Gaeton Fonzi and the Veciana Allegations

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Just now, Cliff Varnell said:

But this "lack of objectivity" and bias is on YOU.

It was a supreme act of objectivity to notice the movement of clothing when imitating JFK's posture -- cuts to the chase.

You insist on framing the acceptance of conspiracy as an opinion, given to bias.

An egregious mis-representation of the facts.

Sounds to me like Varnell and Jim D. are trying to change the subject here. This thread is about Veciana and Fonzi and  these are the facts:

Veciana did not originally believe that Bishop worked for the CIA or the government at all but rather a private organization.

· Veciana was far from sure about key details such as Bishop’s first name.

· The “late August, early September” time frame for the meeting was a Fonzi invention created to fit his own assassination theory.

· The Southland Center as the meeting place was another Fonzi invention designed to fit conspiracy theories.

[Cliff Varnell]

Just now, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sounds to me like Varnell and Jim D. are trying to change the subject here. This thread is about Veciana and Fonzi and  these are the facts:

YOU are the one who cited Fonzi's interview with Specter.,

YOU are making a case for "lack of objectivity" when in fact Gaeton Fonzi performed his journalistic duty with disciplined objectivity and terrific effect.

YOU are intellectually out of line in your critique of Fonzi, frankly, just as JD is for treating the physical evidence like a trend.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

YOU are the one who cited Fonzi's interview with Specter.,

YOU are making a case for "lack of objectivity" when in fact Gaeton Fonzi performed his journalistic duty with disciplined objectivity and terrific effect.

YOU are intellectually out of line in your critique of Fonzi, frankly, just as JD is for treating the physical evidence like a trend.

OK-Fonzi and myself both lack objectivity. But that doesn't change the facts I have presented. BTW, Fonzi admitted his lack of objectivity as I show in the article.

[Cliff Varnell]

Just now, W. Tracy Parnell said:

OK-Fonzi and myself both lack objectivity. But that doesn't change the facts I have presented. BTW, Fonzi admitted his lack of objectivity as I show in the article.

Not prior to the interview.

He went in with an open mind and reported and recorded Specter's mind melt.

Given the location of the bullet holes in the clothes there were at least two shooters.

Being possessed of a fact is not the same as "bias."

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Not prior to the interview.

He went in with an open mind and reported and recorded Specter's mind melt.

Given the location of the bullet holes in the clothes there were at least two shooters.

Being possessed of a fact is not the same as "bias."

Fonzi said referring to his encounter with Specter, "I went from an agnostic to a conspiracy believer.” Not an objective investigator as Blakey said. And the fact that he created "facts" to fit a theory proves it.

[Cliff Varnell]

Just now, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Fonzi said referring to his encounter with Specter, "I went from an agnostic to a conspiracy believer.” Not an objective investigator as Blakey said. And the fact that he created "facts" to fit a theory proves it.

Just because he was drawing a religious analogy -- agnostic-to-conspiracy-believer -- doesn't change the objective (agnostic) journalistic feat of recording Specter spout gibberish in the face of the physical facts of the case.

Which you insist on ignoring.

[Paul Brancato]

Mr. Parnell - what JFK assassination investigators do you think pass your objectivity test?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

10 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Mr. Parnell - what JFK assassination investigators do you think pass your objectivity test?

I understand the point you are making and it is a good one. My point is as a choice for an investigator for the Church C. or the HSCA, I think Fonzi was not good and Blakey agreed. He was too willing to believe the things Veciana was spinning. I have been looking at this for the past two months and I can tell you that the whole Veciana story doesn't pass the smell test. And his book, which I should have Tuesday, appears to be a fairy tale by what I have read in the online preview.

Here is the problem with the way the Veciana story has evolved  as I see it. You have "summer of '63" and that turns into "late August or early September" and that turns into "toward the end of the first week in September." But there is absolutely no support in the primary documents for any of this as I point out. Similarly, the location of the alleged Bishop-LHO meeting went from being in downtown Dallas "at a bank or insurance company" to "probably the Southland Center" to "the Southland Center." And then you have people creating theories based on the "fact" that the meeting was there when Veciana never said that until recently and only then because he probably read it in conspiracy books. And now you have people like Wynne Johnson and Judyth Baker "confirming" these "facts."

I happen to know that there are at least three members here who are very skeptical of the Veciana story. I won't mention who they are because I don't want to embarrass them for believing something a LN does. I am trying to get researchers to stop and think for a  minute about Veciana's story and maybe take a more skeptical look.

[Paul Brancato]

I understand being skeptical of the Veciana story. i found him believable in person. I also agree that Judyth Baker's endorsement is meaningless. But I'd still like to know which other researchers you think are more objective. Fonzi's book is very impressive. He was on the ground doing the hard work, unlike Blakey. I don't find Blakey's assessment credible, because he failed to press for the truth, and cut the HSCA investigation short. Fonzi's assessment of Blakey is backed up by facts, Blakey's apparent assessment of Fonzi (I hadn't heard this before btw) seems self serving. 

Another question for you is how far do you take it? Do you absolve David Atlee Phillips on this basis? 

[Michael Clark]

34 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I understand the point you are making ......

Here is the problem with the way the Veciana story has evolved  as I see it. You have "summer of '63" and that turns into "late August or early September" and that turns into "toward the end of the first week in September." ....

.....

 

Tracy, Thanks for rigorusly testing the veracity of this important story.

I do want to point out, however, that, with regard to the time of year, you are seeing or describing discrepancies where there are none. There's no morphing of a story here. Those accounts are consistent and non exclude one of the others. Summer ends by Sept 21, except to kids, teachers and folks who work at vacation hot-spots.

May I ask, Tracy, if you believe that Antonio Veciana met Bishop dozens of times? 

Cheers,

Michael

Edited April 15, 2017 by Michael Clark

[W. Tracy Parnell]

10 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I understand being skeptical of the Veciana story. i found him believable in person. I also agree that Judyth Baker's endorsement is meaningless. But I'd still like to know which other researchers you think are more objective. Fonzi's book is very impressive. He was on the ground doing the hard work, unlike Blakey. I don't find Blakey's assessment credible, because he failed to press for the truth, and cut the HSCA investigation short. Fonzi's assessment of Blakey is backed up by facts, Blakey's apparent assessment of Fonzi (I hadn't heard this before btw) seems self serving. 

Another question for you is how far do you take it? Do you absolve David Atlee Phillips on this basis? 

It's kind of strange that everyone seems more concerned that I said Fonzi lacked objectivity than they are about the fact that I showed he basically lied or exaggerated if you prefer. I included the objectivity thing more as an explanation as to why he would exaggerate than anything. How far do I take it? I look at it this way Paul. We have all heard Veciana's side of the story for years, so I will eventually make the case for the other side. The key to the whole thing is even if Phillips WAS Bishop, without the connection to LHO it is meaningless. We know that the CIA wanted to get rid of Castro as did private US citizens. So Philips running someone like Veciana who could supposedly help in that regard would be normal. The only surprising thing would be Phillips being in the field doing that type pf work (especially in the early 70s when he was higher up) in such a haphazard manner as to expose himself in a meeting like this. Even Harold Weisberg expressed skepticism regarding this idea.

[Paul Brancato]

There is much more to Phillips than whether or not he knew Oswald or was Bishop. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

9 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Tracy, Thanks for rigorusly testing the veracity of this important story.

I do want to point out, however, that, with regard to the time of year, you are seeing or describing discrepancies where there are none. There's no morphing of a story here. Those accounts are consistent and non exclude one of the others. Summer ends by Sept 21, except to kids, teachers and folks who work at vacation hot-spots.

May I ask, Tracy, if you believe that Antonio Veciana met Bishop dozens of times? 

Cheers,

Michael

Michael,

My problem is with the "late August-early September" thing which has morphed into "the first week in September." The reason it morphed is because Fonzi thought the best window of time for the meeting was early September on the 6th through the 9th. So I disagree with you that no morphing took place. And they are not saying "it could have been" or using other qualifying language. It is very clear that Veciana could not remember the date of the meeting with that level of detail. For example, in his HSCA testimony he only said it was "three months before the Kennedy assassination." But now, his memory has improved and it was "the first week in September."

As far as the number of meetings, I am not even convinced there was a "Bishop." Veciana's motive for potentially lying? Fonzi identified it himself-fear of prosecution for his anti-Castro activities. BTW, the real "bad guy" here is not Fonzi IMO but Veciana. Fonzi is only guilty of being too trusting which is the reason I mention lack of objectivity.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

There is much more to Phillips than whether or not he knew Oswald or was Bishop. 

Not with regard to Veciana's LHO story. Take out LHO and it's a big nothing burger. Phillips is an interesting character though, I'll agree on that.

[Michael Clark]

With all due respect Tracy, like Paul Trejo's exasperated defense of Ruth Paine, it is my opinion that your methods and efforts do discredit Fonzi's and Veciana's claim that this meeting did occur, only serves to add credibility to the story.

Regards,

Michael