Sylvia Odio, Lee Harvey Oswald and Harry Dean

[Chris Newton]

4 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

In the sixties they executed people in county jails?

There was Nancy Mooney.

[Paul Trejo]

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

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. 

Paul B.,

There is a great difference between CIA and Rogue CIA.   Allen Dulles, John McCone, Jesus Jesus Angleton, Richard Helms, Anne Goodpasture, Tracy Barnes, George Joannides and David Atlee Phillips -- all these were CIA in the 1960's.  

David Morales and E. Howard Hunt were Rogue CIA.   Off the reservation.   This Rogue CIA joined a Civilian rebellion in Dallas.  Dallas is the locus of the JFK assassination.

It seems that for many people, it is still to sensitive to point to Dallas -- after half a century.

Caufield's book is like a flash of lightning.   Anybody who can't read it, simply has a closed mind -- closed by the CTKA.

James DiEugenio repeats the 20th century errors ad nauseum.  This CIA guy; that CIA guy; the other CIA guy, the Mafia, LBJ, blah, blah, blah.  Mere speculation.

With Jeff Caufield we finally get facts, facts and more facts from FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents.  Of course there will be minor errors here and there, as in any mammoth, 900-page book.  James' nit-picking merely evades the point: Joseph Milteer, General Walker and the Radical Right of 1963 form the core of the Dallas plot.

James DiEugenio, starting from the flaws of Jim Garrison, merely builds on the past.  The CTKA and Probe Magazine comprise the worst of CT literature.  Probe in particular is an embarrassment to the American intellectual, and single-handed, gave a bad name to CT around the world.

As for Reclaiming Parkland (2013) it is a boring book that hopes to use the flash of Tom Hanks' recent movie, "Parkland" (2013) as a ploy to repeat the old, tired themes of Jim Garrison -- this time against Vincent Bugliosi (2007).  With DiEugenio, we get to review again the farce of Bugliosi's legal gymnastics which give one final salute to the Warren Commission (even though the official US Government conclusion on the JFK murder has been the 1979 HSCA conclusion).  Can anything be more boring?  Nothing new is offered in Reclaiming Parkland.

With Jeff Caufields book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015) we get a totally unexpected theory of the JFK assassination -- undreamed of by the 20th century canon -- because actually the vast majority 20th century writers (from CTKA on up) were too blind to see it.  Even the HSCA was too blind to recall General Walker as a witness.  (Just because they were in the majority does not prove their correctness -- on the contrary.)

Caufield has come closer to solving the JFK murder mystery than any other writer -- and that covers a half-century of writers.  There is hardly enough praise that can be given to Jeff Caufield.  It takes a biased reader to just stick to the old CTKA nonsense after the flash of lightning bequeathed by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Glenn Nall]

32 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Paul B.,

There is a great difference between CIA and Rogue CIA.   Allen Dulles, John McCone, Jesus Jesus Angleton, Richard Helms, Anne Goodpasture, Tracy Barnes, George Joannides and David Atlee Phillips -- all these were CIA in the 1960's.  

David Morales and E. Howard Hunt were Rogue CIA.   Off the reservation.   This Rogue CIA joined a Civilian rebellion in Dallas.  Dallas is the locus of the JFK assassination.

It seems that for many people, it is still to sensitive to point to Dallas -- after half a century.

Caufield's book is like a flash of lightning.   Anybody who can't read it, simply has a closed mind -- closed by the CTKA.

James DiEugenio repeats the 20th century errors ad nauseum.  This CIA guy; that CIA guy; the other CIA guy, the Mafia, LBJ, blah, blah, blah.  Mere speculation.

With Jeff Caufield we finally get facts, facts and more facts from FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents.  Of course there will be minor errors here and there, as in any mammoth, 900-page book.  James' nit-picking merely evades the point: Joseph Milteer, General Walker and the Radical Right of 1963 form the core of the Dallas plot.

James DiEugenio, starting from the flaws of Jim Garrison, merely builds on the past.  The CTKA and Probe Magazine comprise the worst of CT literature.  Probe in particular is an embarrassment to the American intellectual, and single-handed, gave a bad name to CT around the world.

As for Reclaiming Parkland (2013) it is a boring book that hopes to use the flash of Tom Hanks' recent movie, "Parkland" (2013) as a ploy to repeat the old, tired themes of Jim Garrison -- this time against Vincent Bugliosi (2007).  With DiEugenio, we get to review again the farce of Bugliosi's legal gymnastics which give one final salute to the Warren Commission (even though the official US Government conclusion on the JFK murder has been the 1979 HSCA conclusion).  Can anything be more boring?  Nothing new is offered in Reclaiming Parkland.

With Jeff Caufields book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015) we get a totally unexpected theory of the JFK assassination -- undreamed of by the 20th century canon -- because actually the vast majority 20th century writers (from CTKA on up) were too blind to see it.  Even the HSCA was too blind to recall General Walker as a witness.  (Just because they were in the majority does not prove their correctness -- on the contrary.)

Caufield has come closer to solving the JFK murder mystery than any other writer -- and that covers a half-century of writers.  There is hardly enough praise that can be given to Jeff Caufield.  It takes a biased reader to just stick to the old CTKA nonsense after the flash of lightning bequeathed by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

you make the same point we're all making, but then you twist it.

all you want to do is effin' argue.

done.

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Trejo once told me privately (am I revealing too much Paul?) that his constant repetitions were targeted towards passersby on the site, not towards the posters. Must be the case, since there could be no other point. Every time one of us points something out that is inconsistent or untrue he launches into his theory, and usually disses other viewpoints. If he is forced, as recently was the case with the Kostikov cable, to admit something he was wrong about, he inserts it into his theory. This also happened with David Morales. Because he had to account for Morales 'confession' and other evidence of involvement, he redefined Morales as rogue and imagined a relationship between Morales and Walker/Banister. Simpich is Paul's savior now, even though Simpich has not posted in quite a while. Simpich's mole hunt was not an original contribution, though his interpretation of it was. It's easy to see that the Lee 'Henry' Oswald and false pic of the visitor to the MC embassies does not absolve CIA, Phillips in particular. I doubt that Newman would sign on to the Simpich or Trejo interpretations, since last I checked he had fingered Angleton as the only one who could have run such a deep level conspiracy. Paul repeats that the mole hunt absolves high level CIA every chance he gets. I have pointed out that it does no such thing, though on the surface it implies that CIA brass was confused about who impersonated Oswald.  

I don't recall any of you weighing in on this point. So - do any of you think the 'marked card' and the photo that is not Oswald proves what Trejo says it does? 

[Glenn Nall]

yes, when PT classified Hunt as "Rogue" and Phillips as not "Rogue" - and seemed to categorize "Rogue CIA" as some official organization indigenous to Dallas - I realized, like DVP, he really doesn't read, grasp, or give a damn about the things anyone else says.

dead horses. beating dead horses.

and pearls before swine. that one works, too.

[James DiEugenio]

Let us continue with that brilliant book by Jeff Caufield.  In addition to the ridiculous notion that Ruby came down the Main Street ramp,  the book actually says,  I hope you are sitting down,  that Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.  And, even worse, Caufield relies on the utterly discredited Givens/Revill story to do so.  From my critique:

Like the Warren Commission, Caufield actually uses the testimony of Charles Givens to place Oswald on the sixth floor. Let us be candid: Givens was a damned xxxx. His WR testimony about coming down the elevator to the first floor, realizing he left his cigarettes on the sixth floor, then going back up and seeing Oswald there at about 11:55, having a brief conversation with him in which Oswald said he was not going down right now—this is all perjury. Givens never went back upstairs, and Oswald was downstairs before 11:55. It has been proven false by writers like Sylvia Meagher, Pat Speer, and Gil Jesus. With the Commission’s own sworn testimony from Givens, Gil shows that, in his first story to the FBI, Givens himself said that he saw Oswald downstairs reading a newspaper in the domino room at 11:50. The Commission let Givens deny this under oath. In other words, they suborned perjury.

Can Caufield really not be aware of this? I mean, Meagher’s classic essay, “The Curious Testimony of Mr. Givens“, has been around for 45 years. It was published in The Texas Observer, it has been collected in anthologies, and anyone with a computer can find it online. Again, I don’t know what is worse; for if Caufield did not know about this issue, that is a bit scary for someone who says he has been on the case for over 20 years. The other alternative is that he did know, but this is how much he is wedded to his bizarre theory. If it’s the latter, then a legitimate question arises: How does his handling of evidence significantly differ from that of the Warren Commission?

Caufield then tops this off by saying that, after Givens’ phony sighting, Oswald was not seen on the lower floors until after the assassination. (Caufield, p. 473) He therefore writes off Carolyn Arnold, who says she saw him on the second floor at about 12:15, maybe even later. (op. cit. Benson, p. 17) Like the Warren Report, Caufield’s index shares the dubious distinction of not containing an entry for Carolyn Arnold’s name.

 

Again, Paulie did not raise any objections to this.  Or any of the other points I have previously raised, which is up to about six issues now. Using a lying cuss like Givens is brilliant?  If I recall correctly, Revill said he encountered Givens inside the TSBD after the shooting.  Except that Givens was locked out of the TSBD after the shooting. Remember, these are, according to Trejo "facts, facts and more facts from FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents."  And also, these are minor errors in a 900 page book.   

 

Anyone who can say that Ruby coming down the Main street ramp, and Oswald being on the sixth floor are minor errors, has a quality of judgment that simply cannot be trusted.  And BTW, Caufield's book is 700 pages of text, not 900.  Finally Reclaiming Parkland is not about my theory or Garrison's theory of the crime.  It is about how bad Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History was.  

Edited December 14, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Paul, for your info, I agree that Paulie has latched onto the Scott/SImpich MC idea is his usual agenda driven way, although I was not aware of the Morales angle.

 

 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

In a very real sense most CIA operations, maybe all, are designed with cover in mind. Chain of command is hidden, deniability built in. So after the fact, operations such as assassination can be, as a last resort, termed rogue, no matter how many CIA informants, cut outs, assets, agents, or officers are implicated, as long as no paper trail or other unequivocal evidence is uncovered. This is why Newman's painstaking work on code names and classifications in CIA is so important and difficult. Those  researchers like Newman who see footprints of intelligence when they investigate this crime have made much progress over the decades, contrary to Trejo's assertions. 

Speaking for myself, I have not ruled out the possibility that the conspiracy originated at the highest levels of the national security state, nor the possibility that a faction of CIA carried it out with a limited chain of command. Calling this latter possibility 'rogue' strikes me as providing a smidgen of cover for the accusers, not a hard and fast definition of the operation itself. The absence of paper trail signifies little, and the presence of paper trail does not guarantee that it is truthful. The absence of photos of Oswald in MC is suspicious, but to conclude that there were pictures, but that they were never shown to investigators because CIA brass hid them in order to find out who impersonated Oswald, strikes me as naive. The false description of Oswald, and the middle name change from Harvey to Henry, no doubt deliberate obfuscations with some purpose or purposes in mind, cannot be read as proof that the originators of that false description, most likely Angleton and his staff, didn't know who impersonated Oswald. There can be other explanations, such as a deliberately false paper trail. I don't rule out the Simpich analysis, I just don't take it as proof of the innocence of anyone above Morales in the CIA. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Paul Brancato

[James DiEugenio]

I could not have said it any better.

BTW, if you say there were pics, but they were hidden not to reveal the impersonators, then are you not at least implying that Oswald was not there?

[Paul Trejo]

James and Paul B,

You guys really need to read the Lopez Report (2003).  It seems you are years behind the times.   No wonder, James, your publisher removed your "Mexico City" section from your second edition of Destiny Betrayed.  You're stuck in the 20th century.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 15, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

LOL,   Paulie is out to lunch again.  In Reclaiming Parkland , in my MC chapter,I have 51 footnotes to the Lopez Report, by far the most commonly cited source.  Its Paulie who I doubt has read it since he misquotes it all the time, smartly refusing to add page numbers to those misquotes.

And the reason it was not in the hardcover was because of its length and my editor did not think it was impeaching of the WR enough.  I said, its not about the WR, its about Bugliosi.  My new editor did not agree with him.  Thanks to him, its in there for all to read. I am very proud of it.  As I am the whole book.  It completely vitiates RH.

Edited December 15, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Now, let us return to Trejo's "brilliant" Caufield book. Which, according to Paulie,  is full of declassified facts.  Keep that claim in mind as you read the following.

One of the weirdest parts of Caufield's book is his claim that the reason Oswald was on the sixth floor (which he was not) is this, please sit down before you read it.

HE WAS SENT THERE TO TAKE  A SHOT AT JFK!

No joke, and it would not be funny anyway.  But here is what I say about this wild idea in my critique:

"The Warren Report—which Caufield trusts more than he does not—states that when Oswald first learned of the assassination, instead of running toward the closer back door, he used the more distant and dangerous exit: the main door on Elm Street. This is where the police and the public had mostly gathered. But he first dispensed a bottle of soda and then walked across the second floor. He then walked down the stairs and out the front exit, but stopping to give some directions to a pay phone to two reporters. (op. cit. Reclaiming Parkland, p. 99) Oswald then walked down Elm Street to catch a bus, which was headed in the wrong direction from his rooming house. So he had to get off the bus. He then walked back to the Greyhound Bus Terminal and tried to find a cab. All of this took at least ten minutes. (WR, p. 160) He then hailed a taxi and got in. However, when an elderly lady peered in the window, and asked for a ride, Oswald was ready to get out. But she said it was all right, she could get another taxi. (ibid, p. 162)

As Sylvia Meagher later wrote—perhaps tongue in cheek: “It is increasingly difficult to reconcile Oswald’s demeanor with what the Commission calls 'escape'. Whaley [the taxi driver], testified to the ‘slow way’ Oswald had walked up to the taxi, saying, 'he didn’t talk. He wasn’t in any hurry. He wasn’t nervous or anything.'” (Meagher, p. 83) So how do his acts and demeanor constitute “running for your life”?

In a smugly self-fulfilling way, Caufield then writes that the only scenario which explains Oswald’s behavior that day was that he was supposed to shoot but miss. Hence, that someone else would actually kill Kennedy. And Oswald would only go to jail for just a few days. He says that since both weapons used—the handgun for the Tippit slaying and the rifle for the assassination—had been rechambered, it would have been hard to convict Oswald. (He is wrong about the latter point. Mannlicher Carcano expert Robert Prudhomme informed me by e-mail that both versions of the MC rifle, the 6.5 and 7.35 mm, had the same chamber, but the larger caliber rifle used a modified type of ammunition.)

He then writes something that is a bit shocking: “Oswald deliberately left his own traceable rifle on the sixth floor for it to be discovered and traced to him, which was another scripted act that supports the postulated shoot-and—miss scenario.” (Caufield p. 469) To go into all the arguments that undermine this would take an essay in itself. But just to mention one: in addition to the strong indications he did not order the rifle, there is also the evidence that the disassembled rifle could not fit into the bag that Oswald carried to work that day." (Meagher, pp. 54-57)

 

What can one say about this, except to just describe it and to reveal the circumstances that Caufield does not.  Recalling, the whole time, that Paul Trejo had no problem with any of this, and then he tries to dismiss these gaping holes as Minor Errors.

Ruby walking down the Main Street ramp, and Oswald on the sixth floor firing his rifle are minor errors?! 

Edited December 15, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

More from the Trejo endorsed book by Caufield.

Throughout the book Caufield takes cheap shot after cheap shot at people like Jim Garrison and Gaeton Fonzi.  He actually denigrates Fonzi's fine book which I think is one of the best ever written on the JFK case.  What he does to Garrison is even worse.  But Caufield is so agenda driven on the subject of Garrison that he shoots himself in the foot, more than once.  Let us examine one instance to show just how eager to smear the author is and how sloppy his methods are:

 

On page 642 of Caufield’s book, he describes a memo written to Banister from one Edward Hunter. It is relevant to mention the subject of the memo. Hunter told Banister he was interested in finding out what kind of literature a college student would pick up in a library if he were interested in learning about communism. Hunter was writing a book on the subject and wanted to do an experiment.

Garrison commented on this memo by writing in the margin that Hunter was probably an agent. Caufield uses this to unload on Garrison by denying this was the case; and that Hunter was associated with those on the radical right; and that this shows how contrived Garrison’s case against the CIA really was.

Recall, Hunter wanted to do an experiment. Does that not suggest that he was involved with some type of social science endeavors? So although Hunter knew some members of the radical right, all one has to do is look at Chapter 8 of John Marks’ classic book on MK/Ultra, The Search for the Manchurian Candidate. There, one will read that Edward Hunter was “a CIA propaganda operator who worked under cover as a journalist…” Marks interviewed Hunter a few times before he passed away. Hunter wrote articles and books on mind control. (see Marks, chapter 8) Are we really to believe that Caufield never bothered to look that up before he wrote his arrogant insult about Garrison?

Are we really to think that Caufield never read the classic book on MK/Ultra?  

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

On 12/14/2016 at 9:41 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Now, let us return to Trejo's "brilliant" Caufield book. Which, according to Paulie,  is full of declassified facts.  Keep that claim in mind as you read the following.

One of the weirdest parts of Caufield's book is his claim that the reason Oswald was on the sixth floor (which he was not) is this, please sit down before you read it.

HE WAS SENT THERE TO TAKE  A SHOT AT JFK!

No joke, and it would not be funny anyway.  But here is what I say about this wild idea in my critique:

"The Warren Report—which Caufield trusts more than he does not—states that when Oswald first learned of the assassination, instead of running toward the closer back door, he used the more distant and dangerous exit: the main door on Elm Street. This is where the police and the public had mostly gathered. But he first dispensed a bottle of soda and then walked across the second floor. He then walked down the stairs and out the front exit, but stopping to give some directions to a pay phone to two reporters. (op. cit. Reclaiming Parkland, p. 99) Oswald then walked down Elm Street to catch a bus, which was headed in the wrong direction from his rooming house. So he had to get off the bus. He then walked back to the Greyhound Bus Terminal and tried to find a cab. All of this took at least ten minutes. (WR, p. 160) He then hailed a taxi and got in. However, when an elderly lady peered in the window, and asked for a ride, Oswald was ready to get out. But she said it was all right, she could get another taxi. (ibid, p. 162)

As Sylvia Meagher later wrote—perhaps tongue in cheek: “It is increasingly difficult to reconcile Oswald’s demeanor with what the Commission calls 'escape'. Whaley [the taxi driver], testified to the ‘slow way’ Oswald had walked up to the taxi, saying, 'he didn’t talk. He wasn’t in any hurry. He wasn’t nervous or anything.'” (Meagher, p. 83) So how do his acts and demeanor constitute “running for your life”?

In a smugly self-fulfilling way, Caufield then writes that the only scenario which explains Oswald’s behavior that day was that he was supposed to shoot but miss. Hence, that someone else would actually kill Kennedy. And Oswald would only go to jail for just a few days. He says that since both weapons used—the handgun for the Tippit slaying and the rifle for the assassination—had been rechambered, it would have been hard to convict Oswald. (He is wrong about the latter point. Mannlicher Carcano expert Robert Prudhomme informed me by e-mail that both versions of the MC rifle, the 6.5 and 7.35 mm, had the same chamber, but the larger caliber rifle used a modified type of ammunition.)

He then writes something that is a bit shocking: “Oswald deliberately left his own traceable rifle on the sixth floor for it to be discovered and traced to him, which was another scripted act that supports the postulated shoot-and—miss scenario.” (Caufield p. 469) To go into all the arguments that undermine this would take an essay in itself. But just to mention one: in addition to the strong indications he did not order the rifle, there is also the evidence that the disassembled rifle could not fit into the bag that Oswald carried to work that day." (Meagher, pp. 54-57)

What can one say about this, except to just describe it and to reveal the circumstances that Caufield does not.  Recalling, the whole time, that Paul Trejo had no problem with any of this, and then he tries to dismiss these gaping holes as Minor Errors.

Ruby walking down the Main Street ramp, and Oswald on the sixth floor firing his rifle are minor errors?! 

James,

Ruby walking down the Main Street ramp is no error at all.   Also, I have already said in this Forum that I reject the "false flag" theory of the JFK assassination.  It is not essential to Jeff Caufield's brilliant book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015).

What is essential, as I have repeated, in Willie Somersett's reports to the FBI about Joseph Milteer and the Radical Right, plotting to assassinate JFK from a "tall building with a high powered rifle."  

You keep ep evading that issue, James, because your CIA-did-it theory has no good answer for it.

So, you focus on irrelevant, and minor details.  The plot begins with the Radical Right.   The details about how each moment of the assassination played out are details that Jeff Caufield begins to speculate about -- using the 1973 theory of LAPD officer, Gareth (Gary) Wean.

Gary Wean's shocking theory said that in a meeting with Senator John Tower, Audey Murphey and Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker, Gary heard Senator Tower confess the facts of the JFK assassination -- it was started by General Walker, but only as a "false flag" conspiracy, that was, a "shoot to miss" conspiracy.  

So, the movement and coordination was in place with all these pranksters among the Radical Right -- to shoot to miss -- in order to each the USA a lesson.  They would not kill JFK, but only fire warning shots, and then throw a Communist out to the press to take the blame, and blame Fidel Castro and the USSR for it, to inspire the USA to invade Cuba.  This is what Gary Wean claimed in 1973.  However, claimed Senator Tower, some "bad men" infiltrated the plot at the last minute and killed JFK.  Then everybody scattered.

Senator Tower told the truth -- for the most part -- General Walker and the Radical Right in Dallas indeed conspired to murder JFK. What is mistaken, IMHO, about Gary Wean's theory (which Jeff Caufield evidently adopts  completely) is the "false flag" part.  That was added by Senator Tower, IMHO, to protect his friends and himself.  (So, IMHO, we must add Senator Tower to our list of confessors in the conspiracy to kill JFK.)

I wish that Jeff Caufield had taken a more circumspect attitude toward Gary Wean's "false flag" theory.  Caufleld's book did not need that theory in order to complete his thorough case against the Radical Right in the JFK assassination.  Caufield offered plenty of new FOIA releases of FBI and CIA documents to make a solid case against Joseph Milteer, General Walker and the Radical Right.

As for the TSBD shooting itself -- I accept the account by Gerry Patrick Hemming, given to A.J. Weberman in the 1990's, namely, that Hemming himself telephoned Lee Harvey Oswald on Thursday from Miami, and offered Oswald "double the price" of his Manlicher-Carcano rifle if he would bring it to the TSBD on Friday morning, 11/22/1963.   LHO did that, and handed his rifle over to people he believed were on the same mission as he was (namely, killing Fidel Castro).

Instead, the people to whom LHO handed over his rifle used the material evidence to frame Oswald good and proper.  With the help of Dallas Police rogues, and later with the help of the FBI and its "Lone Nut" mission, all the evidence was manipulated to point to Oswald -- even to the point of falsifying ballistics and medical evidence -- which eventually exposed errors in the execution.

Jeff Caufield, however, makes the key point that the Radical Right killed JFK, not the CIA.  But James DiEugenio has invested all his years into the CIA-did-it CT, and he rightly sees the book by Jeff Caufield as a threat to his position.  James has had nothing new to add to a JFK CT for a long, long time.  Now he's in defensive mode.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

 

Edited December 18, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Paulie:

You are whistling past the graveyard aren't you?

Jack Ruby coming down the Main Street ramp is not an error?  One of the better parts of the HSCA volumes is their discussion of this issue.  They concluded that the evidence indicated Ruby did not come down the Main Street ramp.  That it  indicated he came in through a door at the rear of the building.  The evidence for this was that Dean had failed his polygraph test, even though he wrote his own questions.  While Vaughn had passed his.  The DPD had also lied about whether Ruby needed a key to open that door. The HSCA interviewed the members of the custodial staff to prove this was false. Plus the DPD hid witness Don Flusche from the WC.  But the HSCA found him.  He was leaning against his car right opposite the Main Street entrance and he knew Ruby.  He told the HSCA that there was no way in hell Ruby entered that way.  (Reclaiming Parkland pgs. 227-30)

What this did was reinforce the suspicions of Burt Griffin of the WC.  He felt that Dean had lied to him back in 1964.  He wrote a memo to Warren saying that he felt Dean had not secured all the doors that day, even though it was his job to do so.  He also thought that it was not credible that Ruby came down the Main Street ramp.  Third, he felt that Dean had now joined the cover up about this issue and was advising Ruby on what to say about it.  (ibid, pgs 229-30)  Warren and Rankin backed down on this when they were met with strong resistance from the DPD and Wade.  But the HSCA went ahead and resolved it.

If anyone has seen photos of how adjacent the Western Union office is to the rear of the building,  one can see what very likely happened.  In talking to Jim Marrs, he told me there  was an alley way back then where, from the back door, you could easily see the sidewalk in front of that WU office.  And as Greg Parker advised me, if  you then examine what the FBI did to the Carlins to make them go along with Ruby's excuse for being there that morning, well its kind of  stunning.  They were quite literally harassed and intimidated around the clock to go along with the Ruby rationale for his being there that morning. To give you  a couple of examples, Karen was interviewed seven times previously to get her story straight.  Bruce actually lost a job when he resisted going along with the Ruby pretext story. (ibid, p. 226)

Mr. Caufield is not just wrong, he is thunderously wrong on this point.  And your heaping accolades on him for using declassified files for his book is undermined by this exposure that he did not.