David Kaiser: The Road to Dallas

[Greg Parker]

David,

you wrote

"After I wrote Postmortem about Sacco and Vanzetti, a statistician I know became interested in the subject. He uses something called Bayesian analysis, which is technique for estimating a combined probability of a certain event, based upon the probabilities of certain related events. I did not try to use this technique formally writing The Road to Dallas but I constantly use it informally. Thus, for instance, if some one claims to have seen Oswald or Ruby at a particular time and place, the critical issue is often not so much the reliability of that particular individual as it is whether other evidence (especially evidence they could not possibly have known about) supports the idea that Oswald or Ruby was there."

and I'm a bit confused by this part of the statement: "I did not try to use this technique formally writing The Road to Dallas but I constantly use it informally." Did you use the technique in the book, or not, and if so, how did you use it informally in that writing (as opposed to formally)?

I'd also be curious to know how would the following examples stand up using this technique:

( a ) Oswald stated he was having lunch around the time of the assassination, and to support this, stated he saw two others enter the building from his vantage point in the domino room. Though he knows them both by sight, he can only recall the nickname of one. The two confirm entering the building roughly 7 minutes prior to the assassination. However, as far as anyone knew, Kennedy was due a mere two minutes after that time. There appears to have been no way Oswald could have known about those two coming back in - unless he was on the first floor, just as he said. Even though this is prior to the assassination, any sniper would have needed to be well in place by then for the motorcades expected 12:25 arrival.

( b ) Harry Holmes testified that Oswald gave the following account of events: "a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later."

There was in fact, an officer stationed at the door with Truly taking names and contact details and verifying employment with the firm. Oswald's account per Holmes is exactly how it was described in first day news reports such as this "During the frantic search for the President's killer, police were posted at exits to the warehouse. Police said a man, whom they identified as Oswald, walked through the door of the warehouse and was stopped by a policeman. Oswald told the policeman that "I work here," and when another employee confirmed that he did, the policeman let Oswald walk away, they said."

How did they identify this as Oswald - unless Oswald identified himself? Perhaps this is why his name appears at the very top of a DPD list of those vetted before leaving - with he being the first to be let go?

How could Oswald have known about vetting at the door if he had not been there, just as he apparently said?

If these examples do stand up - doesn't that tend to exonerate Oswald as a shooter, and provide a proper and innocent context for his exit?

( c ) is an example of a pre-assassination Oswald sighting which I think also meets your criteria of the witness giving details she could not have known unless there was something to the sighting. Moreover, she was a very reluctant witness, so any motive of seeking notoriety is immediately ruled out. The details are contained here

[Gerald McKnight]

Kaiser's book is a vast disappoitment as far as I am concerned. I was somewhat put off by his self-promotion, in that either he or Harvard Press flaunted the work as the first undertaken by a professional historian, etc. using the archival records. I don't know if that is run-way arrogance or just plain naivete about the great body of work on the JFK assassnation he is clearly unaware.

He has done some useful work with his book but he simply has no grasp of the forensic evidence. For him to conclude that the "single bullet" theory is bullet-proof sound because the WC and the HSCA so attest is scandalous.

It suggests to me that he is innocent of any grasp of the evidence in the case.

I think he was one of the first to examine the FBI Mafia records at NARA and then planted his flag on this terra incognita hoping to astound us with his discovery.

As far as I can tell his assertion of Oswald's relationship to the underworld rests on Oswald's limited relationship with New Orleans uncle Charles Murret. That's a weak reed to try and build a gestalt around the tragedy of Dallas. Murret had four children--a dentist, a professional ball player, a school teacher, and a Jesuit priest. Hardly a prototype of Tony Saprano.

My advice to Kaiser is take a few years and try and master some of the arguments surrounding the evidence in the case.

[Ron Ecker]

Again, there is no evidence I suggest to link CIA officers with the assassination.

When a CIA officer, who thinks he is dying, puts himself on audio tape describing himself as a "benchwarmer" in the assassination, you don't consider that evidence?

Being a "benchwarmer" implies that he had first-string teammates in Dallas.

[Tim Gratz]

Ron, in one sense you have a point. But in "American Spy" Hunt admits he committed perjury testifying to the Watergate Committee and he also expressly contradicts what he supposedly told his son in his "deathbed confession". For instance, in "American Spy" he states that no one intelligent enough to plan such an operation would have employed Sturgis whose IQ, Hunt says, was at "room-temperature levels". (And before he died Hemming offered me the same opinion of Sturgis.) Moreover, in his "confession" Hunt added Veciana and Phillips as conspirators. If Veciana was a conspirator, why on earth would he relay the Bishop story to Fonzi? That makes no sense at all.

In "American Spy" Hunt also states, correctly, I believe, that a high-level CIA officer like Meyer would never have gone straight to Sturgis. This has the ring of truth to it. Had Meyer been involved, he would have recruited Hunt directly and left it to Hunt to recruit Sturgis.

By the way, in "American Spy" Hunt also admits that a lot of what he wrote in his 1970s vintage memoir, "Undercover" was false. He also admits, contrary to his Watergate Committee testimony, that he and Liddy plotted the murder of Jack Ansderson. (Liddy told the truth about that.)

I can consider that Hunt might have been involved in a plot to kill JFK, as a rogue agent. But the man is such an admitted xxxx and perjurer, and there are so many logical lapses in his so-called confession to his son, that I don't think it can be reasonably considered "evidence" of anyone's involvement.

By the way, if it is true, Hunt is a scoundrel for being a benchwarmer and doing nothing to stop it--and he has JFK's blood on his hands. If it is not true, I think Hunt is equally worthy of damnation for smearing innocent people.

[William Kelly]

Kaiser's book is a vast disappoitment as far as I am concerned. I was somewhat put off by his self-promotion, in that either he or Harvard Press flaunted the work as the first undertaken by a professional historian, etc. using the archival records. I don't know if that is run-way arrogance or just plain naivete about the great body of work on the JFK assassnation he is clearly unaware.

He has done some useful work with his book but he simply has no grasp of the forensic evidence. For him to conclude that the "single bullet" theory is bullet-proof sound because the WC and the HSCA so attest is scandalous.

It suggests to me that he is innocent of any grasp of the evidence in the case.

I think he was one of the first to examine the FBI Mafia records at NARA and then planted his flag on this terra incognita hoping to astound us with his discovery.

As far as I can tell his assertion of Oswald's relationship to the underworld rests on Oswald's limited relationship with New Orleans uncle Charles Murret. That's a weak reed to try and build a gestalt around the tragedy of Dallas. Murret had four children--a dentist, a professional ball player, a school teacher, and a Jesuit priest. Hardly a prototype of Tony Saprano.

My advice to Kaiser is take a few years and try and master some of the arguments surrounding the evidence in the case.

While I agree with Prof. McKnight's assessment, I think there will be some good to come out of Kaiser's book.

After admonishing historians for decades for seriously avoiding the assassination of JFK, when one finally does we hammer him.

I'm reading it now, and will have more to say when finished.

Bill Kelly

[Christopher Hall]

Ron, in one sense you have a point. But in "American Spy" Hunt admits he committed perjury testifying to the Watergate Committee and he also expressly contradicts what he supposedly told his son in his "deathbed confession". For instance, in "American Spy" he states that no one intelligent enough to plan such an operation would have employed Sturgis whose IQ, Hunt says, was at "room-temperature levels". (And before he died Hemming offered me the same opinion of Sturgis.) Moreover, in his "confession" Hunt added Veciana and Phillips as conspirators. If Veciana was a conspirator, why on earth would he relay the Bishop story to Fonzi? That makes no sense at all.

In "American Spy" Hunt also states, correctly, I believe, that a high-level CIA officer like Meyer would never have gone straight to Sturgis. This has the ring of truth to it. Had Meyer been involved, he would have recruited Hunt directly and left it to Hunt to recruit Sturgis.

By the way, in "American Spy" Hunt also admits that a lot of what he wrote in his 1970s vintage memoir, "Undercover" was false. He also admits, contrary to his Watergate Committee testimony, that he and Liddy plotted the murder of Jack Ansderson. (Liddy told the truth about that.)

I can consider that Hunt might have been involved in a plot to kill JFK, as a rogue agent. But the man is such an admitted xxxx and perjurer, and there are so many logical lapses in his so-called confession to his son, that I don't think it can be reasonably considered "evidence" of anyone's involvement.

By the way, if it is true, Hunt is a scoundrel for being a benchwarmer and doing nothing to stop it--and he has JFK's blood on his hands. If it is not true, I think Hunt is equally worthy of damnation for smearing innocent people.

Tim-

I agree that Hunt is an inveterate xxxx.

For a better view as to the possibility Hunt's having a role in the assassination, read the part of Plausible Denial which contains Mark Lane's depostion of Hunt in the Liberty Lobby libel case.

Lane eviscerates him.

The best part is when Lane gives his reason for filing the lawsuit as, of course not for money, but to convnince his school aged children that he spent the assassination weekend with them.

For most people (with a few notable exceptions), the JFK assassination was a watershed event in their lives, certainly in my case when I remember our teacher (in my 1st grade class) telling us that the President had been murdered and that we were being sent home early.

Why Hunt would embark on a lawsuit to remind his children that he was with them all weekend strains credulity, and cross-examination can be a better path to the truth than a well-prepared story.

On the other hand, I find St. John Hunt's explanation and recounting of his discussion with his father to be potentially credible.

If and when he writes his book, and it is subjected to analysis and criticism, I will make a more informed decision.

I also listened to a tape of the alleged interview in which EHH describes who was in on the plot.

So, either Hunt was lying when he denied being in on the plot or when he admitted being in on it.

Which statement is a lie and which is the truth remains to be seen.

Chris

[William Kelly]

Kaiser doesn't mention E. Howard Hunt at all. - Bill Kelly

Ron, in one sense you have a point. But in "American Spy" Hunt admits he committed perjury testifying to the Watergate Committee and he also expressly contradicts what he supposedly told his son in his "deathbed confession". For instance, in "American Spy" he states that no one intelligent enough to plan such an operation would have employed Sturgis whose IQ, Hunt says, was at "room-temperature levels". (And before he died Hemming offered me the same opinion of Sturgis.) Moreover, in his "confession" Hunt added Veciana and Phillips as conspirators. If Veciana was a conspirator, why on earth would he relay the Bishop story to Fonzi? That makes no sense at all.

In "American Spy" Hunt also states, correctly, I believe, that a high-level CIA officer like Meyer would never have gone straight to Sturgis. This has the ring of truth to it. Had Meyer been involved, he would have recruited Hunt directly and left it to Hunt to recruit Sturgis.

By the way, in "American Spy" Hunt also admits that a lot of what he wrote in his 1970s vintage memoir, "Undercover" was false. He also admits, contrary to his Watergate Committee testimony, that he and Liddy plotted the murder of Jack Ansderson. (Liddy told the truth about that.)

I can consider that Hunt might have been involved in a plot to kill JFK, as a rogue agent. But the man is such an admitted xxxx and perjurer, and there are so many logical lapses in his so-called confession to his son, that I don't think it can be reasonably considered "evidence" of anyone's involvement.

By the way, if it is true, Hunt is a scoundrel for being a benchwarmer and doing nothing to stop it--and he has JFK's blood on his hands. If it is not true, I think Hunt is equally worthy of damnation for smearing innocent people.

Tim-

I agree that Hunt is an inveterate xxxx.

For a better view as to the possibility Hunt's having a role in the assassination, read the part of Plausible Denial which contains Mark Lane's depostion of Hunt in the Liberty Lobby libel case.

Lane eviscerates him.

The best part is when Lane gives his reason for filing the lawsuit as, of course not for money, but to convnince his school aged children that he spent the assassination weekend with them.

For most people (with a few notable exceptions), the JFK assassination was a watershed event in their lives, certainly in my case when I remember our teacher (in my 1st grade class) telling us that the President had been murdered and that we were being sent home early.

Why Hunt would embark on a lawsuit to remind his children that he was with them all weekend strains credulity, and cross-examination can be a better path to the truth than a well-prepared story.

On the other hand, I find St. John Hunt's explanation and recounting of his discussion with his father to be potentially credible.

If and when he writes his book, and it is subjected to analysis and criticism, I will make a more informed decision.

I also listened to a tape of the alleged interview in which EHH describes who was in on the plot.

So, either Hunt was lying when he denied being in on the plot or when he admitted being in on it.

Which statement is a lie and which is the truth remains to be seen.

Chris

[William Kelly]

Max Holland checks in on David Kaiser's Road To Dallas.

Although I disagree with some of DK's points, I want to thank him for irritating John McAdams and Max Holland, both of whom insist that Oswald was not only the lone assassin, but that he was a disturbed "politicized sociopath," as Holland tries to brand him.

That such a prestigious publishing house would print such a conspiracy-mongering book

makes Holland wonder how it got pass the Mockingbird censors he calls "peer review."

Hollands books should be peer reviewed for all the dizinformation he espouses.

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/books/index.html\

BK

[Pat Speer]

Max Holland checks in on David Kaiser's Road To Dallas.

Although I disagree with some of DK's points, I want to thank him for irritating John McAdams and Max Holland, both of whom insist that Oswald was not only the lone assassin, but that he was a disturbed "politicized sociopath," as Holland tries to brand him.

That such a prestigious publishing house would print such a conspiracy-mongering book

makes Holland wonder how it got pass the Mockingbird censors he calls "peer review."

Hollands books should be peer reviewed for all the dizinformation he espouses.

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/books/index.html\

BK

I spoke to some people from Harvard University Press at the UCLA Book Fair on Saturday. (I saw Gore Vidal speak, but missed David Talbot). Anyhow, they told me they were really disturbed by all the guff they were getting for publishing Kaiser. I explained that Holland is trying to push his own wacky theory--that the first shot rang out before the beginning of the Z-film, and that he can't be taken seriously. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Tim Gratz]

Perhaps the best reason for discounting Hunt's deathbed "confession" is that he involves Antonio Veciana in the plot. He claims Veciana was recruited in to the plot by that villain to all CIA-haters, David Atlee Phillips.

It of course is impossible to believe that Veciana would have told Fonzi about seeing MB with LHO (and at least implying that MB was really DAP) potentially drawing investigative scrutiny on to DAP. If the plot had unraveled because of that disclosure, Veciana potentially faced the possibility of having his internal organs fried in the Texas electric chair. If Veciana was part of the plot, he clearly would not have told his story (true or not I am not sure) to Fonzi. Since he did tell the story, he could not be part of the plot. Since he was not involved but EHH claims he was, EHH is a demonstrable xxxx. I believe EHH is spending eternity in a place that no snowball would last for more than a few seconds, and has probably been rightly assigned to one of the warmer pits.

By the way, in one of the first chapters of "American Spy" EHH brags about committing adultery with another man's wife. Of course that could just be another of his lies.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

John McAdams review also makes interesting reading:

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2008...to-nowhere.html

[Tim Gratz]

Without commenting on the review at length, at one point Prof McAdams writes that there is "no evidence" that Oswald visited Odio.

Has McAdams read neither "A Farewell to Justice" nor "Brothers", both of which discuss the Angelo Murgado story? Murgado claims Oswald was at Odio's. That IS evidence. Now one can discount Murgado's story if one chooses to do so (just as another can decide to accept it). But in light of Murgado's story, it is certainly disingenuous to assert that "no evidence" supports Odio's story.

Moreover Odio's sister also states she saw Oswald and recognized him as the accused assassin after he was shown on television.

What bothers me about Kaiser's book is that he claims Loran Hall was one of Odio's visitors when Odio, after being shown Hall's photograph, stated that Hall was NOT one of her visitors. How can Kaiser say it was Hall when Odio herself says it was not Hall?

Edited April 30, 2008 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Without commenting on the review at length, at one point Prof McAdams writes that there is "no evidence" that Oswald visited Odio.

Has McAdams read neither "A Farewell to Justice" nor "Brothers", both of which discuss the Angelo Murgado story? Murgado claims Oswald was at Odio's. That IS evidence. Now one can discount Murgado's story if one chooses to do so (just as another can decide to accept it). But in light of Murgado's story, it is certainly disingenuous to assert that "no evidence" supports Odio's story.

Moreover Odio's sister also states she saw Oswald and recognized him as the accused assassin after he was shown on television.

What bothers me about Kaiser's book is that he claims Loran Hall was one of Odio's visitors when Odio, after being shown Hall's photograph, stated that Hall was NOT one of her visitors. How can Kaiser say it was Hall when Odio herself says it was not Hall?

Tim, I agree with you about both of these points. Anything that McAdams does not like he refuses to see it as evidence. However, McAdams is right that Kaiser is too willing to accept evidence when it suggests a link to the Mafia. Kaiser never makes it clear why he is so convinced that Loran Hall was one of the visitors to Odio's apartment. Nor does he discuss the evidence that suggests it was not Hall. This is disgraceful when one considers that Kaiser makes much of his reputation as a historian. It is a reputation that has been badly damaged by this book.

[Tim Gratz]

John we are in total agreement here and what you say re Prof McAdams is at least equally true re VB who has repeatedly asserted there is no evidence of a conspiracy when what he really means is that there is no evidence he is willing to credit, a proposition that is far different. And of course some evidence he completely ignores, even though it is cited in books he claims to have read.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Without commenting on the review at length, at one point Prof McAdams writes that there is "no evidence" that Oswald visited Odio.

Has McAdams read neither "A Farewell to Justice" nor "Brothers", both of which discuss the Angelo Murgado story? Murgado claims Oswald was at Odio's. That IS evidence. Now one can discount Murgado's story if one chooses to do so (just as another can decide to accept it). But in light of Murgado's story, it is certainly disingenuous to assert that "no evidence" supports Odio's story.

Moreover Odio's sister also states she saw Oswald and recognized him as the accused assassin after he was shown on television.

What bothers me about Kaiser's book is that he claims Loran Hall was one of Odio's visitors when Odio, after being shown Hall's photograph, stated that Hall was NOT one of her visitors. How can Kaiser say it was Hall when Odio herself says it was not Hall?

Murgado claims Oswald was at Odio's

Tim;

In that regards, one must offer appreciation to GPH as it would seem unlikely that we would have learned some of these absolutely EEI (Essential Elements of Information) without GPH's participation.*

*As you are also aware, GPH continued to communicate with those whom he considered of some credibility.

And, irrelevant as to what one thinks of the sometimes "BS" of GPH, his statements in regards to the Odio incident/Murgado/LHO meeting are not only of critical importance, but have also been verified by Murgado's son, that he too was told the exact same thing by his father "Angel".

The important element being that LHO was already there when Murgado arrived for the meeting!

In that regards, not unlike GPH's having been sent to Dallas to meet with Walker, the "association" of LHO with Murgado and associates by having LHO already present at a location where Murgado was going to show up, smells------------------------------strongly.

This, not unlike LHO's escapade with Robert McKeown, as well as multiple others, demonstrates the extent of knowledge of those person(s) who were directing the activities of LHO, as well as their knowledge of exactly who the "players" were on ALL sides of this chinese checkers game.

For the most part, other than answering a few essential questions, chasing the various associations of LHO is a complete waste of time as he most certainly was not directed to leave an "association" with those who were the instrument of his manipulations.

The important questions would be exactly who was fully aware of the various players and who could have manipulated Murgado into showing up at an apartment where he would thereafter become labeled and "tainted" with the LHO association.

And, in that regards, one must also include:

1. The FPCC.

2. Robert McKeown

3. The American Communist Party

4. INCA

5. Fill in the blank:_________________________________________

Somewhat like playing three tiered chess:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5556099.html

And working backwards from exactly how LHO ended up on the sixth floor of the TSDB.