Jump to content
The Education Forum

Adele Edisen: A 4-hour interview . . .


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If I found myself in Adele's situation, I would have "gone public" early, in the hope of protecting my family's and my own safety, as exposure is insurance. Keeping the information Adele claims she related to Rice and Bartlet on that November 24, seems to me to be the least safe way to conduct yourself.

Had they followed your witless advice, they would both be dead.

During the interview with Jim Fetzer, Adele recounts how she wrote Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show in 1975 to inquire about about one of the guests, Richard Popkin.

This initiated a dialog between Snyder's companion and the show's executive producer Pamela Burke. Burke tried to get Edisen to appear on the show, but Adele declined.

Jim Fetzer suggested that Adele should have accepted the invitation!

Even as late as 1991, Edisen was afraid and that's why an article about her in Jerry Rose's journal ascribed to her a false name.

I think it was Mary Ferrell that told Adele the best way to ensure her safety was to go public, which Adele did at the 1993 ASK conference.

Judyth Baker has apparently said that some parts of Edisen's story are "totally wacky" yet Edisen is "NEVER attacked" and "yet accepted on every point."

Given Adele Edison's medical background and her familiarity with Garrison and the events in New Orleans concerning Lee Oswald, it was disappointing to me

that Jim Fetzer asked Edisen no questions about Judyth Baker. (Nor any about Dr Mary Sherman and Ed Haslam)

I listened to the four hour interview in its entirety and Judyth Baker's name never came up. Maybe Jim can correct me if I'm mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I found myself in Adele's situation, I would have "gone public" early, in the hope of protecting my family's and my own safety, as exposure is insurance. Keeping the information Adele claims she related to Rice and Bartlet on that November 24, seems to me to be the least safe way to conduct yourself.

Had they followed your witless advice, they would both be dead.

During the interview with Jim Fetzer, Adele recounts how she wrote Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show in 1975 to inquire about about one of the guests, Richard Popkin.

This initiated a dialog between Snyder's companion and the show's executive producer Pamela Burke. Burke tried to get Edisen to appear on the show, but Adele declined.

Jim Fetzer suggested that Adele should have accepted the invitation!

Even as late as 1991, Edisen was afraid and that's why an article about her in Jerry Rose's journal ascribed to her a false name.

I think it was Mary Ferrell that told Adele the best way to ensure her safety was to go public, which Adele did at the 1993 ASK conference.

Judyth Baker has apparently said that some parts of Edisen's story are "totally wacky" yet Edisen is "NEVER attacked" and "yet accepted on every point."

Given Adele Edison's medical background and her familiarity with Garrison and the events in New Orleans concerning Lee Oswald, it was disappointing to me

that Jim Fetzer asked Edisen no questions about Judyth Baker. (Nor any about Dr Mary Sherman and Ed Haslam)

I listened to the four hour interview in its entirety and Judyth Baker's name never came up. Maybe Jim can correct me if I'm mistaken.

I'm glad he didn't mention her name. I don't think that the stories of Adele and JVBaker should be entwined, and they should be kept separate.

When cops are trying to piece together the situation that occurred at a crime, they are required by policy set in stone, and for good reason, to keep witnesses apart,

so they can't compare notes and get their stories mixed up.

Tom even suggested that Adele should call Rivera's daughter to talk to her, which would be a major violation of investigative procedures. Dick Russel talked to

Rivera's daughter and investigators should, but another witness shouldn't.

The difference between a researcher and an investigator is that a researcher reads books and documents while an investigator goes out into the street

and knocks on doors and makes phone calls and interviews, or tires to interview witnesses, subjects and suspects.

And I suspect that there is a purpose behind the similarities between the backgrounds of Adele's story and JVB's story, and meaning behind the fact that

Adele's checks out and leads to other suspects (Lamana,Ulrich Camerso Lutz, etc.), while JVB only leads to those we are already familiar with (although JVB

did turn me on to the Koon Kreek Fishing Club).

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I found myself in Adele's situation, I would have "gone public" early, in the hope of protecting my family's and my own safety, as exposure is insurance. Keeping the information Adele claims she related to Rice and Bartlet on that November 24, seems to me to be the least safe way to conduct yourself.

Had they followed your witless advice, they would both be dead.

During the interview with Jim Fetzer, Adele recounts how she wrote Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show in 1975 to inquire about about one of the guests, Richard Popkin.

This initiated a dialog between Snyder's companion and the show's executive producer Pamela Burke. Burke tried to get Edisen to appear on the show, but Adele declined.

Jim Fetzer suggested that Adele should have accepted the invitation!

Even as late as 1991, Edisen was afraid and that's why an article about her in Jerry Rose's journal ascribed to her a false name.

I think it was Mary Ferrell that told Adele the best way to ensure her safety was to go public, which Adele did at the 1993 ASK conference.

Judyth Baker has apparently said that some parts of Edisen's story are "totally wacky" yet Edisen is "NEVER attacked" and "yet accepted on every point."

Given Adele Edison's medical background and her familiarity with Garrison and the events in New Orleans concerning Lee Oswald, it was disappointing to me

that Jim Fetzer asked Edisen no questions about Judyth Baker. (Nor any about Dr Mary Sherman and Ed Haslam)

I listened to the four hour interview in its entirety and Judyth Baker's name never came up. Maybe Jim can correct me if I'm mistaken.

I'm glad he didn't mention her name. I don't think that the stories of Adele and JVBaker should be entwined, and they should be kept separate.

When cops are trying to piece together the situation that occurred at a crime, they are required by policy set in stone, and for good reason, to keep witnesses apart,

so they can't compare notes and get their stories mixed up.

Tom even suggested that Adele should call Rivera's daughter to talk to her, which would be a major violation of investigative procedures. Dick Russel talked to

Rivera's daughter and investigators should, but another witness shouldn't.

The difference between a researcher and an investigator is that a researcher reads books and documents while an investigator goes out into the street

and knocks on doors and makes phone calls and interviews, or tires to interview witnesses, subjects and suspects.

And I suspect that there is a purpose behind the similarities between the backgrounds of Adele's story and JVB's story, and meaning behind the fact that

Adele's checks out and leads to other suspects (Lamana,Ulrich Camerso Lutz, etc.), while JVB only leads to those we are already familiar with (although JVB

did turn me on to the Koon Kreek Fishing Club).

BK

Bill, I wasn't suggesting for a minute that their stories should be "entwined."

I don't even think that's possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I found myself in Adele's situation, I would have "gone public" early, in the hope of protecting my family's and my own safety, as exposure is insurance. Keeping the information Adele claims she related to Rice and Bartlet on that November 24, seems to me to be the least safe way to conduct yourself.

Had they followed your witless advice, they would both be dead.

During the interview with Jim Fetzer, Adele recounts how she wrote Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show in 1975 to inquire about about one of the guests, Richard Popkin.

This initiated a dialog between Snyder's companion and the show's executive producer Pamela Burke. Burke tried to get Edisen to appear on the show, but Adele declined.

Jim Fetzer suggested that Adele should have accepted the invitation!

Even as late as 1991, Edisen was afraid and that's why an article about her in Jerry Rose's journal ascribed to her a false name.

I think it was Mary Ferrell that told Adele the best way to ensure her safety was to go public, which Adele did at the 1993 ASK conference.

Judyth Baker has apparently said that some parts of Edisen's story are "totally wacky" yet Edisen is "NEVER attacked" and "yet accepted on every point."

Given Adele Edison's medical background and her familiarity with Garrison and the events in New Orleans concerning Lee Oswald, it was disappointing to me

that Jim Fetzer asked Edisen no questions about Judyth Baker. (Nor any about Dr Mary Sherman and Ed Haslam)

I listened to the four hour interview in its entirety and Judyth Baker's name never came up. Maybe Jim can correct me if I'm mistaken.

I'm glad he didn't mention her name. I don't think that the stories of Adele and JVBaker should be entwined, and they should be kept separate.

When cops are trying to piece together the situation that occurred at a crime, they are required by policy set in stone, and for good reason, to keep witnesses apart,

so they can't compare notes and get their stories mixed up.

Tom even suggested that Adele should call Rivera's daughter to talk to her, which would be a major violation of investigative procedures. Dick Russel talked to

Rivera's daughter and investigators should, but another witness shouldn't.

The difference between a researcher and an investigator is that a researcher reads books and documents while an investigator goes out into the street

and knocks on doors and makes phone calls and interviews, or tires to interview witnesses, subjects and suspects.

And I suspect that there is a purpose behind the similarities between the backgrounds of Adele's story and JVB's story, and meaning behind the fact that

Adele's checks out and leads to other suspects (Lamana,Ulrich Camerso Lutz, etc.), while JVB only leads to those we are already familiar with (although JVB

did turn me on to the Koon Kreek Fishing Club).

BK

Bill, I wasn't suggesting for a minute that their stories should be "entwined."

I don't even think that's possible.

I didn't think so Michael,

I was responding more so to Tom's suggestion to Adele that she should contact Rivera's daughter, when that isn't her job or role or responsibility.

I am also glad that Fetzer has not mixed them up.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Bill, I have to correct you here; according to Adele, she is not a "witness", she is a victim. She is a victim of Col. Jose Rivera because she says he dropped a psychotic drug on her without her knowledge, and possibly did it to her several times. She is a victim, because she says Rivera instructed her to call the future, accused assassin of the President of the United States, instructed her how to reach the man, told her wha to say to him, and she says she made that contact, but did not say the incriminating phrase to Oswald as she says Rivera instructed her to say it.

According to Adele, she is a victim because the key federal officials she gave the above information to, Rice of SS and Bartlett of the FBI, reacted by obstructing justice, or at least by following higher orders to obstruct justice by shutting Adele out, permanently, presumably leaving her and her family in danger.

Would you describe Frank Olson as merely a "witness", Bill? No one in law enforcement is or has been helping Adele as a cop would be helping a witness or following up on her leads, with the possible exception of Doug Horne when he was in an official position to do that. Repsonding to Adele's felony accusations by investigating tem unofficially or confidentially does not seem to me to constitute an actual investigation that Adele would be compromising if she took a proactive role.

Adele portrays herself as someone who was a victim in an escalating, desparate situation, after Rice and Bartlett took her information and did nothing with it, to her knowledge. A reasonable person could infer, at least after the release of the WCR, that Rice and Bartlett had themselves become party to the crimes Adele says she had reported to them on 24 November,

How do that fit into your opinion, Bill, that any advice I gave to Adele about taking a proactive approach, especially condidering there is no progress in confirming Adele's story, all of these years later, beyond bringing Jose Rivera and his file and background into the public eye?

IMO, Adele could have learned about Rivera in an alternative way. I think my opinion is reasonable, given the proof Adele has provided to support her claims. Please correct me if I am wrong, because I think very highly of Adele, on a personal level.

Adele is different than Judyth Baker, I am assuming, because she is so compelling, extraordinary in intellect and ability to communicate.

(I am having memory related problems with this PC...all of what I type is not relaibly reaching the screen and being posted, as a reader of this post can confirm.)

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait a minute Tom,

Bill, I have to correct you here; according to Adele, she is not a "witness", she is a victim. She is a victim of Col. Jose Rivera because she says he dropped a psychotic drug on her without her knowledge, and possibly did it to her several times. She is a victim, because she says Rivera instructed her to call the future, accused assassin of the President of the United States, instructed her how to reach the man, told her wha to say to him, and she says she made that contact, but did not say the incriminating phrase to Oswald as she says Rivera instructed her to say it.

According to Adele, she is a victim because the key federal officials she gave the above information to, Rice of SS and Bartlett of the FBI, reacted by obstructing justice, or at least by following higher orders to obstruct justice by shutting Adele out, permanently, presumably leaving her and her family in danger.

Would you describe Frank Olson as merely a "witness", Bill?

Frank Olson would be a victim and a witness if he were alive.

No one in law enforcement is or has been helping Adele as a cop would be helping a witness or following up on her leads,

Not true. A retired FBI agent and friend of her family has supported her, checked her files and has kept up with her case for many years now, and is still alive and an active PI who has investigated what he could.

with the possible exception of Doug Horne when he was in an official position to do that. Repsonding to Adele's felony accusations by investigating them unofficially or confidentially does not seem to me to constitute an actual investigation that Adele would be compromising if she took a proactive role.

She is already taking a proactive role. She traveled to DC last March to meet with Congressional Oversight staff members three times and they still did nothing.

Adele portrays herself as someone who was a victim in an escalating, desparate situation, after Rice and Bartlett took her information and did nothing with it, to her knowledge. A reasonable person could infer, at least after the release of the WCR, that Rice and Bartlett had themselves become party to the crimes Adele says she had reported to them on 24 November,

Adele says that both Rice and Bartlett appeared sincere in their desire to investigate her story further and they made phone calls to DC in her presence. Rice went on to become a major player in the New Orleans aspect of the case and Orrin Bartlett, then the FBI liaison to the Secret Service, was assigned to protect LBJ when traveling aboard AFI at the personal request of LBJ because he didn't trust the SS, but he did trust the FBI and Bartlett.

How do that fit into your opinion, Bill, that any advice I gave to Adele about taking a proactive approach, especially condidering there is no progress in confirming Adele's story, all of these years later, beyond bringing Jose Rivera and his file and background into the public eye?

I would think that there has been much progress, not only in confirming aspects of Adele's story independently, as I have done, the FBI agent has done, Dick Russell talked with the daughter and obtained some photos of Rivera at Fort Detirick and others have not only confirmed much of her story, but have moved beyond what she has told us, and are now concentrating on Rivera's bosses, like Dr. Lamana and Dr. Ulrich Cameron Luiz.

IMO, Adele could have learned about Rivera in an alternative way. I think my opinion is reasonable, given the proof Adele has provided to support her claims. Please correct me if I am wrong, because I think very highly of Adele, on a personal level.

Well, I began to confirm Adele's story in Atlantic City, and have moved beyond what she has told us to those who knew and worked with Rivera and could have been the source for his foreknowledge of the assassination and knowledge of Oswald and Walker and New Orleans address. If you want to imagine her having "learned about Rivera in an alternative way" then you can go where ever that leads you.

Adele is different than Judyth Baker, I am assuming, because she is so compelling, extraordinary in intellect and ability to communicate.

AND because her story checks out and leads to other witnesses and suspects that we had previously not known about.

(I am having memory related problems with this PC...all of what I type is not relaibly reaching the screen and being posted, as a reader of this post can confirm.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Wait a minute Tom,

Bill, I have to correct you here; according to Adele, she is not a "witness", she is a victim. She is a victim of Col. Jose Rivera because she says he dropped a psychotic drug on her without her knowledge, and possibly did it to her several times. She is a victim, because she says Rivera instructed her to call the future, accused assassin of the President of the United States, instructed her how to reach the man, told her wha to say to him, and she says she made that contact, but did not say the incriminating phrase to Oswald as she says Rivera instructed her to say it.

According to Adele, she is a victim because the key federal officials she gave the above information to, Rice of SS and Bartlett of the FBI, reacted by obstructing justice, or at least by following higher orders to obstruct justice by shutting Adele out, permanently, presumably leaving her and her family in danger.

Would you describe Frank Olson as merely a "witness", Bill?

Frank Olson would be a victim and a witness if he were alive.

No one in law enforcement is or has been helping Adele as a cop would be helping a witness or following up on her leads,

Not true. A retired FBI agent and friend of her family has supported her, checked her files and has kept up with her case for many years now, and is still alive and an active PI who has investigated what he could.

Bill, I am surprized you are going into this level of detail. If you think it is appropriate to get into

all of the the details about the FBI agent, then I will be happy to add my two cents. Are you familiar with his self promoted, areas of expertise while he was with the FBI?

You brought a reference to him into this, if you are unwilling or do not think it prudent to "go there" any further, you leave me to respond as if you had not mentioned him. Adele's story is the whole enchilada, IMO. Any LEO who Adele gave a statement to about her receiving the contact tel. # of Oswald's FUTURE landlord, and did not either write an official report on their conversation with Adele, write a report that she was unreliable in making wild, insubstantiated claims, or was told to shut up and keep the career and the pension, AND DID....committed the crime of obstruction and cover up. If you name a name of a LEO who "helped" Adele but did not write a report about it, or who obeyed an unlawful order not to write a report or pursue Adele's leads any further, then what is that LEO's legal status, Bill. You probably have a better handle to an accurate answer on that, than I do, because you have more knowledge of cops and their policies

and legal and CYA obligations.

with the possible exception of Doug Horne when he was in an official position to do that. Repsonding to Adele's felony accusations by investigating them unofficially or confidentially does not seem to me to constitute an actual investigation that Adele would be compromising if she took a proactive role.

She is already taking a proactive role. She traveled to DC last March to meet with Congressional Oversight staff members three times and they still did nothing.

Adele portrays herself as someone who was a victim in an escalating, desparate situation, after Rice and Bartlett took her information and did nothing with it, to her knowledge. A reasonable person could infer, at least after the release of the WCR, that Rice and Bartlett had themselves become party to the crimes Adele says she had reported to them on 24 November,

Adele says that both Rice and Bartlett appeared sincere in their desire to investigate her story further and they made phone calls to DC in her presence. Rice went on to become a major player in the New Orleans aspect of the case and Orrin Bartlett, then the FBI liaison to the Secret Service, was assigned to protect LBJ when traveling aboard AFI at the personal request of LBJ because he didn't trust the SS, but he did trust the FBI and Bartlett.

How do that fit into your opinion, Bill, that any advice I gave to Adele about taking a proactive approach, especially condidering there is no progress in confirming Adele's story, all of these years later, beyond bringing Jose Rivera and his file and background into the public eye?

I would think that there has been much progress, not only in confirming aspects of Adele's story independently, as I have done, the FBI agent has done, Dick Russell talked with the daughter and obtained some photos of Rivera at Fort Detirick and others have not only confirmed much of her story, but have moved beyond what she has told us, and are now concentrating on Rivera's bosses, like Dr. Lamana and Dr. Ulrich Cameron Luiz.

IMO, Adele could have learned about Rivera in an alternative way. I think my opinion is reasonable, given the proof Adele has provided to support her claims. Please correct me if I am wrong, because I think very highly of Adele, on a personal level.

Well, I began to confirm Adele's story in Atlantic City, and have moved beyond what she has told us to those who knew and worked with Rivera and could have been the source for his foreknowledge of the assassination and knowledge of Oswald and Walker and New Orleans address. If you want to imagine her having "learned about Rivera in an alternative way" then you can go where ever that leads you.

Adele is different than Judyth Baker, I am assuming, because she is so compelling, extraordinary in intellect and ability to communicate.

AND because her story checks out and leads to other witnesses and suspects that we had previously not known about.

The core importance of what Adele has been saying is that she was told who Oswald would rent from in NOLA before Oswald knew....if you (she) can't support that bombshell independently from Adele saying it, with as little as substantiating that she told LEO that information in 1963, I don't think you have enough to do much. This had always been Adele's fight to win or lose, it's in the umpteenth round and IMO, she isn't fighting, beyond repeating her story as she did in this recent interview. I know firsthand, Adele is either the most sincere, extremely considerate to the point of being unfair to herself, person I've ever encountered, or she is unreliable when it comes to some of the details of her sensational account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Two years ago, Adele Edisen gave a long interview to a student at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

The transcript is here: http://lib.utsa.edu/archives/Docs/MS200/MS200_Edisen.pdf

Adele's U. Texas interview mentions, of course, Rivera's forewarning about Grant Stockdale, which ought to be another impetus to investigate the vending machine racket's influence on both political parties.

The Rivera episode is an addition to the Oswald-as-Petri-dish view of the patsy as an open experiment manipulated by various interests. (Literally, Rivera drops a hit of Acid into the developing culture.) How accurate is this view overall?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim never questioned Adele about her opinion regarding JVB at my request. I know that they (Adele & Judyth) have differing recollections/opinions, some of

which could be extremely contentious. Due to Jim's quite openly stated support of Judyth, it seemed important to separate the two accounts, IMO. In this way,

Adele could give her account, unmolested--without fear of needing to defend it right off the bat.

Perhaps a future show can focus on the areas where there exists discrepancies between the two accounts.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

July 24, 2011

President Barack H. Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington , D.C, 20500

Dear President Obama:

I am writing to you for help with an important problem which I cannot solve by myself, despite all the Freedom of Information/Privacy letters I have written over the years, and those written by my attorney to various congressional investigative bodies.

I am a graduate of the University of Chicago (Ph.B. 1950 and Ph.D. 1954), a retired neurophysiologist, and I have done research and taught physiology to college and medical students and to graduate students at Rockefeller University, Tulane University School of Medicine, Louisiana State University School of Medicine, University of Texas at San Antonio and other colleges in Louisiana and Texas .

In 1963 I was a Postdoctoral Fellow of the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness (NINDB) of the National Institutes of Health. At scientific biomedical meetings in April of 1963 where I presented a paper on my research, I met Jose A. Rivera, a science administrator from the NINDB on the Grants and Awards committee responsible for my Fellowship. He invited me to visit his home for dinner and to meet his family when I was to come to NIH in Bethesda on my way home to New Orleans. I never met his family or went to his home because he took me to restaurants and gave me a sight-seeing tour of Washington while he spoke about President John Kennedy, his policies on civil rights, and about his impending assassination

On November 24, 1963, I gave all my information to the US Secret Service Agent in Charge of the New Orleans office, John W. Rice, and to FBI Special Agent Orrin Bartlett from Washington, liaison from the FBI to the Secret Service and the White House. Mr. Bartlett telephoned his headquarters and field offices there and in Baltimore, ordering them to pick up Rivera and bring him in for questioning. I fully expected to be called to testify before the Warren Commission, but was not......

Continued here:

JFKcountercoup

JFKcountercoup: Dear President Obama: Please release my records

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why Rivera picked Adele Edisen to experiment on. Was it because she was highly intelligent? And why a woman? Because no one would believe her in those days, no matter her education?

Kathy C

Well, for one, he had her file and application for being associated with the NIH as a researcher, and so he was her superior and she depended on him for all things academic, including the grant they gave her, so that puts him in a pretty commanding view of her.

One way to figure out who was pulling the strings is to figure out who had access to all the files on these people who were being used as pawns, including Adele, Oswald himself, DeMohrenschildt, et al.

Who knew what? And when did they know it? Including all the stuff we are only now learning about?

For one, Colonels are pretty much action guys, who are given the assignments from Generals, and are expected to get other people to carry out these orders, whatever they are, so the Colonels are action guys who are actually doing something, even if it is only reading or creating a file or answering the telephone.

Col. Rivera himself may have been an officer, and above the pawns in the game, but he too was just a player, though he was closer to the strategic operators than most other players we are aware of, as he expressed foreknowledge of too many strategic events.

My personal opinion is the whole Edisen/Rivera saga is about a security test run, devised in April, 1963, to see if the Secret Service and FBI lines could be trusted or had to be neutralized or compromised further, and indeed Adele does what Rivera tells her she will do and that's to contact the Secret Service BEFORE the assassination and tell them something is wrong. Rice is given the assignment and he wants to know more and opens the door, so when she finally comes in on Sunday, Nov. 24, the test run comes back. Rice and Bartlett then take in everything Adele has to tell them, pass it on to their superiors in DC and Baltimore, and let them put the stoppers in.

Adele was sent out as a sort of trial balloon to see how the security apparatus would respond and who would do the responding, and it appears that even though Adele has a high opinion of Agents Rice and Bartlett, they had to have been compromised for giving Col. Rivera a free "get out of jail" card.

And its a shame that nobody ever got to question Rice and Bartlett about these things before they died.

Most significant, and I'm sure the History Channell's resident historian Steve Gallen and Mr. Morrow should be interested in this - the FBI's Orin Bartlett, liaison to the Secret Service and White House at the time of the assassination, and in on the interview with Adele on Sunday afternoon as Oswald is being shot, this same guy FBI agent Bartlett is the guy that LBJ specifically requested to be aboard AF1 whenever and whereever he traveled. And this request or order was made by LBJ directly to J. E. Hoover, and an order carried out. LBJ told Hoover that he didn't trust the Secret Service and wanted an FBI agent he could trust to be with him when he was aboard AF1.

So it isn't just about Col. Rivera and Dr. Edisen, it's about the individuals she leads us to, especailly John W. Rice and Orrin Bartlett, both of whom become entwined up to their ears, Rice in investigating Oswald in New Oreans and Bartlett as LBJ's private security blanket.

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

.....

I'll delete this in a short while, but I want you to have at it, because you are a true believer.:

Fort Worth Star-Telegram : Obituaries .....

Edited by Tom Scully
Removed contact info and personal details of potential witness & Adele
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...