Deposition of Marita Lorenz in Hunt v. Weberman (1978)

[Joe Bauer]

Thanks Doug.

It's amazing to me that you have a continuous and open and honest dialogue with someone like Rothstein who was personally part of such a dramatic event involving two of the most intriguing characters ( Sturgis and Lorenz ) in the entire JFK/Castro affair.

And someone who also was actually a participating witness to the Bay Of Pigs and it's death and destruction.

What Rothstein witnessed at the Bay of Pigs obviously traumatized him.

Experiencing something so traumatic ( life and death with bodies ) that it wakes you up on dark lonely nights years later and you never forget the images of this the rest of your life ... is the essence of a serious PTSD event.

In all his years of living with that traumatic event however, I wonder if Rothstein ever pondered the question as to what went wrong with that operation...and who was to blame?

If Rothstein did indeed blame JFK for the BOP's failure, then I just can't completely let go of keeping a small seed of "something" in my mind regards his true feelings toward Frank Sturgis.  Did Rothstein harbor stronger negative feelings towards JFK regards the BOP than he did toward Sturgis for perhaps killing JFK?

Doug, you dealt with E. Howard Hunt on a one-on-one personal basis.  Did he ever indicate anything to you about Sturgis and his possible role in the JFK event?

 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Douglas Caddy]

17 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Thanks Doug.

It's amazing to me that you have a continuous and open and honest dialogue with someone like Rothstein who was personally part of such a dramatic event involving two of the most intriguing characters ( Sturgis and Lorenz ) in the entire JFK/Castro affair.

And someone who also was actually a participating witness to the Bay Of Pigs and it's death and destruction.

What Rothstein witnessed at the Bay of Pigs obviously traumatized him.

Experiencing something so traumatic ( life and death with bodies ) that it wakes you up on dark lonely nights years later and you never forget the images of this the rest of your life ... is the essence of a serious PTSD event.

In all his years of living with that traumatic event however, I wonder if Rothstein ever pondered the question as to what went wrong with that operation...and who was to blame?

If Rothstein did indeed blame JFK for the BOP's failure, then I just can't completely let go of keeping a small seed of "something" in my mind regards his true feelings toward Frank Sturgis.  Did Rothstein harbor stronger negative feelings towards JFK regards the BOP than he did toward Sturgis for perhaps killing JFK?

Doug, you dealt with E. Howard Hunt on a one-on-one personal basis.  Did he ever indicate anything to you about Sturgis and his possible role in the JFK event?

 

 

 

Joe: Retired NYPD Detective James Rothstein and I have been in almost constant communication for about five years. I plan to devote a chapter in my forthcoming autobiography to him because he is a remarkable man and has had a storied career. You would be staggered in the large number of prominent cases in which he been involved -- from Son of Sam (which is still very much alive) to the Oklahoma City Bombing. His first police assignment was on the NYPD Vice Squad in the Times Square area. In fact, there is a book about the work of this squad. On one occasion he and his partner confronted a U.S. Senator who was a presidential candidate to let him be aware that he had been compromised by having sex with a young boy and would be subject to blackmail by those in the federal government who set him up. He knew of three young  boys who had been killed in another set-up sexual situation designed to compromise a prominent person and knew where the boys' bodies had been buried on the farm of a famous attorney. He and his partner were the key detectives in the case in which the son of a rich and powerful businessman had been kidnapped. The father of the kidnapped son offered both Rothstein and his partner a million dollars each if they would alter their investigation. Rothstein and his partner turned the offer down. Obviously there was something more important at stake there than the kidnapping itself. The list goes on and on but I mention these few cases only to illustrate that Rothstein's involvement in Sturgis coming to New York City to kill Marita was just one of many.

The only person who later turned out to be one of the burglars that Howard Hunt ever mentioned to me was Bernard Barker, who at one time was head of Castro's intelligence service. About three months before the Watergate case broke, Hunt invited me to join him and Barker for lunch at the Army-Navy Club in Washington, D.C. Why Howard did so was never clear to me but our conversation at lunch focused entirely on Castro and American relations with Cuba.

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Paul,

You could just as well link both Hemming and Sturgis to Howard Hunt or Mitch Werbell. But games of "who knew who" is not going to lead us anywhere. Sometimes I get the feeling that everybody somehow knew everybody in the far right / anti-Castro underground.

But there's one thing that makes me think that none those aforementioned played a central role in the assassination. Because all of them lived to tell their fancy stories. If we want to know who killed Kennedy we should follow the trail of blood. Who died an untimely death? George de Mohrenschild, Dorothy Killgallen, David Ferrie, Eladio del Valle, Johnny Roselli...

Mathias,

I think you're underestimating the factor of History.  The JFK assassination is now over 50 years in the past -- and so now belongs as much to the Historian as to to partisan. 

At least a dozen people in the past 50 years have publicly confessed (in some degree) to some role in the JFK assassination, and the Historian is practically obliged to give precedence to this trail.

Only two employees of the CIA confessed (in some degree) to a role in the JFK assassination, namely, David Morales and Howard Hunt. But they were not among the top leaders of the CIA, who now have the Simpich Mole Hunt as an alibi.

On the other hand, several other people, outside the ranks of regular CIA employees, have also confessed.  Here's an unofficial list:

01. Frank Sturgis (who boasted about it)
02. Gerry Patrick Hemming (to AJ Weberman)
03. Marita Lorenz (to Mark Lane)
04. Jack S. Martin (to Jim Garrison)
05. David Ferrie (to Garrison's staff)
06. Tommy Beckham (to Joan Mellen)
07. Joseph Milteer (to Willie Somersett) 
08. Roscoe White (to his son)
09. Loran Hall (only me and Santos are left)
10. Harry Dean (who encouraged Walker)
11. Lee Harvey Oswald (I'm just a Patsy)

I realize this list is probably incomplete, but I wish to point out that these actual confessions fail to support a CIA-did-it CT, and more solidly support a Radical Right wing CT.

The massive effort of the past 50 years, to try to find proof of a CIA-did-it CT has failed.  Why not admit it -- the CIA-did-it CT is 99% cloak-and-dagger fiction.  The Walker-did-it CT has actual confessions to work with, along with new FBI findings (as of 2015).

If you haven't read it, I recommend the 900 page book by Jeff Caufield: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 15, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 8/11/2017 at 8:44 AM, David Andrews said:

As Bob Dylan might say:

"How many rogues must a man walk down

Before he discovers a plan?

How man rogues does it take till he knows

Not to blame it on the Ku Klux Klan?

How many rogues will it take till he sees

That it's CIA to the last man?"

The answer, my friend....

 

 

"The answer my friend", will all be settled by Oct., 2017, or so Paul says:

It's only a matter of months now - and all these CT debates will come crashing to a halt.

Yes, and then either we'll all get some respite, or as Paul sees it, there will be an end to all controversy, he will finally get his day in the sun, and  we'll all bow before him as the one who first became impatient with that that same old "CIA did it theory" was going nowhere,and courageously found the real answer. I'll hold you to your word on that, Paul. it seems like now you'd be banking on that 9th inning release.

Paul, I'll say you are a gentleman and  in fairness, even some upstanding CIA -did -it members of this forum when confronted with the problems or witnesses that don't completely fit in with their  theories,  hunker down just repeating their same old party line as if the repetition somehow makes it true, just as you do, comrade.  But yours is such a relentless monotone over the same material.  I feel at one point I understood your theory that I could recite it backwards. You've embellished it like a soap opera, continually citing the personal emotional motivations, somebody didn't like somebody so they did such and such...

Yes the American government was so concerned about the nation's racism, that a race war would have made the country easy pickins for the Soviet Communists  to use as the propaganda tool to take over the nation. Under what authority?  Nobody in the U.S. gave the Soviets any credit for being an integrated society because they were seen as being an oppressive society. Whatever race problems we'd be having , it wouldn't affect the allegiance of our European allies who feared the Soviets.But we've been through that.

A good subtitle I have suggested   for the Caulfield book might be " How one redneck changed the course of American history and brought the American Government and it's National Security State to it's knees.before him".  Tell me that wouldn't have generated more interest!

So to hear you, we're coming to judgment day and now your theory, through repetition is getting old. If you don't get your  victory, please give us a break, and please  walk back the incessant indoctrination.---and Good Luck!

[Paul Trejo]

8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 Paul, I'll say you are a gentleman and  in fairness, even some upstanding CIA -did -it members of this forum when confronted with the problems or witnesses that don't completely fit in with their  theories,  hunker down just repeating their same old party line as if the repetition somehow makes it true, just as you do, comrade.  But yours is such a relentless monotone over the same material....  

Kirk,

Actually, I have a lot more to say about the JFK assassination -- however, I continually get side-lined into defending the same points over and over -- from multiple people and from multiple angles.

As you rightly note -- this has gone on for years here.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Kirk Gallaway]

Paul. I'll grant there is a one most prevalent theory here. I used your term, "CIA did it theory" but that's not really fair as a number of people who hold that basic theory incorporate other groups, just as you do, but feel the nucleus of planning was probably the CIA. I suspect there are others say who think LBJ had a much greater role, but aren't encouraged to speak out.

I think , if you had other followers to your theory, you should be able to incubate your theory in relative peace here, (though you seem to have it all fleshed out yourself.) But the fact that you don't have other followers, and don't use a consensus to build your theory,  you're left to just mock and criticize the most prevalent theory, and that makes you a thorn in the side for some.

however, I continually get side-lined into defending the same points over and over -- from multiple people and from multiple angles.

Ok, I'm not sure I see you that way. I don't see you as always on the defensive, as you seem to. I'm sure there's much more to your theory than I've heard at one time or another. But I think a lot of us got a pretty liberal dose of it. You've made a lot of associations between your principal players that I hadn't heard of. And if your theory doesn't build, (which is in part because you are at a disadvantage not having other proponents), it can be perceived by the rest of us as an unsubstantiated theory with a lot of loose ends that is now  just dying on the vine.

[Paul Trejo]

28 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Paul. I'll grant there is a one most prevalent theory here. I used your term, "CIA did it theory" but that's not really fair as a number of people who hold that basic theory incorporate other groups, just as you do, but feel the nucleus of planning was probably the CIA. I suspect there are others say who think LBJ had a much greater role, but aren't encouraged to speak out.

I think , if you had other followers to your theory, you should be able to incubate your theory in relative peace here, (though you seem to have it all fleshed out yourself.) But the fact that you don't have other followers, and don't use a consensus to build your theory,  you're left to just mock and criticize the most prevalent theory, and that makes you a thorn in the side for some.

however, I continually get side-lined into defending the same points over and over -- from multiple people and from multiple angles.

Ok, I'm not sure I see you that way. I don't see you as always on the defensive, as you seem to. I'm sure there's much more to your theory than I've heard at one time or another. But I think a lot of us got a pretty liberal dose of it. You've made a lot of associations between your principal players that I hadn't heard of. And if your theory doesn't build, (which is in part because you are at a disadvantage not having other proponents), it can be perceived by the rest of us as an unsubstantiated theory with a lot of loose ends that is now  just dying on the vine.

Kirk,

I have often asked Dr. Jeff Caufield and William O'Neil to join me on this Forum to defend and promote the Walker-did-it CT.  They have both declined to do so, and they both told me it is because the CIA-did-it CTers here are fanatical and relentless.  They can't get a word in edgewise.

So, they don't join me.  I'm not alone -- it's just that very few like-minded folks desire to enter into a melee of insults and accusations of being CIA disinformation agents, and what not.

Besides that -- for me it's not a matter of having followers -- it's a matter of the TRUTH. 

I do my best to make LOGICAL cases without emotional attacks of the CIA, FBI, US Government, and so on.   I incorporate other CT's as I can -- Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, and so on.

Part of my interest here is based on my intuition that more people agree with me here than are willing to admit it.  I'm looking for a critical mass.

Again -- is the Walker-did-it theory "dying on the vine"?   It all depends -- how many people have read Caufield's book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015)?

It a lot of people have read it, and they post good arguments against it (of which I've seen exactly none) then I'd become discouraged.  So far, however, all the attacks on Caufield's Walker-did-it CT have been silly repetitions of the CIA-did-it CT.   So, I think I'm still OK here.

In conclusion: here's an angle I'm not sure if you've seen or not -- but in my view, all the Dallas officials who were with Lee Harvey Oswald during his last day alive are, in my CT, agents of General Walker.   This includes Will Fritz, James Hosty, Jesse Curry -- and extends to Bill Decker (who confessed to insider knowledge via Audie Murphy) and his top Deputies including Buddy Walthers.  The DPD connection (cf. Walt Brown) is identical with the Walker connection.  Have  you seen my posts on this?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 15, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Kirk Gallaway]

In conclusion: here's an angle I'm not sure if you've seen or not -- but in my view, all the Dallas officials who were with Lee Harvey Oswald during his last day alive are, in my CT, agents of General Walker.   This includes Will Fritz, James Hosty, Jesse Curry -- and extends to Bill Decker (who confessed to insider knowledge via Audie Murphy) and his top Deputies including Buddy Walthers.  The DPD connection (cf. Walt Brown) is identical with the Walker connection.  Have  you seen my posts on this?

This is this string of  associations I was talking about,  though maybe you can prove some of them. Of course, I could produce for you a video clip of Jesse Curry saying he thought there was a second gunman behind the grassy knoll. If he was an agent of Walker, why would he open his mouth about this rather than just be content he got away with murdering the President? My purpose is not to get in the weeds of your theory with you, but to try to tell you how you might be perceived.

I think it's too bad O'Neill and Caulfield don't want to come here.

When I say"dying on the vine", I'm referring specifically on this forum.Of course you're entitled to voice your opinion. While i think you do bring up some interesting and useful information that I have no reason to doubt, and while some may like to engage you  as a diversion, (and who am I to stand in anybody's way!) Argue whether it's right or wrong. ,What I mean is you're advocacy  is  barren to much fruitful activity.

Part of my interest here is based on my intuition that more people agree with me here than are willing to admit it.  I'm looking for a critical mass.

Sorry Paul, Despite your intuition, I think you're a long way from critical mass.

[David Andrews]

I would say that a dozen years later Walker couldn't get arrested in Dallas, but...

[Mark Knight]

A big part of the problem with Trejo's incessant proselytizing is that anyone who disagrees with him is either a LNer or a "CIA-did-it" theorist. In his mind there is NO OTHER POSITION one may take.

And that's why I have so much problem with his zealotry.

[Michael Clark]

18 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

A big part of the problem with Trejo's incessant proselytizing is that anyone who disagrees with him is either a LNer or a "CIA-did-it" theorist. In his mind there is NO OTHER POSITION one may take.

And that's why I have so much problem with his zealotry.

Absolutely Mark, its ike it's him against the world. And I feel like he lumps all of us in together. Paul B made this point very succinctly in the recently deleted thread that was dedicated to Mr. Trejo. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Michael Clark
Deleted /correct misquote

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

A big part of the problem with Trejo's incessant proselytizing is that anyone who disagrees with him is either a LNer or a "CIA-did-it" theorist. In his mind there is NO OTHER POSITION one may take.

And that's why I have so much problem with his zealotry.

Mark,

You're simply mistaken about that.  I realize that there are many other positions, many other theories.  I find most of them boring and absurd, but that's only my opinion.

Yet I am encouraged by others.  For example, some people follow Ricky White.  I don't buy his story 100%, but I buy it 70%.

Others follow Jack White.  Same here -- 70%
Others follow Gareth Wean.  Same way -- 70%
Others follow Jim Garrison.   Same -- 70%
Others follow Jim Marrs.  Same: 70%
Others follow Gaeton Fonzi.  Same: 70%

And there are many other positions, too.  For example, the Mafia-did-it CT's I can follow at most 40%, but there are interesting connections between Carlos Marcello, David Ferrie and Guy Banister, I have always admitted.

As for the LBJ-did-it CT's, I can follow at most 10% -- the only writer in this CT worth a darn was Craig Zirbel (1991), and he jumped over the moon.

What else -- oh -- then there's the Hoover-did-it CT, which is interesting, since I feel certain that Hoover knew EVERYTHING, and the most interesting question is only WHEN DID HE KNOW IT.  I give him the benefit of the doubt (lacking proof) but I am wide open to new evidence for Hoover.  He knew so darn much.

So -- yes, there are many other CT's out there, Mark.  I know about many of them.

Yet on this Forum, the most vocal CT is the CIA-did-it CT, in various forms.  Also, the CIA-did-it CTers make a point to insult the Walker-did-it CT, without solid reasons.  I've spent years here pointing out the flaws in their logic -- but they only get more emotional.

Sorry, I can't let that slide.  And when people insult Ruth Paine for basically nothing except their nasty attitudes, I will also speak out.  So, yes, I mainly debate here with the CIA-did-it CTers -- for those reasons.

But if you have new arguments about J. Edgar Hoover -- then I'm all ears.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

...Of course, I could produce for you a video clip of Jesse Curry saying he thought there was a second gunman behind the grassy knoll. If he was an agent of Walker, why would he open his mouth about this rather than just be content he got away with murdering the President? My purpose is not to get in the weeds of your theory with you, but to try to tell you how you might be perceived.

Kirk,

According to Gareth Wean, it was John Tower, Bill Decker and Jesse Curry who got away with the murder of both JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald.  Decades later Jesse teased the public with this revelation:  his blatant knowledge that there were at least two gunmen.

Yet multiple gunmen was Curry's position all along, because it was the Radical Right position all along -- that it was always a Communist plot, and in no way was LHO a Lone Gunman.

The reason that Jesse Curry quickly changed sides to the LNer CT is because Washington DC Assistant AG Nicholas Katzenbach put pressure on the Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr, who put pressure on Dallas DA Henry Wade who put pressure on Jesse Curry, Will Fritz and Bill Decker.   

They spread-eagled before the day was over.  They were found out.  The message from Washington DC was, "Communist plot my ass!"

But the Radical Right position was always that there were multiple Communists who did the shooting.  The actual evidence does show multiple shooters -- only they were local boys.  

Jesse Curry knew every one by name, if we glean from Gareth Wean.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Michael Clark]

26 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mark,

You're simply mistaken about that.  I realize that there are many other positions, many other theories.  I find most of them boring and absurd, but that's only my opinion.

Yet I am encouraged by others.  For example, some people follow Ricky White.  I don't buy his story 100%, but I buy it 70%.

Others follow Jack White.  Same here -- 70%
Others follow Mark Lane.  Same way -- 70%
Others follow Jim Garrison.   Same -- 70%
Others follow Jim Marrs.  Same: 70%
Others follow Gaeton Fonzi.  Same: 70%

And there are many other positions, too.  For example, the Mafia-did-it CT's I can follow at most 40%, but there are interesting connections between Carlos Marcello, David Ferrie and Guy Banister, I have always admitted.

As for the LBJ-did-it CT's, I can follow at most 10% -- the only writer in this CT worth a darn was Craig Zirbel (1991), and he jumped over the moon.

What else -- oh -- then there's the Hoover-did-it CT, which is interesting, since I feel certain that Hoover knew EVERYTHING, and the most interesting question is only WHEN DID HE KNOW IT.  I give him the benefit of the doubt (lacking proof) but I am wide open to new evidence for Hoover.  He knew so darn much.

So -- yes, there are many other CT's out there, Mark.  I know about them because I read widely.  

Yet on this Forum, the most vocal CT is the CIA-did-it CT, in various forms.  Also, the CIA-did-it CTers make a point to insult the Walker-did-it CT, without solid reasons.  I've spent years here pointing out the flaws in their logic -- but they only get more emotional.

Sorry, I can't let that slide.  And when people insult Ruth Paine for basically nothing except their nasty attitudes, I will also speak out.  So, yes, I mainly debate here with the CIA-did-it CTers -- for those reasons.

But if you have new arguments about J. Edgar Hoover -- then I'm all ears.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Paul, it's obvious that you think that you know who are CIA-dit it ct's, and you think you know who are followers of this author or that, Jim Di being the most irritating point.

You are just flat out wrong in your assumptions. You leap to conclusions about who thinks what. It's absolutely aggravating. 

You think people beat up your Walker CT. Your wrong, were just tired of you proclaiming, 10 times a day, like you are Nostradamus, that our interests are worn out and boring and that you will be vindicated some day.

You project what you think we think on us. You wouldn't survive for a minute on any other forum and you use the rules of this forum as protection, and scratch and claw at those herein.

When we look at CIA elements and the "fingerprints of intelligence", as Newman puts it, you label us as CIA did it CT's yet you allow yourself to place Morales, Phillips Veciana, Hunt and others in your scope of investigation; yet you dismiss them ask"rugues" and start mocking anyone that is not going to be force-fed your Rogue Kool-Aid.

Lastly, you bring no evidence or documentation that is not already on the table. You cite Caufield's book, as a whole, interminably; but never pluck anything out of it for presentation or criticism.

Repeating,.... your projections of what you believe others think is annoying as all get-out.

 

Ill thank members for allowing me to use "we"'s and "us"'s to make a point. I make no claim that anyone here is in line with my thinking. Such use was for rhetorical purposes only.

[Douglas Caddy]

Rothstein is mentioned in both articles. This is the work that detectives do.

 

The Ghost of Roy Cohn

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/08/24/the-ghost-of-roy-cohn/

 

http://crimefeed.com/2017/08/the-process-church-of-serial-murder-does-a-satan-cult-connect-son-of-sam-to-charles-manson/

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Douglas Caddy