a note that Gemberling’s report of his “interview with Holland McCombs, Dallas Correspondent for “Life” magazine, should not be included in the next Oswald report.” The airtel contained numerous follow-up suggestions for Gemberling, as well as omissions to be clarified, and concluded with this statement: “Investigation indicates W. F. Alexander, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas County, Texas, is a strong suspect and our laboratory has determined that copies of Oswald’s dairy in possession of “Life” magazine originated from the film that was in possession of the Dallas District Attorney’s office furnished by District Attorney Henry Wade.” Five days later, August 3, 1964, aspects of the investigation were halted in Dallas. In an Airtel sent to SAC Dallas, Shanklin was “advised against” fingerprinting the individuals described in the prior Airtel of July 27, 1964 because “newspaper officials were touchy about this matter and instructed their employees to clear any interviews concerning the diary with managing editor. We have proven ‘Life’ magazine’s copies of diary came from Dallas DA’s office and any effort to obtain prints from principals involved could result in unwarranted publicity or possible embarrassment. It is recommended no prints be sought from these people unless Commission specifically requests.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10044-10266: Record Series: HQ: 105-82555-4559) As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Warren Commission pressed this issue no further. In a two page letter that accompanied the Hoover-to-Dallas Airtel of August 3, 1964, time was taken to once again lash out at the DA’s office, this script though assigned to Hoover actually the prose of “RDR” – Richard D. Rogge: “Since the initiation of this investigation District Attorney Wade has been a thorn in the side of the Bureau by his impulsive manner of making inaccurate press releases resulting in confusion. Wade’s Office has been negligent in the handling of evidence and he has shown a lackadaisical attitude in this regard. Further, in his testimony before the President’s Commission Wade raised several points which apparently were construed by the Commission to substantiate uninformed charges that Oswald could have been an informant of this Bureau. This necessitated an unusual amount of work on our part to refute.”

The investigation dwindled onward, Marina Oswald denying on August 8, 1964, that though she had been contacted repeatedly by Hugh Aynesworth and had been interviewed by him “she told Aynesworth she did not care to discuss the diary.” Gerald Ford was interviewed by Cartha “Deke” DeLoach on August 17, 1964, at which time “he desired to unequivocally state, and to furnish a signed statement if necessary, that he did not leak the information in question.” This information was presented to the Commission, by way of a wrap-up letter dated August 26, 1964, from Hoover to Rankin, a communiqué that ended: “No further action is being taken by this Bureau concerning the leak of Oswald’s diary to the Dallas Morning News and Life magazine in the absence of a specific request from you.” None, it would appear, ever came thereafter from Rankin.

In the end it would appear that the “leak” of the Oswald diary to the media came about as a result of acquisition of materials from the District Attorney’s Office by the Aynesworth’s. Thereafter Mrs. Aynesworth at least got something out of it - $2500.00 – while the Bureau and the Commission investigated, to a dull conclusion, the entire affair. On July 13, 1964, William Alexander was interviewed by the FBI, vehemently denying any knowledge of the entire matter. It was further reported that Alexander stated, “President Johnson, John Edgar Hoover, the FBI and the Warren Commission ‘could kiss my a—‘…” On the same date, “Mr. William A McKenzie, attorney for Marina Oswald, on 7-6-64 said he sold publication rights of the diary to Life Magazine on 7-1-64. A Mr. Schad of Life Magazine obtained the diary from Hugh Aynesworth of the Dallas Morning News. It is noted Aynesworth appears to be deeply involved in this matter and when interviewed, has refused to reveal the source of his information and was uncooperative.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10172-10043: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4522)

As I said, FWIW.

Gary Murr

In addition to the document references indicated in this posting, one can also find relevant materials in: FBI: Record Number: 124-10369-10009: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-117290-Administration Folder-V8; and: FBI: Record Number: 124-10371-10183: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-117290-Administration Folder – E11:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugh Aynesworth did pen stories introducing the possibility that Oswald did not act alone. One such piece was published in 1964 and it focused on General Walker who Aynesworth quoted as saying that the Warren Commission was a 'white-wash'.

Another curiosity was a 1964 story Aynesworth did about a French aviator named Jean Dabry who along with other European flyers was in Dallas as part of a nationwide tour. Aynesworth reported that Dabry had said most Europeans believed that Oswald had accomplices and that it was most 'strange' that Oswald was himself killed.

There is also the question about the publishing of excerpts from Oswald's diary under Aynesworth's byline. Jesse Curry claimed that he had the diary locked up and did not share any details it contained. Who leaked the information would be of great interest.

FWIW.

James

James/William/et al, and FWIW:

I came across the Aynesworth/Oswald diary incident during my research on the wounding of John Connally, specifically in the surviving papers of Holland McCombs, as you shall see later in this posting. The following is a brief narrative summary of my understanding of this particular transaction/incident.

On Saturday, June 27, 1964, the Dallas Morning News ran a front-page article written by/accredited to Hugh Aynesworth under the heading caption, “Secret Diary – Oswald’s Thoughts Bared.” This was supplemented with a full page copyrighted article captioned, “The Lee Harvey Oswald Diary – October 16, 1959: I Want Russian Citizenship.” The article thereafter received (understandably) wide dissemination, not to mention notoriety, including synopsised versions in the various Washington, D. C. newspapers on the following day, Sunday, June 28th. The FBI’s original memorandum constructed in conjunction with the publication of the article, a memo written on June 28, 1964, by Walter Sullivan and addressed to Alan Belmont, stated that “the original diary was delivered by the Dallas Police to the Bureau and a photographic reproduction of it appeared as Exhibit 36 in the Bureau’s initial report on the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy.” The Sullivan memorandum went on to further state that “Aynesworth’s article carefully follows the diary and quotes voluminously from it. It is obvious he has a copy of the diary and that this is the basis for his article.” On this same date, June 28, ASIC of the Dallas FO was telephonically contacted by Bureau HQ at which time he advised Washington that he and the DFO “did not know the source of the information for Aynesworth.” However, it was further reported that “Aynesworth is a police reporter for the Dallas Morning News and has been anti-Bureau throughout the whole investigation.”(FBI: Record No: 124-10369-10009; Record Series HQ: Agency File No. 62-117290-Admin. Folder – V8; specifically: Record No. 124-10030-10464: Record Series HQ: FBI Case File No.: 105-82555-4377)

In this same memorandum Kyle Clark revealed to Bureau HQ that on repeated occasions Dallas Assistant DA, William Alexander, had “contacted the Dallas office and wanted photographic copies of all the property obtained by the police department and turned over to the FBI.” Alexander’s rationale for these requests was in order to aide DA Henry Wade in his testimony before the Commission. The requests were rebuffed by the Dallas FO and Alexander had been referred to the Dallas Police Department “as they had been given photographs of all of the property.” Because of the information Aynesworth had included in his article, and other items mentioned by Aynesworth, “ASAC Clark and SAC Shanklin are of the opinion that Alexander is probably the source of the (Aynesworth) leak.” At the time of the article, only the Warren Commission, the Dallas Police Department, and the FBI had copies of the Oswald diary. The Bureau “know we did not furnish the material to Aynesworth,” ruled out the Commission as the source of the leak, and concluded by “suspecting that Alexander or someone in the Dallas Police Department” as the source of the Aynesworth leak. The original memorandum constructed concluded further action “without making any direct inquiry,” instead alerting the Dallas office to “try and learn the source of the leak and advise the Bureau.”

The following day, June 29, 1964, Kyle Clark had a meeting with Capt. Will Fritz of the DPD at which time Fritz indicated that he had been unable, “to date,” to determine if the diary had been furnished to the Dallas Morning News “by anyone on the Dallas Police Force.” In response to this reply, Clark asked for, and obtained permission, to indicate to Fritz that the DFO felt that “it was William Alexander, the County Attorney, who sought the material in question” in the first place and thus was potentially under suspicion. Fritz’s reaction to this news was not recorded by Clark in his covering memorandum of the interview. On the same date, June 29, 1964, James Malley, FBI liaison with the Commission, discussed the article with J. Lee Rankin, advising Rankin “that reporter Aynesworth of the Dallas Morning News was not friendly and that while the Bureau would handle the Commission’s request if desired, it appeared a better approach would be for the Commission to directly contact the newspaper and request information from the newspaper as to the source of the article.” Rankin indicated to Malley that the matter would be discussed at an afternoon session with members of the Commission and the Bureau would be informed of future action.

On July 1, 1964, the Bureau received a letter “from J. Lee Rankin of the President’s Commission dated June 30, 1964, requesting a thorough investigation concerning the publication of the Lee Harvey Oswald diary by the Dallas Morning News. The letter contained the actual resolution passed by the President’s Commission,” and based upon this resolution, “ASAC Kyle Clark of the Dallas Office…was instructed to conduct immediate investigation in order that the results could be furnished to the President’s Commission at the earliest possible time.” Hoover made sure that this became “news” and an article captioned “FBI Requested to Investigate Leak of Portions of Oswald’s Diary” was published in both the Washington Post and the Washington Times Herald on June 30, 1964.

The eventual “investigation” lasted for almost eight weeks with the FBI questioning individuals from the Dallas Morning News, CBS News, Time-LIFE, the DPD and the DA’s office, though the main content of the matter was resolved, to the satisfaction of the Bureau and the Commission, by the first week of August, 1964. There were numerous investigative speed bumps along the way, with perhaps the largest one being an incident that arose on July 8, 1964. On that date Detective H. M Hart, Criminal Intelligence Section, DPD, relayed a letter to Captain W. P. Gannaway, Special Service Bureau, DPD, the “SUBJECT” matter of which is listed as: “Diary of Lee H. Oswald.” According to Hart, “confidential informant T-1” stated to Hart “that Representative Ford (fnu), a member of the Warren Commission, sold SUBJECT (i.e. Oswald diary) to the Dallas Morning News. Mr. Ford had a copy of the diary and took it to executives of LIFE magazine and also Newsweek magazine. Source states that these executives paid Marina Oswald, widow of Lee Harvey Oswald, $16,000.00 for the world copyright of the diary. Source further states that proof of this is in the hand of the Dallas County District Attorney’s office.” In an “Evaluation” statement added to the bottom of his letter, Detective Hart further indicated: “Informant considered reliable; possibly true.”(A copy of this correspondence can be found at two different locations within the Dallas City Archives holdings of the Dallas Police Department: Box 13, Folder 4, File # 51; and Box 18, Folder 4, File # 12)

Two days after the Hart letter, July 10, 1964, LIFE magazine published an article that included, once again, information from Oswald’s diary. On this same date, J. Lee Rankin sent Hoover a second letter in which “the President’s Commission requested the Bureau to conduct appropriate investigation concerning circumstances surrounding the obtaining and publication of Oswald’s diary in the July 10, 1964 issue of “Life” magazine.” J. Lee Rankin had been informed of the alleged Gerald Ford leak/sale of the diary, precise date unspecified, though surviving documentation would appear to indicate that this revelation took place no later than July 10, 1964. The confidential Hart “source”, informant T-1, was revealed in a Rosen to Belmont memorandum dated July 13, 1964, to wit: “Assistant District Attorney William Alexander, Dallas County, has intimated that Representative Ford was the source of the leak of Oswald’s diary to the news media.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10054-10322: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4401)

The day after the Rankin-to-Hoover letter, Supervisor Ludwig Oberndorf of the Washington Field Office “advised that the interview with Representative Gerald R. Ford, a member of the President’s Commission, had been approved…Representative Ford has requested that he be interviewed in order that he could go on record concerning this matter.” This particular communiqué had been “submitted for record purposes” only, by Rosen, though there appears little doubt that Rankin was informed of the identity of informant T-1. By the following day, July 14, 1964, the Bureau were identifying the

”two matters” of the Dallas Morning News article of June 28 and the LIFE magazine article of July 10 as being “directly related” and over the next three weeks numerous individuals were interviewed by members of the FBI though everyone interviewed “either denied or have refused to identify the source of the diary.” The investigation eventually involved members of the Washington, New York, Houston and Dallas Field Offices with a “breakthrough” occurring on July 22, 1964. On that date the Dallas FO furnished the Bureau Lab “one roll of 35 mm positive film containing photographs of the diary, as well as one roll of 35 mm negative film of this positive and Xerox prints of the pertinent pages of the Oswald diary. These 35 mm films and prints were obtained from the District Attorney’s Office in Dallas, Texas. In addition, the New York Office has furnished the original Xerox prints of the 12 pages of the Oswald diary that “Life” magazine obtained and published in their July 10, 1964 issue.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10048-10258: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4509) As a result of comparative analysis of this material, “Laboratory examination of these items has established that the 35 mm rolls of film obtained from the Dallas District Attorney’s Office contain imperfections in their original state that are reproduced in the Xerox copies used by “Life” magazine. This shows that the “Life” magazine copies originated from the 35 mm rolls of film from the Dallas District Attorney’s Office.” Further legwork established that the Dallas DA’s office acquired their copies of the Oswald diary material, and other evidence, from the Dallas Police Department, their film “taken to the Recordak Corporation in Dallas where a 35 mm positive, 35 mm negative and 3 sets of hard copies were made for the District Attorney’s office. The “Life” magazine prints are these same ‘hard copies’ or are ‘hard copies’ subsequently made from the District Attorney’s 35 mm film.” Though the correspondence on this issue is theoretically from W. D. Griffith and addressed to Bureau Lab Chief, Ivan W. Conrad, the stenographic notations present on the documentation clearly indicate that the comparative analysis and resulting conclusions were the work of “LLS,” Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt. On the same date as the lengthy “Shaneyfelt” memorandum on this matter, July 22, 1964, the information and results of the FBI Lab analysis were supplied to the President’s Commission by way of a letter sent to J. Lee Rankin. A memorandum attached to the letter that was to be sent to the Commission (Rankin) indicated the following, by way of updated “background” information: “Extensive investigation has been conducted by our Dallas, New York, and Houston Offices in this matter. Regarding the publication of Oswald’s diary in “Life” magazine, we have now determined arrangements for the publication were handled through Paula Aynesworth, who is the wife of Hugh Aynesworth, reporter for the Dallas Morning News and who published Oswald’s diary on June 27 and 28, 1964. Paula Aynesworth received $2500 for this information from “Life” magazine.”(Ibid prior footnote in this section, as well as: FBI: Record Number: 124-10034-10316: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-109060-1st numbered document after serial 3524)

The FBI identification of Paula Aynesworth as a paid source of information on the Oswald diary is accurate and confirmation of this is found within the surviving papers of Holland McCombs, Corbitt Special Collections, University Archives, University of Tennessee at Martin. On June 27, 1964, Holland McCombs sent Natalie Kosek, Life Picture Bureau, Head Office, New York, a “Rush” memorandum and package. Addressed to Will Lang, Life Magazine, Time and Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, McComb’s indicated the impending arrival of a copy of “Oswald Russian Diary,” a package air expressed via American Airlines, Flight # 92, due to arrive at Kennedy Airport at 9:43 pm on the evening of June 27, 1964, Waybill # 886657. In the package were “photostatic” copies of 12 pages from the diary, but there were attached McCombs constructed stipulations to be followed prior to publication in LIFE magazine: “In page 6 should cross out three or four lines that describe Zeger. Page 7…where ‘Zeger advises me to go back to the U.S.A., etc…page 9. ‘I confided in Zeger, ‘etc… Our thoughts are that Mr. Zeger would be seriously hurt by the Communists if this were run verbatim. In the writings of Hugh Aynesworth he has changed the name to Andrei Tovli when it was something risky and left Zeger in it as a place where Oswald partied occasionally…even mentioned the part about the daughters etc.” (Holland McCombs Collection, Corbitt Special Collections, University Archives, University of Tennessee at Martin. Box 153, Folder F-9)

In addition to the Oswald diary package, McCombs included a copy of a signed agreement between LIFE magazine and Paula Eby Aynesworth, a document dated June 27, 1964. The terms of this agreement stipulated that Paula Aynesworth was to receive the sum of $2500.00 “in cash or via Western Union money order addressed to 729 North Buckner Blvd., Dallas 18, Texas, by Tuesday, the thirtieth of June, 1964.” There were other clauses in this document, including the “understanding” that Paula Aynesworth would not be held responsible in the event that “copies of above document are released by other parties than Paula Eby Aynesworth.” In his letter of accompaniment McCombs boasts of him and LIFE having a “fast leg up” on the Oswald diary material with the added comment that “here’s hoping it will be worth the $2,500.” McCombs even went so far as to suggest that Time-Life send him a “rush check…first thing Monday morning…” so that he could cash same “and hand over the cash to Mrs. Aynesworth…” McCombs also enclosed a verbatim copy of “Aynesworth’s story of diary in Dallas Morning News.”

On July 27, 1964, five days after he received original communication on the Lab examination of the 35 mm film and hard copies, J. Lee Rankin received a second letter from Hoover, a document that once again was ghost-written by Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt. In the concluding paragraph, the following was indicated: “The Xerox copies of the diary obtained from the District Attorney’s Office and the Xerox copies obtained from “Life” magazine were all examined for latent fingerprints. Seventeen latent fingerprints and three latent palm prints were developed on the copies from “Life” magazine. Five latent fingerprints and four latent palm prints were developed on the copies from the District Attorney’s Office. One of the latent fingerprints on the copies from the District Attorney’s Office is identical with the left thumb print of a William Franklin Alexander, who may be identical with William F. Alexander, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas, Texas. The other fingerprints and palm prints have not been identified.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10044-10266: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-109060-3567.) This Hoover-to-Rankin letter was two pages in length, but there was a third page “Note For Dallas” attached to the letter, a note not sent to Rankin: “The Dallas Office should obtain, if possible, the fingerprints and palm prints of William F. Alexander and W. H. Davis, Jr., of the District Attorney’s Office. They should also obtain, if possible, fingerprints and palm prints of Hugh Aynesworth and Paula Aynesworth for comparison with the unidentified latent fingerprints and palm prints…”

On July 29, 1964, an interesting “Airtel” was sent to SAC, Dallas, from the Director. This three page document contained a number of suggestions for clarification for the individual responsible for generating reports on the Oswald diary information “leak,” SA Robert P. Gemberling of the Dallas FO. The very first “clarification” was a note that Gemberling’s report of his “interview with Holland McCombs, Dallas Correspondent for “Life” magazine, should not be included in the next Oswald report.” The airtel contained numerous follow-up suggestions for Gemberling, as well as omissions to be clarified, and concluded with this statement: “Investigation indicates W. F. Alexander, Assistant District Attorney, Dallas County, Texas, is a strong suspect and our laboratory has determined that copies of Oswald’s dairy in possession of “Life” magazine originated from the film that was in possession of the Dallas District Attorney’s office furnished by District Attorney Henry Wade.” Five days later, August 3, 1964, aspects of the investigation were halted in Dallas. In an Airtel sent to SAC Dallas, Shanklin was “advised against” fingerprinting the individuals described in the prior Airtel of July 27, 1964 because “newspaper officials were touchy about this matter and instructed their employees to clear any interviews concerning the diary with managing editor. We have proven ‘Life’ magazine’s copies of diary came from Dallas DA’s office and any effort to obtain prints from principals involved could result in unwarranted publicity or possible embarrassment. It is recommended no prints be sought from these people unless Commission specifically requests.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10044-10266: Record Series: HQ: 105-82555-4559) As far as I have been able to ascertain, the Warren Commission pressed this issue no further. In a two page letter that accompanied the Hoover-to-Dallas Airtel of August 3, 1964, time was taken to once again lash out at the DA’s office, this script though assigned to Hoover actually the prose of “RDR” – Richard D. Rogge: “Since the initiation of this investigation District Attorney Wade has been a thorn in the side of the Bureau by his impulsive manner of making inaccurate press releases resulting in confusion. Wade’s Office has been negligent in the handling of evidence and he has shown a lackadaisical attitude in this regard. Further, in his testimony before the President’s Commission Wade raised several points which apparently were construed by the Commission to substantiate uninformed charges that Oswald could have been an informant of this Bureau. This necessitated an unusual amount of work on our part to refute.”

The investigation dwindled onward, Marina Oswald denying on August 8, 1964, that though she had been contacted repeatedly by Hugh Aynesworth and had been interviewed by him “she told Aynesworth she did not care to discuss the diary.” Gerald Ford was interviewed by Cartha “Deke” DeLoach on August 17, 1964, at which time “he desired to unequivocally state, and to furnish a signed statement if necessary, that he did not leak the information in question.” This information was presented to the Commission, by way of a wrap-up letter dated August 26, 1964, from Hoover to Rankin, a communiqué that ended: “No further action is being taken by this Bureau concerning the leak of Oswald’s diary to the Dallas Morning News and Life magazine in the absence of a specific request from you.” None, it would appear, ever came thereafter from Rankin.

In the end it would appear that the “leak” of the Oswald diary to the media came about as a result of acquisition of materials from the District Attorney’s Office by the Aynesworth’s. Thereafter Mrs. Aynesworth at least got something out of it - $2500.00 – while the Bureau and the Commission investigated, to a dull conclusion, the entire affair. On July 13, 1964, William Alexander was interviewed by the FBI, vehemently denying any knowledge of the entire matter. It was further reported that Alexander stated, “President Johnson, John Edgar Hoover, the FBI and the Warren Commission ‘could kiss my a—‘…” On the same date, “Mr. William A McKenzie, attorney for Marina Oswald, on 7-6-64 said he sold publication rights of the diary to Life Magazine on 7-1-64. A Mr. Schad of Life Magazine obtained the diary from Hugh Aynesworth of the Dallas Morning News. It is noted Aynesworth appears to be deeply involved in this matter and when interviewed, has refused to reveal the source of his information and was uncooperative.”(FBI: Record Number: 124-10172-10043: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 105-82555-4522)

As I said, FWIW.

Gary Murr

In addition to the document references indicated in this posting, one can also find relevant materials in: FBI: Record Number: 124-10369-10009: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-117290-Administration Folder-V8; and: FBI: Record Number: 124-10371-10183: Record Series: HQ: Agency File Number: 62-117290-Administration Folder – E11:

My compliments Gary!

Without doubt, one of the single best researched and presented articles on any subject matter, that I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugh G. Aynesworth played an important role in the media cover-up of the assassination of JFK. He contacted me a few weeks ago and complained about what I had written about him on my website. I invited him to join the Forum where he would be free to point out where I had gone wrong. I has yet to accept the invitation.

Aynesworth went to work for the Dallas Morning News in 1960. This is what he had to say about Joachim Joesten's Oswald, Assassin or Fall Guy? in the Dallas Morning News on 1st August, 1964:

If you would listen to this one, he would have you thinking that Lee Harvey Oswald was a polite little misunderstood youth who just got mixed up in the wrong company...

Oh how terrible, says Joesten (an ex-German who became a U.S. citizen in 1948 and must wonder why), poor little Lee Harvey was the victim of a ruthless plot headed by Dallas police leaders, District Attorney Henry Wade and his staff and a few "bad guys" from the FBI.

Joesten further states that Oswald was an agent of both the FBI and the CIA (how's that for a 24-year-old who couldn't spell "wrist"?).

It's the same old tripe with some new flavoring....

The tip-off is the foreword, wherein Joesten dedicates his book to "Mark Lane... the brilliant and courageous New York attorney...." Lane is the troublemaker who spent two day's in Dallas in January on his "investigation" and now pretends to be an expert on all aspects of the weird tragedy.

Aynesworth was a strong supporter of the "lone assassin theory" and led the attacks on Mark Lane and his book on the Warren Commission, the pioneering Rush to Judgement (1965).

In May, 1967 Aynesworth published a critical article of Jim Garrison in Newsweek: "Garrison's tactics have been even more questionable than his case. I have evidence that one of the strapping D.A.'s investigators offered an unwilling "witness" $3,000 and a job with an airline - if only he would "fill in the facts" of the alleged meeting to plot the death of the President. I also know that when the D.A.'s office learned that this entire bribery attempt had been tape-recorded, two of Garrison's men returned to the "witness" and, he says, threatened him with physical harm."

Jim Garrison responded to this article in his book, On The Trail of the Assassins (1988). He argued that: "As for the $3,000 bribe, by the time I came across Aynesworth's revelation, the witness our office had supposedly offered it to, Alvin Babeouf, had admitted to us that it never happened. Aynesworth, of course, never explained what he did with the "evidence" allegedly in his possession. And the so-called bribery tape recording had not, in fact, ever existed."

James DiEugenio has argued: "With the work of the Assassination Records Review Board, many more pages of documents have been released showing how tightly bound Aynesworth was with the intelligence community. It has been demonstrated that Aynesworth was - at the minimum - working with the Dallas Police, Shaw's defense team, and the FBI. He was also an informant to the White House, and had once applied for work with the CIA. As I have noted elsewhere, in the annals of this case, I can think of no reporter who had such extensive contacts with those trying to cover up the facts in the JFK case. And only two come close: Edward Epstein and Gerald Posner."

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

John :

Here is a copy of the Newsweek article.......that Aynesworth wrote in regard to Garrison.......in May 1967.......

B......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary,I'd bet you;re right about the leak coming from the Dallas DA's office. Awhile back, at my urging, young Adam Wilkinson contacted (recent Pulitzer Prize winner) Gene Roberts and asked him from whom he received the backyard photos--prior to their publication in Life. He told Adam he'd been given access to the DA's files. Didn't say who he'd bribed but it could very well have been Alexander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary,I'd bet you;re right about the leak coming from the Dallas DA's office. Awhile back, at my urging, young Adam Wilkinson contacted (recent Pulitzer Prize winner) Gene Roberts and asked him from whom he received the backyard photos--prior to their publication in Life. He told Adam he'd been given access to the DA's files. Didn't say who he'd bribed but it could very well have been Alexander.

Another new addition to MFF is the HSCA testimony of PJM, in the course of which she talks about what she knew about Anynesworth and Oswald's Diary. - BK

Other new additions to the MFF's collection of HSCA files include:

HSCA Testimony of Priscilla Johnson-McMillan, 2 Feb 1978, Part 1. Priscilla Johnson-McMillan is the journalist who interviewed Oswald in 1959 in Moscow and later wrote Marina and Lee. The HSCA questioned her about many things, including CIA connections.

HSCA Testimony of Priscilla Johnson-McMillan, 2 Feb 1978, Part 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack has complained to many email correspondents that I inaccurately portrayed Hugh Aynesworth as a member of the group which challenged Bev Oliver to a debate. He is correct. Mack and Perry were the ones who issued the challenge, and when they showed up at the barbecue site chosen for the meeting, they were joined at a table by Aynesworth. The debate arose when Mack and Perry repeatedly challenged Oliver's identity as the Babushka Lady in Jim Marrs' JFK study group at UTA. Someone in the group of researchers arranged for the debate meeting and sent out postcards. About two dozen researchers showed up, plus opponents Mack, Perry and Aynesworth. Bev had an attorney friend with her. Marrs, who had no part in setting up the meeting, served as emcee/moderator. As I recall, I sat near Jean Hill. I had provided lots of slides for Beverly to show, which in sequence showed her movements around the plaza. Of particular interest were her shoes, which she said she still possessed. I do not remember who arranged and publicized the meeting; it may have been the late Larry Howard. I should not have implied that Aynesworth had anything to do with setting up the debate.

Jack

Having been one of the attendees at said BBQ joint for such "debate," let me add a few comments.

As I, too, recall, it was indeed Larry Howard who put together the deal, although he sat in the audience rather than on the dais, brandishing a file folder with Gary Mack's birth name emblazoned on it as if it was somehow a crime that someone would use a name other than their own, like Kidd Craddick does on another Dallas-area radio station. "Kidd?" C'mon, I'd imagine his parents were a little more imaginative than that!!

I don't recall that Aynesworth sat with Perry, but I suppose it's possible: I've slept since then. It would've meant he was also sitting with me, which i don't think was the case. That was after I'd given him a particularly hard time at a "Marrs Meeting" (which you might recall; I'm fairly certain John Armstrong would since he was there and we talked extensively afterward. I don't imagine Hugh would've thought of me as any kind of an ally at that point. No matter.

The "debate" was heavily weighed against anyone who didn't buy into the Beverly-as-Babushka Lady story. One might do well to recall that, up until that evening, Mary Ferrell also didn't think that the two were one and the same. Although I remember Mary's exact rationale for finally accepting the possibility - more on that momentarily - the rest of the "debate" centered around Beverly being a good Christian woman whose husband is a preacher, so why would she of all people in the world lie?

The photo you put in your message, added here because it was quite a number of posts (and replies with full posts quoted in them) back, is perhaps instructive. The arrow, unintended for the purpose I'm going to note, goes to the heart of the matter.

Mary Ferrell's disbelief of Beverly being the Babushka Lady centered on the women's ankles. Mary noted - as only a woman could - that a woman's ankle's never change shape. A young lady with slender ankles will have slender ankles when she's 40 or 50 or 60; likewise, a woman with wide ankles will not have slender ankles when she's 40 or 50 or 60.

(Not being an "ankle man" myself, I'd never noticed such a thing until that night, but have much more so since then, and I have to say her analysis was right on the money.)

Unfortunately, if someone had this photo or a similar one at the BBQ joint that night, I didn't see it and thus could not have compared Beverly's ankles with Babushka's; when I've seen Beverly, I haven't had such a photo, and haven't seen Beverly when I had a photo handy.

So here's the challenge, capitulated to (seemingly reluctantly) by Mary Ferrell, but still uncertain as far as I'm concerned: post a similar photo of Beverly where we can see her ankles, and then let's compare the two sets. They're either the same or they're not, and if they're not, the Babuska Lady is still unknown.

Having a pair of shoes doesn't mean a thing. You can have several pairs of shoes, some that look like others, but you can only have one set of ankles. I've also never given a lot of credence to her "experimental camera" story either, but one thing at a time, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James DiEugenio's article The Obstruction of Garrison does not exactly make Ayneswroth seem like a truth-seeking reporter.

* he accuses Hugh of sharing details of about Ferrie's early life Clay Shaw's defense lawyer Ed Wegmann. These details would have been unavailable from

Aynesworth's New Orleans vantage point, suggesting that he was "a 'cutout' for either the FBI of CIA into Shaw's defense

* DiEugenio writes that "Aynesworth's contact at CIA is the same man who was supposedly the handler of George de Mohrenschildt, ad the man who kept an

eye on any revival of intrest in Garrison in the mid '70s, J. Walton Moore.

* Moore reports on the possibility of "Hugh grant Aynesworth Making Trip To Cuba" in a report dated 10 Oct 1963. The report said that Aynesworth

told Moore that he had applied for a visa for Cuba "approximately a year ago. He heard nothing for eleven months and then in early Septemeber of

1963 he received a call from the Czech Embassy in Washington D.C> asking him if he was still interested in going. He replied that he ws and asked

if his application was going to receive favorable consideration. The Czech embasy rep. would only reply that it was being considered"

* DiEugenio writes: "There are stong suggestions in his reports to Newsweek as to just how far the ties go. In a 2/24/67 report on David Ferrie,

Aynesworth describes Ferrie's ordination into the Old catholic Church of North America. He then adds parenthetically, 'We're trying to protect our own

in this group and would appreciate your not using the church's name.' Note the use of hte posessive pronoun 'our own' This clearly denotes that

Aynesworth knew this strange religious sect was being used by the CIA as a front organization as other sources, like Banister associate Thomas Beckham

have confirmed. In another report deated 3/3/67, Aynesworth writes that the CIA attempted to get former nazi intelligence officer turned CIA

mercenary Otto Skorzeny in on a Castro kidnapping polt in 1963. The fact that this gem has never been revealed, even in the 1967 Inspector

General Report, shows just how conncected Aynesworth was" (p. 27, The Assassinations.)

These reports to Newsweek were not for publication.

FINE TIME FOR A TRIP TO CUBA! Does this suggest that Cuban intel. may have known of Ayesworth's intelligence connections?

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack has complained to many email correspondents that I inaccurately portrayed Hugh Aynesworth as a member of the group which challenged Bev Oliver to a debate. He is correct. Mack and Perry were the ones who issued the challenge, and when they showed up at the barbecue site chosen for the meeting, they were joined at a table by Aynesworth. The debate arose when Mack and Perry repeatedly challenged Oliver's identity as the Babushka Lady in Jim Marrs' JFK study group at UTA. Someone in the group of researchers arranged for the debate meeting and sent out postcards. About two dozen researchers showed up, plus opponents Mack, Perry and Aynesworth. Bev had an attorney friend with her. Marrs, who had no part in setting up the meeting, served as emcee/moderator. As I recall, I sat near Jean Hill. I had provided lots of slides for Beverly to show, which in sequence showed her movements around the plaza. Of particular interest were her shoes, which she said she still possessed. I do not remember who arranged and publicized the meeting; it may have been the late Larry Howard. I should not have implied that Aynesworth had anything to do with setting up the debate.

Jack

Having been one of the attendees at said BBQ joint for such "debate," let me add a few comments.

As I, too, recall, it was indeed Larry Howard who put together the deal, although he sat in the audience rather than on the dais, brandishing a file folder with Gary Mack's birth name emblazoned on it as if it was somehow a crime that someone would use a name other than their own, like Kidd Craddick does on another Dallas-area radio station. "Kidd?" C'mon, I'd imagine his parents were a little more imaginative than that!!

I don't recall that Aynesworth sat with Perry, but I suppose it's possible: I've slept since then. It would've meant he was also sitting with me, which i don't think was the case. That was after I'd given him a particularly hard time at a "Marrs Meeting" (which you might recall; I'm fairly certain John Armstrong would since he was there and we talked extensively afterward. I don't imagine Hugh would've thought of me as any kind of an ally at that point. No matter.

The "debate" was heavily weighed against anyone who didn't buy into the Beverly-as-Babushka Lady story. One might do well to recall that, up until that evening, Mary Ferrell also didn't think that the two were one and the same. Although I remember Mary's exact rationale for finally accepting the possibility - more on that momentarily - the rest of the "debate" centered around Beverly being a good Christian woman whose husband is a preacher, so why would she of all people in the world lie?

The photo you put in your message, added here because it was quite a number of posts (and replies with full posts quoted in them) back, is perhaps instructive. The arrow, unintended for the purpose I'm going to note, goes to the heart of the matter.

Mary Ferrell's disbelief of Beverly being the Babushka Lady centered on the women's ankles. Mary noted - as only a woman could - that a woman's ankle's never change shape. A young lady with slender ankles will have slender ankles when she's 40 or 50 or 60; likewise, a woman with wide ankles will not have slender ankles when she's 40 or 50 or 60.

(Not being an "ankle man" myself, I'd never noticed such a thing until that night, but have much more so since then, and I have to say her analysis was right on the money.)

Unfortunately, if someone had this photo or a similar one at the BBQ joint that night, I didn't see it and thus could not have compared Beverly's ankles with Babushka's; when I've seen Beverly, I haven't had such a photo, and haven't seen Beverly when I had a photo handy.

So here's the challenge, capitulated to (seemingly reluctantly) by Mary Ferrell, but still uncertain as far as I'm concerned: post a similar photo of Beverly where we can see her ankles, and then let's compare the two sets. They're either the same or they're not, and if they're not, the Babuska Lady is still unknown.

Having a pair of shoes doesn't mean a thing. You can have several pairs of shoes, some that look like others, but you can only have one set of ankles. I've also never given a lot of credence to her "experimental camera" story either, but one thing at a time, eh?

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

Duke : Quote: ""So here's the challenge, capitulated to (seemingly reluctantly) by Mary Ferrell, but still uncertain as far as I'm concerned: post a similar photo of Beverly where we can see her ankles, and then let's compare the two sets. They're either the same or they're not, and if they're not, the Babuska Lady is still unknown. ""

Here you go Duke........below......Bev's ankles and Babuska's.........

Now here's my challenge, Gary Mack's name was Lawrence Dunkel.....

I would like to see, a comparison of two photos.......one of Gary Mack's Ankles and another of Lawrence Dunkel's....

Let's compare them......They're also either the same or they're not...so

For a positive ID that Gary is Larry, and Larry is Gary....it's ..Time to show their ankles....

Thank you ever so.....

B........

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke : Quote: ""So here's the challenge, capitulated to (seemingly reluctantly) by Mary Ferrell, but still uncertain as far as I'm concerned: post a similar photo of Beverly where we can see her ankles, and then let's compare the two sets. They're either the same or they're not, and if they're not, the Babuska Lady is still unknown. ""

Here you go Duke........below......Bev's ankles and Babuska's.........

Now here's my challenge, Gary Mack's name was Lawrence Dunkel.....

I would like to see, a comparison of two photos.......one of Gary Mack's Ankles and another of Lawrence Dunkel's....

Let's compare them......They're also either the same or they're not...so

For a positive ID that Gary is Larry, and Larry is Gary....it's ..Time to show their ankles....

Thank you ever so.....

B........

:eek

ROFLMAO! Touche! But where's the ankle photo?

I don't think that Mack has ever shied from his legal (or birth) name, any more so than I have from mine.

Latest I recall - correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not thinking he claims to be a witness to anything that is affected by what he's called, any more than I am when it comes to who wrote that book: my name is on my birth certificate; the author's name is not on his, so what's the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke claims that Mary Ferrell told him she did not believe Beverly's story

based on analysis of ANKLES in a photo. I doubt that. I daresay that I knew

Mary much better than Duke, and I never heard her express such an idea.

I do know that she and Beverly were friendly. I do know that Bev's strongest

supporters were Gary Shaw and Penn Jones, both very close friends of

Mary. I suggest that Duke supply proof of his allegation or withdraw it.

Mary kept elaborate notes on EVERYTHING, so her opinion of Bev may

be in the files of the Mary Ferrell Foundation. I suggest that Duke go to

the MFF website and find proof and get back to us. Misquoting the dead

is a common ploy.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
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...