Charles A. Briggs Sr.

[Douglas Caddy]

CHARLES A. BRIGGS Sr.

Read the obituary carefully. It caught the attention of JFKFacts.org

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/washingtonpost/obituary.aspx?n=charles-a-briggs&pid=176359949&fhid=17018

[Chris Newton]

He was the subject of a long exchange between Gary Mack and I on that very subject. There is a thread here (in the EF) somewhere where I pointed that out. He also wrote a letter denying that Charlie Wilson had anything to do with CIA which led to Charlie's conviction.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2004/06/22/international-man-of-mystery/c4c7321f-fe39-4e0e-a9fc-4fce24cc80ca/

R.I.P.

[Larry Hancock]

Well given that Wilson's sentence was ultimately overturned due to discovery of a host of communications with the CIA while he was engaged in his contract work that doesn't argue well for Briggs credibility....of course

that would have all be compartmentalized so as usual a statement from a CIA headquarters type about anything can be perfectly sincere and also perfectly bogus. Its designed to work that way.

I'm not even sure that Gary Mack was there during the initial formation of the Museum or in a position to know but did he deny that Briggs was involved or did he come up with some sort of innocent explanation?

[Chris Newton]

Gary would never post publicly, we always had our little arguments privately. Here is one of the last posts he sent me in that private thread:

Chris,

Every investigation - DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA - concluded Oswald killed JFK and Tippit and wounded Connally, so the trial aspect really isn't relevant. Furthermore, no evidence has surfaced that Oswald could not have done it and no one has proven the SBT could not have happened; absent any strong, conflicting evidence, therefore, it must have happened. While the SBT started as a theory, it's the one theory that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt since nothing has surfaced indicating the wounds were caused any other way.

As for Briggs, he was hired by Staples & Charles, the exhibit designers. They are the ones who took the information amassed by our founders (I was just one of many consultants in those days) and devised ways to make the panels, videos and layout work together. As best I remember, he did some NARA archive research, that's all. There's a book coming out around June 1 with a detailed history of the Museum and his very small role is mentioned.

If you haven’t been through the exhibit, please do so and let me know of any factual errors. The exhibit, except for the addition of some artifacts, is unchanged since it opened in February 1989. The most egregious error brought to our attention was the misspelling of actor Sidney Poitier's last name....seriously!

Gary Mack

and my reply:

Gary,

I never stated at any time that there were any "factual errors" in any of your exhibits. I'm certain, that if there were, you would have them corrected in the same manner that Mr. Poitier's name was corrected.

My original post on the forum was to point out my dismay at finding out that Charles Briggs had a hand in designing exhibits with Staples and Charles, a fact that is not in error either. It raises some questions that any reasonable person that knew of Mr. Briggs' history might ask.

You're argument concerning the DPD, WC, FBI and HSCA depends entirely on the degree of honest investigation that you attribute to them. You left out the SS, CIA, ONI, DOJ and the rest of the Boy's Tabernacle Choir. I won't address the first three, DPD, WC and FBI - they all had a vested interest in letting Oswald take the rap. The HSCA is interesting.

Quote

...I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the [Central Intelligence] Agency and its relationship to Oswald.... We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known. Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth. We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp

- Robert Blakey, 2003.

And this which addresses Mr Briggs' complicity in the Wilson fiasco, from US District Court Judge Lynn Hughes (also in 2003, ironically):

Quote

Because the government knowingly used false evidence against him and suppressed favorable evidence, his conviction will be vacated. Judge Hughes didn’t mince words in a 24 page opinion that outlined the prosecution’s failure to turn over the exculpatory documentation of Wilson’s many post-retirement CIA contacts that would have proven Briggs’ affidavit was perjured, “It alone lied. It alone possessed - and withheld - the information that documented the falsehoods. The government alone insisted on the affidavit rather than production of the underlying records. It alone had the underlying documents.” Judge Hughes also recognized the deliberateness of the decision by federal prosecutors to use the false affidavit, “The government discussed among dozens of its officials and lawyers whether to correct the testimony. No correction was made - not after trial, not before sentencing, not on appeal, and not in this review.

[Larry Hancock]

OK, the CIA brought a former very senior officer back on contract.....and one of his assignments was to be "hired" by the exhibit designers to fact check the designs and content? That's one of the most

entertaining things I've ever seen. Was he double dipping? Or was it a standard Agency cover to have a view into what the Museum was showing and telling before it opened. I'm betting on the latter and

that when his obit says "liaison" it implies a direct Agency relationship during his work with the Museum - and it was just that. A classic cover for domestic activities, just like putting Hunt in an Ad agency.

[Chris Newton]

I had questions about Staples & Charles too. They are in D.C., I think. I think the Museum is one more brilliant piece of LN propaganda. Probably propped up by the Agency and LN apologists.

[James DiEugenio]

Boy that is a real doozy of a reply to you by Gary.

I mean he covered all the typical John MCAdams bases.

And then people jump on here and defend him for not being a real Oswald did it zealot.

Incredible.

And I also am glad you exposed the whole imbroglio about the CIA being in on the ground level of the Sixth Floor Museum.

Edited November 7, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Chris Newton]

And I also am glad you exposed the whole imbroglio about the CIA being in on the ground level of the Sixth Floor Museum.

James,

The beauty of it is that everyone who visits the plaza to see "where it all happened" gets the full LN/SBT treatment when they go to the museum. The snipers nest is "enshrined" as if it were an absolute fact. Now that it's inaccessible, you can't even stand at that window and see for yourself and make your own judgement, (and no the webcam isn't a good substitute - go sit down - you know who you are). Gary said there is a (1) exhibit with conspiracies but many people have gone through there and never seen it, it must be really small, or maybe it's just the "fine print". I used to innocently have some respect for it, now it disgusts me that it's probably foisted on thousands of people a year. They have control of so much stuff that, by all accounts, should still be evidence of a crime.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Chris Newton

[James DiEugenio]

As JIm Marrs once told me, the problem was that there were just too many people going to Dealey Plaza. I mean literally tens of thousands a year.

Dallas was in denial of this as being their biggest tourist attraction. They tried to say it was the set for Dallas, the TV series, Jim said that was utter BS.

So they decided to co opt it.

And boy did they. With CIA input.

I mean when I saw the books they had on sale there, I just about blew a gasket.

The only two from our side were John Kelin's book, which is not really a pro conspiracy book its really a history of the critical community. And Stone's Book of the Film. And that was it.

They then bought a corner store across the street, for more books and gifts across the way. Groden told me they did this because they knew he was looking into leasing it himself. And they wanted to co opt that move also.

The biggest co opt was what they did for the 50th in Dealey Plaza. That was just nauseating. Its worse for me since I predicted they would do that two years before. And Gary and the Sixth Floor tried to conceal what was going on at first.

But boy that was absolutely, pure 1984, via the famous Apple commercial. Except we had no heroine with the hammer.

But to this day, I am convinced if we had filed a timely lawsuit we would have prevailed, at least upon appeal. And Brad Kizzia wanted to do it too. The thing is it was such a fascist operation that we could not even get inside the plaza to register any civil disobedience, a la King in Selma.

The city had about 200 cops on extra duty stationed at all three entrances to the plaza. And they had blockades set up in front of the cops so you could not get anywhere near the plaza.

What made it all the worse was Alex Jones on his megaphone screaming at the police, to make us all look even worse.

Edited November 7, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Chris Newton]

What made it all the worse was Alex Jones on his megaphone screaming at the police, to make us all look even worse.

I saw that on youtube his performance is pure theater. The fact that's he's embraced the new "states righters" 3%ers, means he doesn't even belong in the CT crowd.

But to this day, I am convinced if we had filed a timely lawsuit we would have prevailed, at least upon appeal. And Brad Kizzia wanted to do it too. The thing is it was such a fascist operation that we could not even get inside the plaza to register any civil disobedience, a la King in Selma.

Well isn't this "classic", they want to paint the conspiracy community as a bunch of nut-cases. What better way than to make sure there are some instigators and enough cops to shepherd "crazies" out of the plaza.

[David G. Healy]

let's see, we have Dulles the CIA guy JFK canned whom went on to be the de facto head of the 1963-64 WC investigative team. Now Briggs, the liaison between the 6th-floor mausoleum and the CIA. The BEFORE and AFTER... That pretty well covers (pardon the pun) this mess up, eh?

Edited November 7, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Chris Newton]

Someone should buy the 2nd floor lunchroom and turn it into "The Second Floor Museum".

Run on down from the other Museum and buy a coke. We'll time you.

Say a prayer for the Warren Commission at the "Prayer Man" Exhibit.

[Karl Kinaski]

I am curious who will be the new boss of the 6th. floor. mus. ...aka " lone nut headquarters"...aka "Ossi-did-it Trollfactory"...any suggestions? McAdams? Judge Tunheim?

KK

Something about Briggs

Edited November 7, 2015 by Karl Kinaski

[Larry Hancock]

Actually I think this may be a lot more significant than anything to do with the Sixth Floor Museum per se.

The CIA does not play games. The CIA is not going to use an extremely expensive, former senior officer, under contract, and put him under commercial cover as

a consultant to a design and display company for fun or simple curiosity.

However we do have examples of how they have brought back retired officers to do some very specific debriefs and to work as liaison with investigative committees.

This is the first case I can recall of going to far as to actually put them under cover with an element of deniablity....which Gary Mack repeated and Gary was really

to sharp not to know what was going on with such an individual as Briggs....or certainly should have been.

The appears to me to be one of the few absolutely concrete pieces of evidence that suggests there is an ongoing and very real national security concern relating to

Lee Oswald or to something in regard to the assassination that would lead them to put not just a low level agent but a very long time and highly cleared

officer in place to scan and examine everything going on display in a new public venue devoted to Oswald and the assassination.

Sorry, I think in focusing on the museum its a case of not seeing the forest for the trees....

[Chris Newton]

Sorry, I think in focusing on the museum its a case of not seeing the forest for the trees....

Larry, I agree to a point, there is a "bigger picture" and it would also seem that there is/was an OP with a budget.

...on a side note: Briggs was CIA IG at one point and was the guy holding "the family jewels" if anyone outside a plot might know details - it would be him.