Jump to content
The Education Forum

Albarelli's "A Secret Order"


Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Scully

...........................................

Excerpt from recently published “A Secret Order: Investigating the High Strangeness and Synchronicity in the JFK Assassination” by H.P. Albarelli, Jr.:

The author, who is not easily given to wild speculation or conspiracy theories, did not originally intend to offer the above chain of intriguing coincidences and high strangeness in an effort to induce readers to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald may have been the unwitting subject of some devious government sponsored mind-control scheme that eventually placed him on a path toward the murder of President John F. Kennedy. That, in my view would have been irresponsible and outlandish, but when most of these odd connections between young Oswald and the CIA’s MK/ULTRA programs were first detected I was unaware that the CIA and U.S. Army had funded and engaged in substantial behavioral modifications involving children.

........................

books.google.com/books?isbn=162087282X

Peter Janney - 2012 - Preview

Sometimes serendipity entwines with providence.

I read H. P. Albarelli's recently published book, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments. Albarelli's magnum opus took me by the hand and held me hostage for several days. Extensively researched, the book not only provided the most convincing account of how the CIA “terminated” one of its own, but possibly the best history ever written of the Agency's infamous MKULTRA program. Albarelli and I soon began talking, and he inquired about my progress. I mumbled something about the trail having ended at “1500 Arlington Boulevard” in Arlington, Virginia. After a moment of silence, Albarelli told me he had lived at that same address when he was a student at George Washington University many years ago.

I then mentioned my phantom—William L. Mitchell—and some of the dead-end information I had amassed.

"William Mitchell ?” Albarelli repeated. He said he would get back to me later; he thought he had come across the name before. Indeed, he had. An important Albarelli source—someone whom the author had known for many years and whose information had been corroborated by other sources—had revealed in September 2001 something more about the identity of William Mitchell.....

.......(The reader will come to know why this question was important.) Bluntly, Albarelli then asked whether he remembered telling him in 2001 that Mitchell had killed Mary Meyer. “Heard he killed a lot of people,” replied the now tightlipped source......

Last year, when Peter Janney was prone to mistakes, exaggeration, and pomposity , I did not expect Hank Albarelli to speak out to distance himself from Janney and to account for the statements Janney attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic".

Now that Janney is in the business of making claims misleading to the point that they are deliberate lies, Albarelli's continued silence about what Janney has attributed to Albarelli in "Mary's Mosaic" is inexcusable.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19777&p=272667

................

Janney (at 37:30) "....In his testimony at trial, Mitchell attempts to frame Ray Crump."

Janney (at 38:30) "...That allegedly sparked a telephone conversation between the two at the end

of March, in 1993, where Mitchell told Damore how Mary Meyer had been

murdered in what he termed was a CIA operation. Despite many years of searching it was not until last summer that the trail of William L. Mitchell.... this is in August, 2012 now, had become known. I promptly brought this information to my chief intelligence researcher, Roger Charles, who enlisted the support of another Pulitzer nominated investigative reporter by the name of Don Devereaux. What we uncovered was that William L Mitchell entered Cornell University....

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In his new book, Albarelli writes that Gerry Hemming, whom he admired as being a source who was one in a billion, told him that "..the JFK assassination was acted out by 'three teams' consisting of 'two shooters' and 'one spotter.' 'Each team was unmindful of the others,' he explained. Hemming identified Cuban Nestor Izquierdo as one of the spotters in the assassination. "Nestor was close to Morales and Rosselli,' Hemming said..."

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

To which I add the following inquiry to the above excerpt from Albarelli's book:

Was Frank Sturgis one of the shooters and Howard Hunt his spotter when the assassination took place?

Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the full quote on Gerry Hemming from page 443 of the Notes as the end of H.P. Albarelli’s masterful book, A Secret Source:

Gerry Hemming: In 1999 and 2000, I interviewed Hemming by telephone. Then, in 2001, I interviewed Hemming in North Carolina. My primary interest in meeting Hemming was an American soldier of fortune, Richard “Rex” Sanderlin, who had mysteriously died in 1963 in Cuba. Sanderlin, a former U.S. Marine who served in Korea, had been recruited to go to Cuba by Frank Sturgis. I also took the opportunity to ask Hemming about Lee Harvey Oswald. Hemming was a wealth of information on Oswald, Cuba, and many other subjects but recalled only meeting Sanderlin briefly in Cuba. I had been referred to Hemming by two other soldiers of fortune, Neill W. Macaulay and David Soldini, both of whom lived in Florida. Hemming spoke confidently about Oswald saying that he met with him twice in the United States and one perhaps other time. I carried on an e-mail correspondence with Gerry for years after I met him. I was saddened by his death in January 2008. He was one in a billion. Volume Two of this work will contain a full chapter on Hemming. Hemming was a central member of a group of anti-communist soldiers of fortune retained by the CIA to train anti-Castro Cubans in the early 1960s at a secret compound on No Name Key, Florida, 25 miles north of Key West. Hemming consistently said over the past two decades that he was never a CIA employee. Hemming, who knew David Morales, but thought “Morales lacked the hard-earned skill to train certain Cubans in counterinsurgency techniques,” told this writer that the JFK assassination was acted out by “three teams” consisting of “two shooters” and “one spotter.” “Each team was unmindful of the others,” he explained. Hemming identified Cuban Nestor Izqauierdo as one of the spotters in the assassination. “Nestor was close to Morales or Roselli,” Hemming said, “in a school-boy sort of way. He thought Morales was the cat’s pajamas,” Hemming said sarcastically. “He admired Rosselli because of his amorous skills with the women he always brought around, I guess.” [More on Hemming in Volume Two of this work.]

Oh c'mon please. I mean Pulease!

PULEASE!

PULEASE!

NO MORE SNIPERS ON THE GRASSY KNOLL! OK!

I mean this is getting ridiculous and embarassing. Just loony. How many people can we get up there? I don't even want to make a list out of who is there already. And for this the 50th? Fodder for Chris Mathews and O'Reilly. That is one reason I stayed away from this stuff in my book.

I expected more from Hank. And in God's name, of all people Hemming? Let me repeat that, Hemming?

I like Hank. I actually do. And I think some of what he writes is good stuff. But he has a weakness for accepting too much at face value from questionable CIA sources.

I am sure Tom agrees with me, because of that "info" about the CIA safehouse in Janney's book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, we don't know one another, and you know nothing about my sources. The quote from Hemming, I think, was in a footnote, and of no great consequence to anything. Pulease... I could really care what you expect from me; I expected more from you on your piece on Rose which was fairly manipulated in places; I was also shocked to see your endorsement of Ed Haslam's book, a classic of speculation with no basis in turth at all.

As to Peter Janney: what I told him was true, quite true... why would I have to respond to anything he wrote?; I have not even read his book yet...

I detest the pettiness found in the JFK assassination community, which I do not consider myself a part... I'm an independant researcher and writer with no biased, pre-concieved notions.

Also, Jim: since you have no ides who my sources are, or what they know, or where they are, or whether they are questionable; I trust that are you are over-reacting a bit, for whatever reasons.

The so-called safehouse was simply a garden apt. complex, as I knew it; sorry that does not fit with Tom's notions, but I lived there for 2 years.

Some of you fellows need to get a life outside ofthe JKF stuff; go out and get laid more often, have a drink or two, or simply join a knitting club somewhere and really go to town.

Sincerely,

HPA/

Oh c'mon please. I mean Pulease!

PULEASE!

PULEASE!

NO MORE SNIPERS ON THE GRASSY KNOLL! OK!

I mean this is getting ridiculous and embarassing. Just loony. How many people can we get up there? I don't even want to make a list out of who is there already. And for this the 50th? Fodder for Chris Mathews and O'Reilly. That is one reason I stayed away from this stuff in my book.

I expected more from Hank. And in God's name, of all people Hemming? Let me repeat that, Hemming?

I like Hank. I actually do. And I think some of what he writes is good stuff. But he has a weakness for accepting too much at face value from questionable CIA sources.

I am sure Tom agrees with me, because of that "info" about the CIA safehouse in Janney's book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, we don't know one another, and you know nothing about my sources. The quote from Hemming, I think, was in a footnote, and of no great consequence to anything. Pulease... I could really care what you expect from me; I expected more from you on your piece on Rose which was fairly manipulated in places; I was also shocked to see your endorsement of Ed Haslam's book, a classic of speculation with no basis in turth at all.

As to Peter Janney: what I told him was true, quite true... why would I have to respond to anything he wrote?; I have not even read his book yet...

I detest the pettiness found in the JFK assassination community, which I do not consider myself a part... I'm an independant researcher and writer with no biased, pre-concieved notions.

Also, Jim: since you have no ides who my sources are, or what they know, or where they are, or whether they are questionable; I trust that are you are over-reacting a bit, for whatever reasons.

The so-called safehouse was simply a garden apt. complex, as I knew it; sorry that does not fit with Tom's notions, but I lived there for 2 years.

Some of you fellows need to get a life outside ofthe JKF stuff; go out and get laid more often, have a drink or two, or simply join a knitting club somewhere and really go to town.

Sincerely,

HPA/

My e-mail is: hankalbarelli@mac.com I don't like these forums as they get nowhere... I also use Facebook sometimes; you friended me once, Jim... but never sent any greeting or message so I simply dleted your link thinking it somewhat odd.

I always answer e-mail w/in a reasonable lenght of time. Have a nice day.

Oh c'mon please. I mean Pulease!

PULEASE!

PULEASE!

NO MORE SNIPERS ON THE GRASSY KNOLL! OK!

I mean this is getting ridiculous and embarassing. Just loony. How many people can we get up there? I don't even want to make a list out of who is there already. And for this the 50th? Fodder for Chris Mathews and O'Reilly. That is one reason I stayed away from this stuff in my book.

I expected more from Hank. And in God's name, of all people Hemming? Let me repeat that, Hemming?

I like Hank. I actually do. And I think some of what he writes is good stuff. But he has a weakness for accepting too much at face value from questionable CIA sources.

I am sure Tom agrees with me, because of that "info" about the CIA safehouse in Janney's book.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

Jim, we don't know one another, and you know nothing about my sources. The quote from Hemming, I think, was in a footnote, and of no great consequence to anything. Pulease... I could really care what you expect from me; I expected more from you on your piece on Rose which was fairly manipulated in places; I was also shocked to see your endorsement of Ed Haslam's book, a classic of speculation with no basis in turth at all.

As to Peter Janney: what I told him was true, quite true... why would I have to respond to anything he wrote?; I have not even read his book yet...

I detest the pettiness found in the JFK assassination community, which I do not consider myself a part... I'm an independant researcher and writer with no biased, pre-concieved notions.

Also, Jim: since you have no ides who my sources are, or what they know, or where they are, or whether they are questionable; I trust that are you are over-reacting a bit, for whatever reasons.

The so-called safehouse was simply a garden apt. complex, as I knew it; sorry that does not fit with Tom's notions, but I lived there for 2 years.

Some of you fellows need to get a life outside ofthe JKF stuff; go out and get laid more often, have a drink or two, or simply join a knitting club somewhere and really go to town.

Sincerely,

HPA/

Yeah, Hank, some of us should....be above it all, but that is not the way it is working out, sorry. And it is not about "Tom's notions,".

In his recent "Torquemada" barrage fired at Jim and Lisa, author Peter Janney angrily assserted :

:

The Autodafé of Lisa Pease and James DiEugenio:

Tomas de Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition return in a new era of suppression

of freedom of thought and adherence to a rigid dogma – namely their own prejudices!

.....In addition, Ms. Pease can’t even seem to fathom or consider how “Lt. William L. Mitchell,” a man who told police he was jogging on the towpath when he passed Mary Meyer – allegedly just before the murder took place – told police that a “Negro male” matching Wiggins’ description was following her in an effort to frame Ray Crump. “Mitchell” would then testify against Crump at the murder trial nine months later in July 1965 as part of the CIA’s assassination operation. It doesn’t seem to matter to Pease that “Mitchell” has never been able to be located since the trial, or that his known address during that time was documented as a “CIA safe house” by three separate former CIA employees. At the time of trial in July 1965, Mitchell told a reporter that he had since retired from the military and was now a mathematics instructor at Georgetown University – yet no record of his employment there could ever be located, nor was there ever any bona-fide military service record located for “Mitchell,” either in the Pentagon where he was listed in the directory at the time of the murder, or in the main military data base in St. Louis. This was thoroughly researched by the Peabody Award-winning journalist Roger Charles, as discussed in my book, a fact that Pease fails to mention in one of her many deliberate omissions, which also included Damore’s consultation with L. Fletcher Prouty (as documented by Damore’s attorney James H. Smith) to finally understand who “Mitchell” was, before Damore confronted him. Of course, Lisa Pease is entitled to whatever flawed point of view she wants to embrace, but she’s not entitled to her own set of facts.....

................................... A few years back, Janney claimed only two CIA personnel confirmed 1500 Arlington Blvd. was a CIA safehouse.

Let me try to answer some of the question that the members of this panel have raised, based on my research for my book (tentatively entitled Mary's Mosaic).

.

The question has been asked who really was "William L. Mitchell," the alleged assassin of Mary Pinchot Meyer?

.... Mitchell's place of residence was an apartment at "The Virginian" at 1500 Arlington Blvd. in Arlington, Va. Damore researched this address and found evidence that this was a known CIA safehouse. I followed this up two years ago and two former CIA personnel confirmed that it was indeed an agency safehouse, as were certain teaching appointments at GTU.

.....................Mary knew too much. As someone once said, "she knew where all the bodies were buried....." They had to get rid of her because she was too independent and could not be controlled. Think of the trouble she would have caused.

I have not forgot about further comments about Timothy Leary and the CIA and will tackle that one shortly.

This is some fancy writing on Peter Janney's part, he dances around, even sharing with us the coincidence that his friend and fellow author, H.P. Albarelli, once resided at 1500 Arlington Blvd., as if to give the impression that Albarelli, too is supporting Janney's claim that 1500 Arlington Blvd. was a CIA safehouse.

Considering that Janney emphasized, in his, WHAT ARE YOU CRAZY? I AM PETER JANNEY, DO NOT CRITICIZE ME, scold of Jim and Lisa, that he now had three sources confirming that 1500 Arlington Blvd. was a CIA safehouse, read closely and you will find there is one name providing confirmation that 1500 Arlington Blvd. was a CIA safehouse.

So with just one source for this "fact" aside from the very questionable olde assertions from Leo Damore, allegedly quoting the 74 years old, "aka William L. Mitchell," Peter Janney misled all who read his recent condemnation of Jim and Lisa by claiming he had three confirming sorces.:

Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary ... - Google Books Result

books.google.com/books?isbn=162087282X

Peter Janney - 2012 - Biography & Autobiography

Mitchell, said Damore, had confessed to him a few hours earlier that morning:

The murder of Mary Meyer had been “a CIA operation” in which Mitchell had been the assassin.24

“Mitchell” confirmed that his name, “William L. Mitchell,” was an alias and that he now lived

under another alias in Virginia.

He said his position at the Pentagon in 1964 had been just “a light bulb job,” a

cover for covert intelligence work. He had done stints in the Air Force, the Army,

and the Navy, he told Damore, all of which were also part of his cover, and he had also been

“an FBI man” when circumstances required it.

His listed residence at 1500 Arlington Boulevard in Arlington, Virginia, Mitchell told Damore, was in fact a CIA safe house.

He was now seventy-four years old and had five children. It had been “an operation,” Mitchell disclosed.

He had beenassigned” in September 1964 to be part of a “surveillance team” that was monitoring Mary Meyer.

Mitchell appeared to suggest that the trigger for the surveillance had been the release of the Warren Report: “24 Sept Warren Report. She hit [the] roof.” Damore reiterated that Mary had bought a copy of the paperback version of the Warren....

Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary ...

books.google.com Peter Janney - 2012 - Google eBook - Preview

Sometime in 1992, Damore interviewed former CIA contract analyst David MacMichael, who still lived in the Washington area. The two soon became friends.

“Leo wanted to know who this guy [William L. Mitchell] really was,” said MacMichael in 2004 during an interview for this book.

He was sure he [Mitchell] had misrepresented himself as to his real identity.”

On one occasion, MacMichael recalled, he and Damore drove out to Mitchell's former address, the apartment building at 1500 Arlington Boulevard in Arlington, Virginia.

There, MacMichael confirmed to Damore that the address had been a known “CIA safe house.”12 That observation was further corroborated by another former CIA operative, Donald Deneselya, who added that during his employment at the Agency in the early 1960s, the CIA regularly used faculty positions at Georgetown University as covers for many of its covert operations personnel. That fact was further substantiated by former disaffected Agency veteran Victor Marchetti, whose books—The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence and The Rope Dancer—the CIA had tried to suppress

from publication.13 Any trail of Mitchell's identity or subsequent whereabouts, however, appeared to have vaporized.

................................

Still searching for Mitchell in early 2005, I was introduced to military researcher and investigative journalist Roger Charles. A former lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps, Charles was a NavalAcademy graduate who had been a platoon leader in Vietnam before serving under the late colonel David Hackworth as part of the organization Soldiers for the Truth (now called Stand for the Troops).

Early in his journalism career, Roger Charles had fired his first salvo with a Newsweek cover story entitled “Sea of Lies.”

The story exposed the Pentagon's attempted cover-up of the US Vincennes's downing of an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988. In 2004, Charles had been part of a 60 Minutes II team headed by Dan Rather that aired the first photographs to reveal some of the most unconscionable American military behavior since the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War: the prisoner abuse in Iraq at Abu Ghraib.

Charles had been an associate producer for the 60 Minutes II segment, “Abuse at Abu Ghraib.”

He and his colleagues provided the viewing public with a picture of the horrors inflicted by American soldiers on Iraqi prisoners.

That year, the segment would win the prestigious Peabody Award.14 Roger Charles had learned his craft under the tutelage of former marine colonel William R. Corson, author of the controversial book The Betrayal.

Courageously exposing President Lyndon Johnson's corrupt, deliberate deception during the Vietnam War in 1968, Corson created a huge crisis that nearly brought him a court-martial.

However, had Corson not done what he did, the Vietnam War would undoubtedly have been even further prolonged.

Corson went on to write several more books, including The Armies of Ignorance, Widows, and The New KGB: Engine of Soviet Power, which he coauthored with Robert T. Crowley, an elite operative in the CIA's covert action directorate and a close colleague and friend of Jim Angleton's. (All three individuals will be discussed further in the next chapter.)

Not only did Roger Charles become Corson's protégé and chief research assistant, but a trusted confidant, and eventually the executor of the Corson estate.

With regard to William Mitchell, Roger Charles was asked to review Mitchell's office listing in the 1964 DoD telephone directory.

Through his own channels, he sent an inquiry to the U.S. Army military database in St. Louis for any “William Mitchell” who was stationed at the Pentagon in 1964. There was none.

Further examining other Pentagon directories, Charles discovered that Mitchell's name no longer appeared after the fall 1964 edition.

He next investigated the military personnel who were located physically adjacent to Mitchell's alleged office (BE 1035), creating a list of approximately twenty individuals. Fifteen of those individuals could be verified through their military records, but none of the other five servicemen—Mitchell and four others in adjacent offices—had any military record in any service database. The phantom William L. Mitchell had indeed evaporated into thin air.

“This is a typical pattern of people involved in covert intelligence work,” Charles later reported to me.

“I've come across this kind of thing many times. People like this don't want to be found. They're taught how to evade all the conventional bureaucracies and channels. They don't leave any traces. These people work undercover in places like the Pentagon all the time.

Given what I see here—the fact that he's got no matching military record I can locate—it's almost a certainty this guy Mitchell, whoever he was or is, had some kind of covert intelligence connection It's very strong in my opinion.” 15

Sometimes serendipity entwines with providence. In December 2009, I read H. P. Albarelli's recently published book, A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments. Albarelli's magnum opus took me by the hand and held me hostage for several days. Extensively researched, the book not only provided the most convincing account of how the

CIA “terminated” one of its own, but possibly the best history ever written

of the Agency's infamous MKULTRA program. Albarelli and I soon began talking, and he inquired about my progress. I mumbled something about the trail having ended at “1500 Arlington Boulevard” in Arlington, Virginia. After a moment of silence, Albarelli told me he had lived at that same address when he was a student at George Washington University many years ago. I then mentioned my phantom—William L. Mitchell—and some of the dead-end information I had amassed. "William Mitchell ?” Albarelli repeated. He said he would get back to me later; he thought he had come across the name before. Indeed, he had. An important Albarelli source—someone whom the author had known for many years and whose information had been corroborated by other sources—had revealed in September 2001 something more about the identity of William Mitchell. The source, whose name Albarelli did not want to reveal, specifically....

....When Albarelli called back later that day, he reported he did finally reach the source, but he wasn't amenable to talking about Mitchell, or even acknowledging whether Mitchell was still alive. Did Mitchell have kids?

Albarelli asked. “Yeah, he had a few kids but I never met them or his wife,” the source replied. (The reader will come to know why this question was important.)

Bluntly, Albarelli then asked whether he remembered telling him in 2001 that

Mitchell had killed Mary Meyer. “Heard he killed a lot of people,” replied

the now tightlipped source. “What difference does it make now?” 18 ....

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/11/peter-janney-ralph-cinque.html

Peter Janney

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

(During the first two minutes of the podcast)

Peter Janney:..."And of course, this all about what's happened since my book was published back in April, this year, 2012, and of course the irony is that one of my major critics, Tom Scully in an effort to discredit me and my book and me in particular as a terrible researcher uhhh had found some citations of the person I allege in my book as Mary Meyer's assassin...."

Quote

At 38.26 Janney mentions the letter which Leo Damore sent to William Mitchell in 1993. Followed by Damore's phone call to Mitchell. Well, in that fragment Janney's choice of words is crucial:

Quote: ...[A letter]...that allegedly sparked a telephone conversation between the two in March '93... Unquote

Allegedly?! This "alleged" phone call happens to be the basis on which Janney BUILT his entire "CIA shot Mary" truth layer...

Even Janney himself(!) seriously doubts whether this "alleged" phone call Damore/Mitchell ever took place at all! For the regular readers of this thread this is no news: we've seen this before, the evidence is there.

.....Janney apparently "overlooked" these data, available in Google long ago. Although he referred to them on the sheet he showed during this part of his presentation, he didn't feel the need to credit Tom Scully for finding these new Mitchell data:

Unquote

Hank, it is not about my "notions" and it is not about Janney the victim. What it is about is Janney's fraudulant posturing in an effort to salvage whatever remains.

I guess we have your reaction, already; to paraphrase it, "it is a beautiful day, I am above the fray, I stand by all I have said, now go play in traffic......."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

Or, Hank, you have another option. You can fully explain or distance yourself from the quotes related to Mitchell ("the assassin") attributed as sourced from you, and you

can agree there is a problem.

Janney's resorting in his April presentation to claiming that he and his "researchers" discovered background on William L Mitchell, (a Cornell undergrad. etc.) is not a problem of "disappearing" me and my work. It speaks to his broader disingenuousness. Here is some of what he leaves in his wake.:

Quote

5.0 out of 5 stars A Masterpiece of Biography and a Mesmerizing Detective Story, April 1, 2012
By Douglas (Falls Church, VA, United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace (Hardcover)

Written by Douglas P. Horne,

author of "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board"
Web Page: insidethearrb

.......... Are you a third party surrogate (or a direct employee) working for the USG whose mission here is to attempt to discredit the confession of a hit-man? The readers of your book review here will not have forgotten that William L. Mitchell (or someone identifying himself as this person) confessed to author Leo Damore---William L. Mitchell himself told Damore that he was Mary Meyer's murderer. This event is well-documented in Janney's book.

Your attempt to suggest otherwise, via your citations, conveniently ignores this vital fact. Peter Janney has not identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer "because Mitchell could not be found," as you claim; rather, he has identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer because Mitchell confessed this to Damore. All the citations in the world will not erase this fact. ..... Unquote

And:

Customer Reviews

http://www.amazon.com/Marys-Mosaic-Conspiracy-Kennedy-Pinchot/product-reviews/1616087080/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace
122 Reviews 5 star: (88)

Versus:

http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2013/04/bill-simpichs-lancer-2012-presentation.html

audience member - (mocking Peter Janney’s presentation ) Was it Bill or William?

(Big Laughter ) Ah, both.

Janney in the November interview with Jim Fetzer was still flustered. Now he seems fully committed to saving face. It is documented that Dovey Roundtree told enough conflicting stories about Ray Crump's alibi witness, Vivian, to seriously call into question the reliability of the case Janney made that Crump was "framed" and the mysterious

Crump trial witness, the "missing" CIA assassin of Mary Meyer, Janney's phantom and Leo Damore's fantasy, is actually a 73 years old, emeritus academic specializing in the management science of process controls, Dr. William L. "Bill" Mitchell, PhD.

Hank, you have an opportunity and responsibility to help the public have a better chance to learn what is closer to the truth, or you can stand by what Janney has published alongside your name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom - I appreciate your posts, and your passion, especially about Janney's book. I get your main point loud and clear. I read Mary's Mosaic, and it bothered me for the same reasons. However, I still find her death troubling. The stories of Angleton confiscating her diary, the actions of her friends years later when they told their tales, the writings of Timothy Leary, the nature of her relationship with JFK, lead me to think she was murdered to keep her silent. Without going into too much detail, do you think her death was just a random murder?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that there were five teams assigned to assassinate JFK on his trip to Dallas, each comprised of two shooters and one spotter. All were unmindful of the others.

The assassination obviously was extremely carefully planned. All contingencies had to be covered. For example, if at the beginning of the parade or soon thereafter, JFK or the First Lady or someone else decided to have the top installed on the presidential limousine, then that might have eliminated the assassination taking place where it did later on. So the grassy knoll and the Textbook School Book Depository Building were only two locations utilized in the planning of the assassination. There were other locations.

Since the assassination was successful where it took place, other teams did not have to be utilized. There was no way that JFK would arrive back in Washington on that trip without being killed one way or another at some location.

Just as the assassination was intricately planned, so was the cover-up that began within seconds of the assassination. This has been documented so thoroughly that I only allude to it here to show how carefully both the assassination and the cover-up were planned and executed.

To cite one not well known example of the cover-up that took place 14 years after the assassination: In 1977 NYPD Detective James Rothstein and his colleague, Detective Matthew Rosenthal, accompanied Marita Lorenz back to her NYC residence to await the arrival of Frank Sturgis who had threatened to kill Lorenz to keep her from testifying before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. They arrived at Lorenz’ residence at 1 PM. Sturgis did not arrive until 10 PM at which time the detectives arrested him. While they waited for Sturgis to arrive, Rothstein and Rosenthal examined the contents of 10 to 15 boxes of documents, photographs and other JFK assassination evidence that Lorenz had placed against one wall of her residence in preparation of appearing before the House Committee.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20008&page=2

Sometime soon after the arrest of Sturgis, a close and trusted NYPD colleague of Rothstein transported Lorenz' boxes to Washington where he delivered them to the House Committee.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/

Years later Rothstein, who lives in Minnesota where he is mayor of his municipality, had the opportunity to talk with Federal Judge Jack Tunheim of Minnesota, who had examined all the files. When Rothstein inquired of Tunheim what he thought of Lorenz’s files, the judge said that he never saw the files. He also told Rothstein that he had the impression other batches of files were missing. Yet, we have Judge Tunheim recently publicly stating that he had seen all the files and even gratuitously offering an opinion that Oswald was the sole assassin. Chalk one up for one more mystery surrounding the cover-up of the JFK assassination.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19776

Does the cover-up continue to this day? Certainly, why else do thousands of key documents and other materials continue to be withheld from release to the public?

This is the full quote on Gerry Hemming from page 443 of the Notes as the end of H.P. Albarelli’s masterful book, A Secret Source:

Gerry Hemming: In 1999 and 2000, I interviewed Hemming by telephone. Then, in 2001, I interviewed Hemming in North Carolina. My primary interest in meeting Hemming was an American soldier of fortune, Richard “Rex” Sanderlin, who had mysteriously died in 1963 in Cuba. Sanderlin, a former U.S. Marine who served in Korea, had been recruited to go to Cuba by Frank Sturgis. I also took the opportunity to ask Hemming about Lee Harvey Oswald. Hemming was a wealth of information on Oswald, Cuba, and many other subjects but recalled only meeting Sanderlin briefly in Cuba. I had been referred to Hemming by two other soldiers of fortune, Neill W. Macaulay and David Soldini, both of whom lived in Florida. Hemming spoke confidently about Oswald saying that he met with him twice in the United States and one perhaps other time. I carried on an e-mail correspondence with Gerry for years after I met him. I was saddened by his death in January 2008. He was one in a billion. Volume Two of this work will contain a full chapter on Hemming. Hemming was a central member of a group of anti-communist soldiers of fortune retained by the CIA to train anti-Castro Cubans in the early 1960s at a secret compound on No Name Key, Florida, 25 miles north of Key West. Hemming consistently said over the past two decades that he was never a CIA employee. Hemming, who knew David Morales, but thought “Morales lacked the hard-earned skill to train certain Cubans in counterinsurgency techniques,” told this writer that the JFK assassination was acted out by “three teams” consisting of “two shooters” and “one spotter.” “Each team was unmindful of the others,” he explained. Hemming identified Cuban Nestor Izqauierdo as one of the spotters in the assassination. “Nestor was close to Morales or Roselli,” Hemming said, “in a school-boy sort of way. He thought Morales was the cat’s pajamas,” Hemming said sarcastically. “He admired Rosselli because of his amorous skills with the women he always brought around, I guess.” [More on Hemming in Volume Two of this work.]



Oh c'mon please. I mean Pulease!

PULEASE!

PULEASE!

NO MORE SNIPERS ON THE GRASSY KNOLL! OK!

I mean this is getting ridiculous and embarassing. Just loony. How many people can we get up there? I don't even want to make a list out of who is there already. And for this the 50th? Fodder for Chris Mathews and O'Reilly. That is one reason I stayed away from this stuff in my book.

I expected more from Hank. And in God's name, of all people Hemming? Let me repeat that, Hemming?

I like Hank. I actually do. And I think some of what he writes is good stuff. But he has a weakness for accepting too much at face value from questionable CIA sources.

I am sure Tom agrees with me, because of that "info" about the CIA safehouse in Janney's book.

Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to post
Share on other sites

My options are laid out here? I don't even know who the hell Tom is? or what his agenda is... he seems to have a hard on for Peter and I have no interest in attacking a serious researcher...

Jim: I don't need you to set yourself up as some sort of fixer here; what Peter reported in his book about our conversatiopn is accurate; as to the rest of his book I don't know because as I said yesterday

I have not read it. [My source knew Mr. Mitchell quite well and indeed still communicates and occasionally visits with him; that I passed this on to peter was entirely appropriate.} There is far more to the Mary M. story than has been released thus far. I expect that will come out soon. If Tom has info he should it out in the proper places. [Few read this forum.]

You didn't reply on my comments on what you know and don't know about my sources, Jim. Peter did not violate my trust. I spoke to him freely and told him all that I knew, with a few exceptions regarding names and places

of residence. He can verify this.

I provided my e-mial above; it's hankalbarelli@mac.com. Anyone here or elsewhere can write to me about anythingh of legitimate interest. Again, I don't engage here because I don't find it particularly useful and it frankly takes too much time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as someone who lurks here a lot, Hank, I wouldn't abandon places like this, as nasty as they can get some times. I have both your recent books, and there is is a lot of important stuff in them; the Secret Order less so, I think, because it does seem to have indications of a lack of independent corroboration of some things which are questionable in the whole assassination picture; things which have been regularly addressed by the very assassination community you attacked a few posts back. Which doesn't mean that you would necessarily change your mind about them; it would, however, give you some necessary background.

I too feel like an outsider here, but there is just too much good info - from people like Jim, Martin Hay, Bill Kelley, Greg Parker - to ignore if you want to keep up with the latest. It just takes a discerning personal filter.

Edited by Allen Lowe
Link to post
Share on other sites

as someone who lurks here a lot, Hank, I wouldn't abandon places like this, as nasty as they can get some times. I have both your recent books, and there is is a lot of important stuff in them; the Secret Order less so, I think, because it does seem to have indications of a lack of independent corroboration of some things which are questionable in the whole assassination picture; things which have been regularly addressed by the very assassination community you attacked a few posts back. Which doesn't mean that you would necessarily change your mind about them; it would, however, give you some necessary background.

I too feel like an outsider here, but there is just too much good info - from people like Jim, Martin Hay, Bill Kelley, Greg Parker - to ignore if you want to keep up with the latest. It just takes a discerning personal filter.

Thanks, Allen. Thank you for your comments. I understand your point, and I do know there are lots of excellent folks here on site. I, however, find the approach of many here [skully and DiG] to be a bit strident and quite rude. I have no idea who Skully is, yet he makes demands of me like I were someone he well knows; the same with DiG, who I have never met or communicated with, and whose work leaves much to be desired in places. I am not a conspiracy buff or huge JFK buff; I'm a historian who looks closely at facts, regardless the source in some cases. In my latest book I acknowledge many of the folks who work I admisre the most on this forum. You use the word outsider and I find that interesting for many reasons {many related to Colin Wilson] but please know that I choose to be an outsider to many of the theories advanced by some on this forum because I simply disagree with them, but, I guess I'm old fashioned, I don't make strident demands of people I do not know... is there no decorum here or effort to be courteous to anyone: Skully says "I owe the public"-- which public is that, Tom? Most folks in the US could care less who killed Mary M. And as time goes by, most folks in the US care less and less about who killed JFK ? ask any teenager picked at random.... in my view, the so-called "JFK assassination community" leaves a lot to be desired, but that's another day's topic... my book, A SECRET ORDER merely took a few very seriopus topics that were/are strange and formatted them into stopry-chapters: it is no attempt to solve the murder, but, and this is a big but, it dows contain many facts, many well corrobrated facts, that do turn certain things on their heads, but lets leave that for the "experts" who have yet to address these matters. In closing, thanks for being a gentleman and offering kind words of wisdom. As siad to the others, I enjoy discourse thru e-mails and don't mostly have the time to sort thru this forum on a regular basis... if you're ever on the Gulf coast of FL. give me a ring and I'll buy you dinner and a drink or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim - I don't view Mary Pinchot Meyer as a foreign policy wonk. Where I come from on this is that I saw a huge change in JFK over the course of his presidency, and that goes for RFK too, leading up to his untimely death. I could easily explain JFK's change from cold warrior to peacenik by imagining that his interactions with the Joint Chiefs might have accomplished that. But long before I ever heard of Mary Pinchot I thought that perhaps JFK had experimented with hallucinogens. I don't dismiss Leary, though I have read all the objections on this board to his veracity. I met him when I was a teenager at his Millbrook estate. It was a year later when I realized who he was. My reaction to him as a person was unvarnished. He was an earnest seeker for truth, whatever we think of his methods or message. I decided to believe his story about Mary.

On another personal note, I think that most people who take LSD are changed by it. How else can one view JFK the idealist, a persona which emerged in 1963? I already know most people here reading this will think I am off my rocker. These ideas, that JFK changed, that Mary Pinchot and Marilyn Monroe were part of that change, are beliefs that are born from my personal experience without much in the way of proof. What Mary and Marilyn had in common, other than their relationships with JFK, was that they were both highly intelligent peaceniks, and open about their views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...