Sylvia Odio, Lee Harvey Oswald and Harry Dean

[Glenn Nall]

29 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

OMG, James DiEugenio is actually trying to bait me with trivial details inside Jeff Caufield's recent and brilliant book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

James is actually daring me to challenge his paper-thin, so-called "criticism" of Caufield's brilliant book.

For those newbies who are unaware, let me give a one-sentence overview of Caufield's book, so that the debate is clear to everybody.  Jeff Caufield says that his recent exploration of FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents confirms the account of Willie Somersett, that Joseph Milteer played a decisive role in the JFK assassination; and Caufield links Milteer with Walker.  This confirms the claims of the late FBI agent, Don Adams and his 21st century books.   Caufield's 900-page book shatters the mythology that the CIA killed JFK.

James DiEugenio has constructed his literary career on the mythology that the CIA killed JFK.  So, James is jealous, and pretends to challenge the "facts" of Caufield's theory.  Notice that James does not go after the central core of the Caufield theory, i.e. the credibility of Willie Somersett about Joseph Milteer -- instead, James nit-picks and side issues of little or no consequence.

For example, the sidelines of what James calls the "Pere Marquette conspiracy."   James calls it a "doozy."  It's actually quite trivial.

The linkage of Jim Braden with David Ferrie's pal, G. Wray Gill, is recognized by everybody, but James wants to nit-pick about it, and wants to make jokes and show his comedic writing skills.  It doesn't work.

The whole speculation about Jim Braden -- pioneered by Jim Garrison -- is clearly tangential to Caufield's main theory -- that Willie Somersett offered the best clues to the JFK assassination by naming Joseph Milteer.  Then, Caufield goes further than any other CT writer in the past 50 years, and shows direct linkages between Joseph Milteer and General Walker.

James avoids the big issues, and dwells on the incidentals.  That's because that's all that James has anymore.  The CIA-did-it CT is officially toast.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

without reading so much drivel, it looks to me like you took the bait all the while knowing what it was.

wow.

[Paul Trejo]

I'm certainly not changing the subject -- I just need more time to respond to all these charges.

--Paul

Edited December 13, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As I predicted, Paul tried to change the subject.  He then says this is nit picking, and then says this is "literary criticism", which it is not. Recall this quote: "By this I mean one has to test and discuss the statements and sources used in the book.  If not, then the critic is reduced to being nothing but a messenger for the book, sort of what the MSM did with the Warren Report."

Let us proceed further with the book Paul said set a new paradigm in the JFK case.  Look at what Caufield did with Loran Hall:

"Since Hall said he met with Walker once, and because some of the Texas people he met with knew Walker, this gives Caufield another “Chaplin’s cannon” opportunity. He now says that, because of his meetings with these Texas people, Hall’s false claim of being at Odio’s was given at the request of Walker’s group in order to conceal the validity of Odio’s allegations. (p. 446)

Again, I have never seen this anywhere. Let us examine it. Caufield says that there is no evidentiary trail to trace how the FBI got to Hall, Seymour and Howard in the first place. That might be true, but it is fairly obvious that Hoover was looking for someone in the anti-Castro underground who was traveling in Texas at around the time of the Odio incident, which was late September of 1963. Both Hall and Howard were Hispanic, and Seymour was Caucasian, so there was a superficial match to the Odio story. In addition, Hall had been to Dallas twice that fall. He had been arrested for possession of drugs (actually pep pills). And he had met with both an FBI agent, and a CIA agent while he was incarcerated. (Hall’s HSCA deposition of 10/5/77, pp. 123-24) He had also been involved with the preparations for the infamous Bayo-Pawley raid into Cuba which had CIA support. (ibid, pp. 114-119) Therefore, it is rather easy to see how the FBI would have known about him.

Very significantly, Caufield also ignores the above-cited HSCA executive session testimony of Hall on the subject. (HSCA Vol. 10, p. 19) Dated October 5, 1977, it is quite revealing of what actually happened in this whole affair. Hall said that the FBI visited him in the autumn of 1964. The agent asked him if he recalled a Mrs. Odio. Hall said he did not. He did recall a male professor with the last name of Odio. Hall said it was possible he may have visited the woman but he did not recall it. He further said that he asked the agent for a photo of Sylvia Odio, but he did not have one! Further, when he was in Dallas in September of 1963, he was with Howard, but not Seymour. Hall testified under oath that he never told the FBI that he was in Dallas with Howard and Seymour. He then said the FBI report that the HSCA gave to him was simply false and contradictory as to what happened when he was interviewed in 1964.

In other words, the idea that Caufield is conveying, about somehow Walker’s group being involved in Hall’s perjury for the FBI, is simply not supported by the record. For if one looks at the testimony by Howard and Seymour, they back up Hall. What becomes clear from Gaeton Fonzi’s fine work on this topic—both for the Church Committee and the HSCA—is that the Warren Commission and the FBI cooperated in an effort to try to undermine Odio’s fascinating evidence. And we have this from the direct testimony of the people involved: Odio, Hall, Seymour, and Howard. This effort went as far as Wesley Liebeler telling Odio that he had orders from Chief Justice Earl Warren to cover up any leads indicating a conspiracy, and then trying to seduce the woman in his hotel room. (DiEugenio, p. 352) Again, why Caufield would ignore all of this direct evidence, and instead make another of his unjustified and unsound leaps is quite puzzling."

As for Jeff Caufield's theory about Loran Hall, I don't agree with Jeff Caufield on this minor point.

Jeff's theory says that Loran Hall falsely claimed to be at Sylvia Odio's apartment on 24 November 1963.  I myself agree with Harry Dean on this account -- and I believe that Loran Hall told the truth.  Loran Hall was "Leopoldo" and Larry Howard was "Angelo" as far as Sylvia Odio knew -- and they had with them Lee Harvey Oswald (whom they called "Leon" Oswald; this is because in traditional Spanish language, there is no name "Lee," and Spanish speakers automatically think of "Leon" when they hear the name, "Lee.")

So, Jeff Caufield is simply guessing and speculating about Loran Hall -- but as I said earlier -- this is a trivial point, a sideline note in Jeff Caufield's 900-page book.  James DiEugenio is merely nit-picking.

Jeff Caufield is completely correct when he notes that we have no idea how the FBI came to question Loran Hall in the first place.  The obvious solution is that Loran Hall told a half-truth -- it was he and Larry Howard.  However, Loran Hall made the major mistake of naming William Seymour as the "Anglo" guy who "looked like Lee Harvey Oswald."   Seymour shattered that cover when he told the FBI that he was nowhere close to Dallas on that day, and he provided a solid alibi.

Loran Hall was now out on a limb -- with a half-truth.  Larry Howard was also angry with Loran Hall for naming Larry without permission.  Larry also denied being in Dallas that day.  Loran Hall had to recant.  He did recant.   Hoover knew Hall recanted, but Hoover used Loran Hall's story anyway!   It was exactly the half-truth that Hoover needed for his fictitious "Lone Nut" theory.

This is one of the minor differences between my Walker-did-it CT and Jeff Caufield's.  

(Another minor differene I have with Caufield is the "false flag" theory that Caufield adopts from the honest LAPD officer, Gary Wean (1973).  In Wean's CT, Senator John Tower admits that General Walker was the leader of the JFK plot, but only as a "false flag" fake assassination, to scare the JFK administration into a harder line against Cuba.  I agree with Senator John Tower half-way -- General Walker was the leader of the JFK plot.  I disagree with the "false flag" qualifier -- since it serves only to excuse the others in Dallas who participated.  So, Caufield and I disagree on that minor point as well.)
 
James DiEugenios tries to make the Loran Hall confession into an invention by J. Edgar Hoover.  That's a flimsy theory.

As for Sylvia Odio, she refused to identify Hall and Howard, IMHO, because the FBI refused to accept her testimony, and therefore refused to offer her protection against a madman like Loran Hall.   Loran Hall could get in touch with Sylvia Odio easily -- the FBI refused to protect her, and said she was "neurotic" anyway, for doubting Hoover's "Lone Nut" theory.   Would you ID Hall under those circumstances?

The great Gaeton Fonzi believed Sylvia Odio, but he could not solve the riddle himself.  He needed more help.  Fonzi failed to look as far as General Walker.   Heck -- everybody in the 20th century failed to look at General Walker -- even the HSCA.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 13, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

Just now, Paul Trejo said:

As for Jeff Caufield's theory about Loran Hall, I don't agree with Jeff Caufield on this minor point.

Jeff's theory says that Loran Hall falsely claimed to be at Sylvia Odio's apartment on 24 November 1963.  I myself agree with Harry Dean on this account -- and I believe that Loran Hall told the truth.  Loran Hall was "Leopoldo" and Larry Howard was "Angelo" as far as Sylvia Odio knew -- and they had with them Lee Harvey Oswald (whom they called "Leon" Oswald.  This is because in the Spanish language, there is no name "Lee," and Spanish speakers automatically think of "Leon" when they hear the name, "Lee.")

So, Jeff Caufield is simply guessing and speculating about Loran Hall -- but as I said earlier -- this is a trivial point, a sideline note in Jeff Caufield's 900-page book.  

Jeff Caufield is completely correct when he notes that we have no idea how the FBI came to question Loran Hall in the first place. 
The obvious solution is that Loran Hall told the truth -- it was he and Larry Howard.  However, Loran Hall made the major mistake of naming William Seymour as the "Anglo" guy who "looked like Lee Harvey Oswald."   Seymour shattered that cover when he told the FBI that he was nowhere close to Dallas on that day, and he provided a solid alibi.

Loran Hall was now out on a limb -- with a half-truth.  Larry Howard was also angry with Loran Hall for naming Larry without permission.  Larry also denied being in Dallas that day.  Loran Hall had to recant.  He did recant.   Hoover knew Hall recanted, but Hoover used Loran Hall's story anyway!

This is one of the minor differences between my Walker-did-it CT and Jeff Caufield's.  

(Another minor differene I have with Caufield is the "false flag" theory that Caufield adopts from the brilliant LAPD officer, Gary Wean (1973).  In his CT, Senator John Tower admits that General Walker was the leader of the JFK plot, but only as a "false flag" fake assassination, to scare the JFK administration into a harder line against Cuba.  I agree with Senator John Tower half-way -- General Walker was the leader of the JFK plot.  I disagree with the "false flag" qualifier -- since it serves only to excuse the others in Dallas who participated.) 
 
James DiEugenios tries to make the Loran Hall confession into an invention by J. Edgar Hoover.  That's a flimsy theory.
As for Sylvia Odio, she refused to identify Hall and Howard, IMHO, because the FBI refused to accept her testimony, and therefore refused to offer her protection against a madman like Loran Hall.

The great Gaeton Fonzi believed Sylvia Odio, but he could not solve the riddle himself.  He needed more help.  Fonzi failed to look as far as General Walker.   Heck -- everybody in the 20th century failed to look at General Walker -- even the HSCA.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

" everybody in the 20th century failed to look at General Walker "

doesn't that say something to you, Paul?

everybody in the 20th century failed to look at Mayor Richard Daley, too.

[Paul Trejo]

12 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

and what the hell is a "CIA-did-it" theory anyway, Paul? I've mentioned this once before.

I don't think there IS a CIA-did-it theory, Paul. I've never really heard one.

Please explain to me (us) what that means...

Glenn,

Since you asked me so sincerely, I will give you my very best answer.

The CIA-did-it theory in its very earliest form begins with JBS co-founder, Revilo P. Oliver and his WC testimony in 1964.  Revilo said that the KGB killed JFK, but that there was essentially no difference between the CIA and the KGB, because the CIA was also a support for Fidel Castro and his Communist government in Cuba.

That was the first time anybody blamed the CIA for the murder of JFK, to the best of my knowledge.   (BTW, as a JBS member, General Walker agreed in principle with Revilo P. Oliver's political statements.)

The second time, and perhaps most importantly, the CIA-did-it CT was voiced by Jim Garrison, upon his loss in the 1968 trial against Clay Shaw.  Although Jim Garrison did a tremendous amount of research, and had a winnable case against Shaw, Garrison concluded that the US Government went after his case "like a mad dog" in order to protect the CIA from embarrassment.  The embarrassment was, in his opinion, that the CIA, through Clay Shaw, Guy Banister and David Ferrie, killed JFK.  (Jim Garrison believed that David Ferrie worked for the CIA, according to Lou Ivon.)

Since the days of Jim Garrison, multiple CIA-did-it CT's have emerged.  People in the CIA that were blamed included Allen Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Howard Hunt, Tracy Barnes, Richard Helms, Anne Goodpasture, George Joannides -- the list goes on and on.

With the revelation by David Morales' friend, Ruben Carbajal, that Morales confessed to him, the CIA-did-it CTers were greatly encouraged.  With the video-taped confession of Howard Hunt, the CIA-did-it CTers became smug.  

With this smug attitude, the CIA-did-it CTers began to say that anybody even remotely connected to the CIA must be counted as a CIA agent.  This included such non-CIA-agents as Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Fred Crisman, Thomas Beckham, Eladio del Valle, Johnny Martino, George DeMohrenschildt, Gerry Patrick Hemming Loran Hall, Larry Howard, William Seymour, G. Gordon Liddy and Marita Lorenz.

Famed attorney for Marguerite Oswald, Mark Lane, wrote perhaps the most famous of all CIA-did-it books, with his Plausible Denial (1992), catching Howard Hunt in a lie about his whereabouts during the JFK murder.  Hunt later admitted that Frank Sturgis invited him into a plot with David Morales, and that's all he really knew, since he acted "on the sidelines."   Marita Lorenz, mistress of both Frank Sturgis and Fidel Castro, testified under oath that Howard Hunt was a paymaster for a shipment of arms to Dallas shortly before the JFK assassination.

While the evidence against Howard Hunt is solid -- and confirmed by his personal confession -- it is a far cry from there to a full CIA Conspiracy.  We have only two CIA agents who have confessed to a role in the CIA assassination -- and we have a dozen other people who have confessed in some way -- and none of these others are CIA-agents.

Those who have confessed (to one degree or another) have included Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Tommy Beckham, Johnny Martino, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Roscoe White and Lee Harvey Oswald.  They were all Rightist mercenaries.

Jim Garrison wrote a book about his JFK CT, named, On the Trail of the Assassins (1991) in which he names the CIA as the main culprits of the JFK assassination.  In 1992, Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, was mainly the Hollywood adaptation of Jim Garrison's book (and Garrison makes a cameo appearance in the movie).  In that movie, Fletcher Prouty (Mr. X) and General Edward Lansdale (General Y) are used to make a case for the CIA-did-it CT.

Most of the 20th century CT's have been variations on the CIA-did-it CT.   Even great writers like A.J. Weberman could find no other solution than some variation on a CIA-did-it CT.  Popular writers began to fill the pulp cottage industry of CT's, with writers from the CTKA and a proliferation of web sites on the topic.  Allen Dulles and David Atlee Phillips were among the foremost villains of the CIA-did-it CTers.

However, in the 21st century, things began to change.  Writings by Larry Hancock have greatly tempered the shoot-from-the-hip approach of former writers, and then the Lopez Report (2003) emerged to finally settle what really happened in Mexico City.  Then the ARRB began to publish more FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents, and the whole personality of the CT community changed.  It became more of a science and less of a melodrama.  

With the publication of the free eBook by Bill Simpich, namely, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) a major breakthrough emerged -- a CIA Mole Hunt that began on October 1, 1963 was uncovered, step by step and CIA document by document.  (I should add that Larry Hancock assisted in this effort.)  It was a stunning revelation, and it seems to me that many CTers have not yet read and digested this major breakthrough.

Finally, with Jeff Caufield's 2015 publication, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, the one-sided slant of blaming every CIA agent who lived during the JFK assassination was finally relaxed.  CTers in the 21st century are beginning to look more closely at Willie Somersett's information to the FBI about Joseph Milteer, and the relationship of J.D. Tippit to General Walker.

The CIA-did-it CT is still big business.  There are still many who refuse to look at a local plot in Dallas as the solution to the JFK murder.  Many still wish to blame people in New Orleans, in Miami, in Washington DC, in Chicago -- or anywhere but Dallas.  Many people still hope to claim that Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA agents.  The nonsense bears decades of inertia.  The CIA-did-it CT is like an electric fan -- you pull the plug but the wheels keep on spinning.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 14, 2016 by Paul Trejo
typos

[James DiEugenio]

I thought Paulie would try and change the subject for the reason that he does not want to explain why he served as a cheerleader for a book that is studded with flaws, and error of info.

In the first I showed how Caufield was trying to insert Oswald into the rightwing segregationist activists through Rainich and Badueax, and how the letter h proffered does not fit Oswald' profile.

In the second, the famous Pere Marrquetter conspiracy, Caufield proclaimed the association of Braden, Milteer and Gill  as utter proof of conspiracy.  Except the office was not Braden's and the card was not Gill's, it was Gill's son, and its provenance was that it was found in Milteer's personal effects when he died.

LOL ROTF

In the third, Caufield actually tired to insert Walker into the whole Hoover plot to pass off Hall at Odio's apartment. He does this by not referring to the best evidence in the affair, the work the HSCA did in its reinquiry through Gaeton Fonzi.  (Who, by the way, Caufield trashes in his text)

But if you do not refer to this then you leave out the mechanics of how Hoover made this stick for about two weeks.  Just enough to get the WR out before it collapsed.  I mean when the FBi agent interviewing Hall did not bring a photo of Odio, then you know he had strict instructions as to what to do, since she was the subject of  the inquiry.  Think Walker told Hoover to do that Paulie?

 

And this is what you call a brilliant book.  Geez.  You did go to college didn't you?

 

[James DiEugenio]

Don't choke on this one people.  Caufield actually has Ruby walking down the Main Street ramp to shoot Oswald.  This is the 21st century:

 

Caufield all but eliminates the stalking of Oswald by Ruby – how Ruby almost staked out the station that weekend – that is, the visits by Ruby to the station in the late afternoon on Friday, and then on Saturday, and then early Sunday morning. (Meagher, pp. 435-41)

This might be part of an architectural design. Such is suggested by the fact that, on Sunday morning, before the murder of Oswald, Caufield has Ruby walking up to Main Street from the Western Union office and then entering the police basement from that ramp. (Caufield, p. 508) In other words, it happened just like in the Warren Report.

If there is one thing we know today about Jack Ruby’s wild weekend, it is this: He did not enter the police basement through the Main Street ramp. The Dallas Police had tried to conceal a prime witness to this event from the Warren Commission. His name was Sgt. Don Flusche. Flusche was standing diagonally across from the Main Street ramp, leaning against his car to watch the transfer of Oswald to the county jail. Flusche knew Ruby. He told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) there was no doubt in his mind “that Ruby did not walk down the ramp, and further, did not walk down Main Street anywhere near the ramp.” (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, pp. 203-04)

What makes this even more convincing is that policeman Roy Vaughn, who stood guard over the ramp, also said Ruby did not come in that way. He passed his polygraph test. (Meagher, p. 407) Yet the two policemen, who many suspect—including the HSCA—of helping Ruby into the building from a rear door, did not do well on their tests. William Harrison, who Ruby can be seen hiding behind before Oswald entered the corridor to the parking lot, took tranquilizers to disguise his reactions to the polygraph. Consequently, his test turned out inconclusive. Patrick Dean, the officer in charge of security for the Oswald transfer, failed his test—even though he wrote his own questions! (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 205) During the HSCA investigation, Dean repeatedly failed to respond to a summons for a deposition or to even reply to written questions. (ibid) Remarkably, none of this key information is in this book. Rather, Caufield uses Dean as a witness against Ruby (see pp. 508-09) – without adding that the HSCA felt that Dean was a key figure in the shooting. (op. cit. DiEugenio, p. 205)

 

In his critical rigor, Paulie had no problem with the above.

 

[Glenn Nall]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

Since you asked me so sincerely, I will give you my very best answer.

The CIA-did-it theory in its very earliest form begins with JBS co-founder, Revilo P. Oliver and his WC testimony in 1964.  Revilo said that the KGB killed JFK, but that there was essentially no difference between the CIA and the KGB, because the CIA was also a support for Fidel Castro and his Communist government in Cuba.

That was the first time anybody blamed the CIA for the murder of JFK, to the best of my knowledge.   (BTW, as a JBS member, General Walker agreed in principle with Revilo P. Oliver's political statements.)

The second time, and perhaps most importantly, the CIA-did-it CT was voiced by Jim Garrison, upon his loss in the 1968 trial against Clay Shaw.  Although Jim Garrison did a tremendous amount of research, and had a winnable case against Shaw, Garrison concluded that the US Government went after his case "like a mad dog" in order to protect the CIA from embarrassment.  The embarrassment was, in his opinion, that the CIA, through Clay Shaw, Guy Banister and David Ferrie, killed JFK.  (Jim Garrison believed that David Ferrie worked for the CIA, according to Lou Ivon.)

Since the days of Jim Garrison, multiple CIA-did-it CT's have emerged.  People in the CIA that were blamed included Allen Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Howard Hunt, Tracy Barnes, Richard Helms, George Joannides -- the list goes on and on.

With the revelation by David Morales' friend, Ruben Carbajal, that Morales confessed to him, the CIA-did-it CTers were greatly encouraged.  With the video-taped confession of Howard Hunt, the CIA-did-it CTers became smug.  

With this smug attitude, the CIA-did-it CTers began to say that anybody even remotely connected to the CIA must be counted as a CIA agent.  This included such non-CIA-agents as Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Fred Crisman, Thomas Beckham, Eladio del Valle, Johnny Martino, George DeMohrenschildt, Gerry Patrick Hemming Loran Hall, Larry Howard, William Seymour, G. Gordon Liddy and Marita Lorenz.

Famed attorney for Marguerite Oswald, Mark Lane, wrote perhaps the most famous of all CIA-did-it books, with his Plausible Denial (1992), catching Howard Hunt in a lie about his whereabouts during the JFK murder.  Hunt later admitted that Frank Sturgis invited him into a plot with David Morales, and that's all he really knew, since he acted "on the sidelines."   Marita Lorenz, mistress of both Frank Sturgis and Fidel Castro, testified under oath that Howard Hunt was a paymaster for a shipment of arms to Dallas shortly before the JFK assassination.

While the evidence against Howard Hunt is solid -- and confirmed by his personal confession -- it is a far cry from there to a full CIA Conspiracy.  We have only two CIA agents who have confessed to a role in the CIA assassination -- and we have a dozen other people who have confessed in some way -- and none of these others are CIA-agents.

Those who have confessed (to one degree or another) have included Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Tommy Beckham, Johnny Martino, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Roscoe White and Lee Harvey Oswald.  They were all Rightist mercenaries.

Jim Garrison wrote a book about his JFK CT, named, On the Trail of the Assassins (1991) in which he names the CIA as the main culprits of the JFK assassination.  In 1992, Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, was mainly the Hollywood adaptation of Jim Garrison's book (and Garrison makes a cameo appearance in the movie).  In that movie, Fletcher Prouty (Mr. X) and General Edward Lansdale (General Y) are used to make a case for the CIA-did-it CT.

Most of the 20th century CT's have been variations on the CIA-did-it CT.   Even great writers like A.J. Weberman could find no other solution than some variation on a CIA-did-it CT.  Popular writers began to fill the pulp cottage industry of CT's, with writers from the CTKA and a proliferation of web sites on the topic.  Allen Dulles and David Atlee Phillips were among the foremost villains of the CIA-did-it CTers.

However, in the 21st century, things began to change.  Writings by Larry Hancock have greatly tempered the shoot-from-the-hip approach of former writers, and then the Lopez Report (2003) emerged to finally settle what really happened in Mexico City.  Then the ARRB began to publish more FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents, and the whole personality of the CT community changed.  It became more of a science and less of a melodrama.  

With the publication of the free eBook by Bill Simpich, namely, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) a major breakthrough emerged -- a CIA Mole Hunt that began on October 1, 1963 was uncovered, step by step and CIA document by document.  (I should add that Larry Hancock assisted in this effort.)  It was a stunning revelation, and it seems to me that many CTers have not yet read and digested this major breakthrough.

Finally, with Jeff Caufield's 2015 publication, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, the one-sided slant of blaming every CIA agent who lived during the JFK assassination was finally relaxed.  CTers in the 21st century are beginning to look more closely at Willie Somersett's information to the FBI about Joseph Milteer, and the relationship of J.D. Tippit to General Walker.

The CIA-did-it CT is still big business.  There are still many who refuse to look at a local plot in Dallas as the solution to the JFK murder.  Many still wish to blame people in New Orleans, in Miami, in Washington DC, in Chicago -- or anywhere but Dallas.  Many people still hope to claim that Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA agents.  The nonsense bears decades of inertia.  The CIA-did-it CT is like an electric fan -- you pull the plug but the wheels keep on spinning.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

that particular sentence/question wasn't meant to be discourteous. It was just matter-of-fact, like Jerry Seinfeld would ask it - like "and come to think of it, what the hell is a ____________ anyway?!"

[Glenn Nall]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Glenn,

Since you asked me so sincerely, I will give you my very best answer.

The CIA-did-it theory in its very earliest form begins with JBS co-founder, Revilo P. Oliver and his WC testimony in 1964.  Revilo said that the KGB killed JFK, but that there was essentially no difference between the CIA and the KGB, because the CIA was also a support for Fidel Castro and his Communist government in Cuba.

That was the first time anybody blamed the CIA for the murder of JFK, to the best of my knowledge.   (BTW, as a JBS member, General Walker agreed in principle with Revilo P. Oliver's political statements.)

The second time, and perhaps most importantly, the CIA-did-it CT was voiced by Jim Garrison, upon his loss in the 1968 trial against Clay Shaw.  Although Jim Garrison did a tremendous amount of research, and had a winnable case against Shaw, Garrison concluded that the US Government went after his case "like a mad dog" in order to protect the CIA from embarrassment.  The embarrassment was, in his opinion, that the CIA, through Clay Shaw, Guy Banister and David Ferrie, killed JFK.  (Jim Garrison believed that David Ferrie worked for the CIA, according to Lou Ivon.)

Since the days of Jim Garrison, multiple CIA-did-it CT's have emerged.  People in the CIA that were blamed included Allen Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Howard Hunt, Tracy Barnes, Richard Helms, George Joannides -- the list goes on and on.

With the revelation by David Morales' friend, Ruben Carbajal, that Morales confessed to him, the CIA-did-it CTers were greatly encouraged.  With the video-taped confession of Howard Hunt, the CIA-did-it CTers became smug.  

With this smug attitude, the CIA-did-it CTers began to say that anybody even remotely connected to the CIA must be counted as a CIA agent.  This included such non-CIA-agents as Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Fred Crisman, Thomas Beckham, Eladio del Valle, Johnny Martino, George DeMohrenschildt, Gerry Patrick Hemming Loran Hall, Larry Howard, William Seymour, G. Gordon Liddy and Marita Lorenz.

Famed attorney for Marguerite Oswald, Mark Lane, wrote perhaps the most famous of all CIA-did-it books, with his Plausible Denial (1992), catching Howard Hunt in a lie about his whereabouts during the JFK murder.  Hunt later admitted that Frank Sturgis invited him into a plot with David Morales, and that's all he really knew, since he acted "on the sidelines."   Marita Lorenz, mistress of both Frank Sturgis and Fidel Castro, testified under oath that Howard Hunt was a paymaster for a shipment of arms to Dallas shortly before the JFK assassination.

While the evidence against Howard Hunt is solid -- and confirmed by his personal confession -- it is a far cry from there to a full CIA Conspiracy.  We have only two CIA agents who have confessed to a role in the CIA assassination -- and we have a dozen other people who have confessed in some way -- and none of these others are CIA-agents.

Those who have confessed (to one degree or another) have included Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Tommy Beckham, Johnny Martino, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Roscoe White and Lee Harvey Oswald.  They were all Rightist mercenaries.

Jim Garrison wrote a book about his JFK CT, named, On the Trail of the Assassins (1991) in which he names the CIA as the main culprits of the JFK assassination.  In 1992, Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, was mainly the Hollywood adaptation of Jim Garrison's book (and Garrison makes a cameo appearance in the movie).  In that movie, Fletcher Prouty (Mr. X) and General Edward Lansdale (General Y) are used to make a case for the CIA-did-it CT.

Most of the 20th century CT's have been variations on the CIA-did-it CT.   Even great writers like A.J. Weberman could find no other solution than some variation on a CIA-did-it CT.  Popular writers began to fill the pulp cottage industry of CT's, with writers from the CTKA and a proliferation of web sites on the topic.  Allen Dulles and David Atlee Phillips were among the foremost villains of the CIA-did-it CTers.

However, in the 21st century, things began to change.  Writings by Larry Hancock have greatly tempered the shoot-from-the-hip approach of former writers, and then the Lopez Report (2003) emerged to finally settle what really happened in Mexico City.  Then the ARRB began to publish more FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents, and the whole personality of the CT community changed.  It became more of a science and less of a melodrama.  

With the publication of the free eBook by Bill Simpich, namely, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) a major breakthrough emerged -- a CIA Mole Hunt that began on October 1, 1963 was uncovered, step by step and CIA document by document.  (I should add that Larry Hancock assisted in this effort.)  It was a stunning revelation, and it seems to me that many CTers have not yet read and digested this major breakthrough.

Finally, with Jeff Caufield's 2015 publication, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy, the one-sided slant of blaming every CIA agent who lived during the JFK assassination was finally relaxed.  CTers in the 21st century are beginning to look more closely at Willie Somersett's information to the FBI about Joseph Milteer, and the relationship of J.D. Tippit to General Walker.

The CIA-did-it CT is still big business.  There are still many who refuse to look at a local plot in Dallas as the solution to the JFK murder.  Many still wish to blame people in New Orleans, in Miami, in Washington DC, in Chicago -- or anywhere but Dallas.  Many people still hope to claim that Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA agents.  The nonsense bears decades of inertia.  The CIA-did-it CT is like an electric fan -- you pull the plug but the wheels keep on spinning.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, please hear what I'm trying to say. Please try to understand what I'm trying to say:

" People in the CIA that were blamed included Allen Dulles, James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Howard Hunt, Tracy Barnes, Richard Helms, George Joannides -- ..."

What I'm pointing out is that, aside from Oliver and Garrison (and I don't think Garrison's really included) I'm not sure anyone realistically thinks "the CIA did it." "The CIA" is as different from "people in the CIA" as Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera are from the New York Yankees.

Mark Lane did not think "the CIA did it." The cover of his famous book Conspiracy refers to a "rogue element in US intelligence" which may have manipulated both Oswald and pawns in the anti-Cuba movement (which are mostly the same) and the Mafia. His last book, The Last Word, also is subtitled "My indictment of the CIA in the murder of JFK," and having just read it, it's very obvious that he's not saying the entirety of the CIA.

This sounds like i'm nit-picking, but i'm really not. When you toss around overgeneralizations like you do this does not represent what theories people have formed and is not fair to the theory itself.

I'm absolutely convinced Hunt, Phillips, et al, were in on it. Likely pretty deeply.

I also think that it's likely General Ed Lansdale was.

Does that mean that I think the CIA AND the Army did it?

I also think that Roselli and Giancana and maybe Nicoletti, and Marcello and certainly Trafficante had some involvement.

Is it fair to label me a CIA-Army-Mafia-did-it CTer? 

When people on the streets ask me, as they invariably do, "do you think the CIA did it?" I am forced to explain in general what that really means, lest they go on thinking that they've met yet another lunatic CTer who thinks the CIA did it.

I do not think that, and such a label is unfair to most people to whom you are referring.

If you care.

[Glenn Nall]

1 minute ago, Glenn Nall said:

With this smug attitude, the CIA-did-it CTers began to say that anybody even remotely connected to the CIA must be counted as a CIA agent.

This is, today, about as untruthful as it can get, and it is also where I stopped reading.

You are very unfair and very self-righteous - "smug" - while pointing so many others out to be.

And yet you wonder why so few take your theories and your reason seriously.

[Paul Trejo]

Again, James, your insults only show that you lack strong arguments. 

As for Ruby walking down the DPD parking basement walkway, there is sufficient testimony to verify it.  The Warren Report did indeed get this part right.

Those Dallas police who insisted that Jack Ruby did not walk down that ramp were clearly in CYA mode.

You can insult all you want, and you can pretend you have "secret" sources, James, but such only weakens your case. 

Actually, you haven't quite got the gist of Caufield's take on Jack Ruby -- the pimp who would do anything that the Dallas police asked him to do.

You leave out the connection between J.D. Tippit, Roscoe White and General Walker.  You leave out the connection of the Dallas police with the JFK assassination.   

You leave out the fact that the area behind the Grassy Knoll was actually a parking lot for the Dallas Sheriff's Department.  You leave out the fact that the Dallas County Jail also doubled as a site for public execution by electric chair and hanging -- Dealey Plaza had long been known in Dallas as an execution site -- by the Dallas police.

By the way, James, your book, Reclaiming Parkland (2013) cannot begin to compare with Jeff Caufield's breakthrough, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).  Not even close.  You are still pushing the 20th century CIA-did-it CT.  Jeff Caufield has made a clean break with that kid stuff.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo 

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

47 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

With this smug attitude, the CIA-did-it CTers began to say that anybody even remotely connected to the CIA must be counted as a CIA agent.

This is, today, about as untruthful as it can get, and it is also where I stopped reading.

You are very unfair and very self-righteous - "smug" - while pointing so many others out to be.

And yet you wonder why so few take your theories and your reason seriously.

[Glenn Nall]

24 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Again, James, your insults only show that you lack strong arguments. 

As for Ruby walking down the DPD parking basement walkway, there is sufficient testimony to verify it.  The Warren Report did indeed get this part right.

Those Dallas police who insisted that Jack Ruby did not walk down that ramp were clearly in CYA mode.

You can insult all you want, and you can pretend you have "secret" sources, James, but such only weakens your case. 

Actually, you haven't quite got the gist of Caufield's take on Jack Ruby -- the pimp who would do anything that the Dallas police asked him to do.

You leave out the connection between J.D. Tippit, Roscoe White and General Walker.  You leave out the connection of the Dallas police with the JFK assassination.   

You leave out the fact that the area behind the Grassy Knoll was actually a parking lot for the Dallas Sheriff's Department.  You leave out the fact that the Dallas County Jail also doubled as a site for electric chair and death by hanging -- Dealey Plaza had long been known in Dallas as an execution site -- by the Dallas police.

By the way, James, your book, Reclaiming Parkland (2013) cannot begin to compare with Jeff Caufield's breakthrough, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).  Not even close.  You are still pushing the 20th century CIA-did-it CT.  Jeff Caufield has made a clean break with that kid stuff.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo 

 

In the sixties they executed people in county jails?

is that what you just said?

[Paul Trejo]

54 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

In the sixties they executed people in county jails?

is that what you just said?

In Dallas, yes.  You could look it up.  My source is a Dallas tour guide.

--Paul

Edited December 14, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Smug is a good word for mr. Trejo. 'Rogue CIA' is exactly who RFK Jr. says his father believed was responsible. To me that says a lot.

Caulfield's book, which I purchased, is unreadable. He can't hold a candle to DiEugenio.