Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Yes Paul, that is what I see Thornley as doing--at a minimum.

But in sifting through the evidence for that two part article, I am today not convinced that is all he did.  The problems are that, as I mentioned, so much of Garrison's files have been lost or burned.  Secondly, Thornley had been ignored for so long and so much baloney has been allowed to sprout around the guy through people like Gorightly.

Today, I think, there is a distinct possibility that Thornley knew about Oswald's upcoming phony defection. And that Thornley either told Oswald about Frichtman's church or he gave him the brochure from ASC.  Either the FBI or SS suspected this might have happened.  And there were leads on this to follow up on, which of course was not done.

Secondly, there is no doubt today that Thornley concealed his relations to that whole CIA sub culture around Oswald in New Orleans.  Thornley lied his head off about this.  And again any real inquiry would have torn up the city to pursue this angle.  That BS he handed Jenner about just happening to be at the TV studio as the Butler/Bringuier tape is being monitored? And Jenner asks no questions about this?  Like: What the heck were you doing there in the studio?  It was not a coincidence,  as Garrison discovered.  The other thing the WC should have found out about is how that accompanying smear story got in the NOSI.   How did the reporter know about Thornley or did Thornley go to the reporter?

Thornley was in Banister's office.He knew Oswald from 1959.  And he had been working on a novel about him which was completed before LHO returned from the USSR.  Then Oswald goes to New Orleans, enters Banister's office and Banister, who knows about the novel, never tells him about it, or Thornley being there? This is what Thornley wanted the public and critical community to believe. That he was the guy practicing the piano on the first floor of the bordello with no idea what was going on upstairs. And this is what many people bought and many people who should have known  better tried to sell. The following is what is left on the table because of all the smoke and mirrors about this guy:

Why did Thornley have to be extradited on judge's orders to testify in New Orleans? 

 Why did he tell so many lies on the stand? What was so necessary about denying his meetings with  Oswald in New Orleans?

Did Thornley pick up the flyers for Oswald at Jones Printing?  Why did Boxley try and deny that identification to Garrison?

Why did the CIA end up furnishing Thornley a lawyer? 

Why would Thornley request to meet at NASA?  So Garrison could not detain him?

Why would NASA allow him in?

How did Thornley know Oswald was not a communist?

Why did he make up that cock and bull story to push on Garrison in 1975? Did he think anyone but Adam Gorightly was going to buy it?

These are all the questions we have about this guy since so many people were so busy trashing New Orleans for so many years.  When anyone with a modicum of common sense and insight can see that the Crescent City was a haven of evidence and suspects in the JFK case.  And Thornley just happened to move there from Whittier just after staging a reading of The Idle Warriors

RIght when the preparations for the Bay of Pigs were headed into high gear? 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 6/28/2020 at 2:46 PM, James DiEugenio said:

John: Nice try, there is a bit of a resemblance, but I think that guy is a little too tall for Thornley if he was really 5' 10".  (But like I said, with him, who knows?)

See, Garrison and others have also speculated about this, as did Fonzi.  It was not about what Lifton or Gorightly say as there being some kind of Oswald double. Since the facial resemblance was not of that degree.  As  Weisberg was trying to show, you could not do that even if you tried.

But if Thornley was 5' 10", then physically, he had a similar slender physique as Oswald did.  So, as you read Garrison's book, on page 74, Thornley admitted to stopping off in Dallas in the early summer of 1963.  Which is when the Oswalds had left the city to go to New Orleans.  But the Neely street apartment was empty at the time.  And I have to say, Breck Wall, who knew Ruby, once told writer Dave Manning that its Thornley in that BYP.

The other thing that I did not mention is the thing about Mexico City.  Thornley also visited Mexico City about 3 weeks before Oswald went.  He allegedly went alone and his reason was to practice his Spanish. Hmm. In my book, I might have got this date wrong.  In researching the article, I found out that Thornley sent a postcard from Mexico to New Orleans dated something like August 30th.  His girlfriend Jeanne Hack said Thornley, who was usually kind of loquacious, would not say anything about that journey.

He told the FBI in February "that he had made this trip by himself and emphatically denied that Oswald had accompanied him from New Orleans to California, or from California to Mexico."  And BTW, that denial began very early, like the first time the FBI questioned him and it continued for months. 

But yet on the same day of that February memo, another FBI memo was written which said, that Thornley had been been in Mexico and California with Oswald, and the Secret Service had been notified of this. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 190)

Again, there should have been a full court, no holds barred, air, land and sea inquiry into this guy.  And the WC gave him a free pass to do his cut and paste job on Oswald, literally creating an assassin for them, a man who wanted to be known 10,000 years from now as he had the hand of God on his forehead.

Like I said, Thornley, was good at creating pulp fiction.

 

I just read page 74 of OTA a couple of weeks ago for the first time.  From page 73. regarding Thornley, Garrison did wonder about the possibility of him impersonating Oswald.  "Thornley bore a striking resemblance to Oswald,  they were of approximately the same height and slight build, both brown haired and had similar facial features."  

Regarding height Garrison refers to the Warren Omission,

Jenner:  How tall was Oswald?

Thornley:  I would say he's about five-five maybe.  I don't know.

Jenner:  How tall are you?

Thornley:  I am five ten.

Jenner:  Was he shorter than you?

Thornley:  No.

"But Oswald Had been the Taller of the two"  (Garrison).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

I just read page 74 of OTA a couple of weeks ago for the first time.  From page 73. regarding Thornley, Garrison did wonder about the possibility of him impersonating Oswald.  "Thornley bore a striking resemblance to Oswald,  they were of approximately the same height and slight build, both brown haired and had similar facial features."  

Regarding height Garrison refers to the Warren Omission,

Jenner:  How tall was Oswald?

Thornley:  I would say he's about five-five maybe.  I don't know.

Jenner:  How tall are you?

Thornley:  I am five ten.

Jenner:  Was he shorter than you?

Thornley:  No.

"But Oswald Had been the Taller of the two"  (Garrison).

I can't get edit to work.  Clicking it = nothing.

Thornley said yes to Oswald being 4 1/2" shorter than him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2020 at 3:46 PM, James DiEugenio said:

John: Nice try, there is a bit of a resemblance, but I think that guy is a little too tall for Thornley if he was really 5' 10".  (But like I said, with him, who knows?)

See, Garrison and others have also speculated about this, as did Fonzi.  It was not about what Lifton or Gorightly say as there being some kind of Oswald double. Since the facial resemblance was not of that degree.  As  Weisberg was trying to show, you could not do that even if you tried.

But if Thornley was 5' 10", then physically, he had a similar slender physique as Oswald did.  So, as you read Garrison's book, on page 74, Thornley admitted to stopping off in Dallas in the early summer of 1963.  Which is when the Oswalds had left the city to go to New Orleans.  But the Neely street apartment was empty at the time.  And I have to say, Breck Wall, who knew Ruby, once told writer Dave Manning that its Thornley in that BYP.

The other thing that I did not mention is the thing about Mexico City.  Thornley also visited Mexico City about 3 weeks before Oswald went.  He allegedly went alone and his reason was to practice his Spanish. Hmm. In my book, I might have got this date wrong.  In researching the article, I found out that Thornley sent a postcard from Mexico to New Orleans dated something like August 30th.  His girlfriend Jeanne Hack said Thornley, who was usually kind of loquacious, would not say anything about that journey.

He told the FBI in February "that he had made this trip by himself and emphatically denied that Oswald had accompanied him from New Orleans to California, or from California to Mexico."  And BTW, that denial began very early, like the first time the FBI questioned him and it continued for months. 

But yet on the same day of that February memo, another FBI memo was written which said, that Thornley had been been in Mexico and California with Oswald, and the Secret Service had been notified of this. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 190)

Again, there should have been a full court, no holds barred, air, land and sea inquiry into this guy.  And the WC gave him a free pass to do his cut and paste job on Oswald, literally creating an assassin for them, a man who wanted to be known 10,000 years from now as he had the hand of God on his forehead.

Like I said, Thornley, was good at creating pulp fiction.

 

Jim,

Thanks for the update on Thornley in Mexico City in late August/early September of 1963. 

Clearly the FBI did not believe Thornley's denial that LHO accompanied him then to Mexico City, and I think the FBI had good reason to be suspicious:

1. There was already in federal custody (Richard Case Nagell) a man who plausibly claimed that, as part of an intelligence assignment, he (Nagell) had surveilled LHO in Mexico City in late August/early September!

2. Also by then, the FBI knew of Clifton Shasteen's claim that the LHO, who had been his customer at Clifton's Barber Shop in Irving, had a pair of yellow house shoes from "Old Mexico". Shasteen and this dark-headed LHO  (whom he'd seen many times in Irving) memorably discussed those very shoes from Mexico, and this was of considerable interest to Albert Jenner. (Yet no such yellow shoes were ever found at either 1024 N. Beckley nor at 2515 W. Fifth in Irving.)

3. Finally, Robert Clayton Buick made various claims over the years, but the essential bit was this: in the summer of 1963 (before September) he was paid by two agents of American Intelligence to report any relevant conversations from the Hotel Luna in Mexico City. Buick claimed he talked with "Alex Hidell" a couple of times and later saw him several times at the bar in the Hotel Luna. Buick asserted that the "Hidell" he met was actually LHO and that assassination talk was in the air between various shady characters in the bar. Buick also identified Nagell in that very bar (although he never claimed that he saw Nagell and LHO together.)

Hmm.

While Buick's statement on its own is nearly worthless, both the manager and the bartender in the Hotel Luna were connected to intelligence: Warren Broglie, the manager, got together socially with Win Scott, the CIA's Station Chief in Mexico City and Franz Waehauf, the bartender, was allegedly Czech Intelligence. By all accounts, Buick really was in Mexico City that summer and the Hotel Luna was awash with intrigue. Was Buick really approached by American Intelligence and did he meet LHO? 

Maybe not, but it just might have actually happened - it isn't that far-fetched.

My point in listing these three sources is to demonstrate that the FBI had reason to wonder whether LHO had indeed been in Mexico City in the late summer of 1963, just as Kerry Thornley made his trip.

We know that the man arrested in Dallas, the man shot by Jack Ruby, the man married to Marina - "Oswald" - that guy never went to Mexico City.

But the cumulative evidence was not bad that somebody who looked like "Oswald" (sort of) and who used the name Lee Harvey Oswald apparently did go to Mexico City at least once in the late summer of 1963.

Jim, you've pointed out that the FBI suspected Thornley was lying about not seeing or interacting with LHO in Mexico City. Paradoxically, Thornley might have told the FBI the truth - because our "Oswald" was never there! 

However, if Buick, Nagell and especially Shasteen (whom I believe told the truth) are correct, then clearly some other LHO was in Mexico City in late August of '63, and it is then very likely Thornley encountered this other LHO. 

No wonder the FBI was suspicious of Thornley and hounded him about his trip to Mexico City!

Edited by Paul Jolliffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Even if you go for the lower height on Oswald, that is about 5' 91/2".  What the heck is Thornley talking about?

Any idea who the hazel-eyed 5'8" Oswald was?  Was that from a military record?

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Did Thornley pick up the flyers for Oswald at Jones Printing?

Could you elaborate on that?  I've suspected Thornley was involved with the pamphlet handing out scenes, but really did not have great evidence.  A fairly tall guy, thin and balding, with a round head can match a lot of people.  My other candidate was Lee Oswald.  This photo was also part of the speculation:

Oswald-passport-photo-who-is-it.jpg

This is an altered photo that was used for the visa application for Oswald at the Cuban Embassy.  If you do the opposite of what most people do, which is to smooth out the features on this photo, but sharpen it you have this kind of result.  There appears to be a face mask applied to this individual making it an Oswald.  Oswald's ears are very distinctive and this mask appears to include the ears.  I don't believe this is Oswald, but a representation.  The clue that this is an altered photo is in the left shoulder.

Because of Thornley's round head and his trip to Mexico some time before Sept. 27 in August, I thought this might be him masquerading as Oswald.  This photo is a composite in more ways than one.  Notice the button down collar at the left and the regular collar to the right.  I'm not sure that Oswald wore button down collars, but Thornley did.

kerry-thornley-wife.jpg

Here he is dressed in a white shirt and dark trousers and ready to go out and handout pamphlets.  Maybe?  And a big maybe at that. 

Not a good source of evidence to pin the rap on Thornley, but still suspicious.

   

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2020 at 1:54 AM, Ron Bulman said:

Thanks Ron for finding and posting that interview - I've never seen it before.

As odd as Thornley seems here, I am not sure that this is a complete snow job. He freely admitted that he portrayed our "Oswald" as an assassin back in 1963/64 and was convinced of his guilt because all of the major media said so, but by 1975 he had changed his mind, thanks to the involvement of Cubans in Watergate with whom he had been acquainted back in New Orleans in the early 1960's. (Frustratingly, Thornley never specified who!) 

A few things are striking, and don't easily fit with the theory that Thornley was a witting and active conspirator:

1. Thornley claimed to have met Clay Shaw in the context of a discussion of Thornley's novel about "Oswald" two weeks before the assassination! (If he were a witting conspirator and part of a wider plot involving Shaw, he never would have confessed to that.)

2. Thornley freely admitted that he could not explain the coincidental meetings he had with so many of Garrison's suspects: Banister, Shaw, Ferrie,  and Life Magazine stringer Dave Chandler (?) Thornley also said he worked in the fall of 1963 at a restaurant in New Orleans (The Court of the Seven Sisters, maybe?) over which our "Oswald" and his "mother" had lived in the same building several years earlier. Thornley marveled later at the apparent coincidence of the overlap.

3. Thornley stated that a "big bald-headed Nazi" intelligence agent "arranged" for Thornley to shake hands with the men listed above - was Thornley (and were these other men) being groomed as a possible patsy/patsies?

4. Thornley said that his own trip to Mexico City would have overlapped with "Oswald's" claimed visit, had he, Thornley stayed an additional week as he had originally planned. But because Thornley cut it short, he did not meet "Oswald." 

(While I am convinced our "Oswald" never went to Mexico City, it seems very possible someone using the name Lee Harvey Oswald really did go in late  August/early September. But whether anyone at all went during the last week of September, well, I'll leave that aside for now.)

5. Thornley no longer believed "Oswald" was on the sixth floor, and then he cited the statement of an unknown secretary on the second floor. Immediately after the shots rang out (said Thornley, paraphrasing the unnamed secretary's statement), "Oswald" walked up to her and asked "What happened?" Thornley cited the Altgens photo as proof that "Oswald" was on the front steps of the TSBD just before the fatal shots. 

6. Thornley asserted there were "Oswald" doubles but "most of them did not look like him, however." (That statement, of course, implies that Thornley had at least some contact with them. The details of those meetings were not explored on this tape.)

In sum, Thornley seems to me to have been a potential patsy for the conspirators. He seemed to imply that years later he realized he had been unknowingly manipulated by people working for an intelligence agency. 

In that, he just might have been telling the truth.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jones printing episode is described by Weisberg in his book Never Again.

That is the place that Oswald dropped off some flyers to be printed.  But there was a question about who picked them up.  Weisberg picked up some photos from Garrison's collection, this included Thornely's.  Harold layed them in front of the Mr. Jones, and he picked out Thornley as the guy who picked up the flyers.

Harold was on to this because he had read about the problem in SS and FBI memos previously.  That Jones would not ID Oswald as the guy who picked up the flyers and the FBI was telling the SS not to push it any further since they really did not want to know who actually did pick them up.  So that is where Harold picked up the baton.

Boxley had been with Harold to the print shop.  When Harold got back and told Garrison about the Thornley identification, Boxley tried to deny it happened. But Weisberg had secretly recordered the exchange so he pulled out the tape recorder and played it.  That is how treacherous Garrison's office was that early.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer Greg on the Paines and the Minox, and this will probably be my last one:

1.  Do you think  Ruth and Michael were unaware of the small civil war that had broken out in Dallas between the FBI and DPD over the Minox dispute in December/January?

2.  Do you think that 30 years later when Mike got together with Gus Russo to claim the MInox as his, that he still did not understand what the issue had been back in November and December of 1963 and what its importance was?

My answer to both is No and No.  Which translates into consciousness of guilt.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The Jones printing episode is described by Weisberg in his book Never Again.

That is the place that Oswald dropped off some flyers to be printed.  But there was a question about who picked them up.  Weisberg picked up some photos from Garrison's collection, this included Thornely's.  Harold layed them in front of the Mr. Jones, and he picked out Thornley as the guy who picked up the flyers.

Harold was on to this because he had read about the problem in SS and FBI memos previously.  That Jones would not ID Oswald as the guy who picked up the flyers and the FBI was telling the SS not to push it any further since they really did not want to know who actually did pick them up.  So that is where Harold picked up the baton.

Boxley had been with Harold to the print shop.  When Harold got back and told Garrison about the Thornley identification, Boxley tried to deny it happened. But Weisberg had secretly recordered the exchange so he pulled out the tape recorder and played it.  That is how treacherous Garrison's office was that early.

Thanks, Jim for that reminder from Harold Weisberg. I'd forgotten that tidbit until you mentioned it. 

This makes me even more curious as to whether Thornley too was being set up - after all, no active assassination conspirator would show their face before a witness if they were to be associated with "Oswald" and the FPCC. 

If the person who picked up the FPCC flyers from Jones Printing was indeed Thornley (and thanks to Weisberg's work, we can reasonably infer he was the one), then it may be that someone back in August in New Orleans was trying to create an association between "Oswald" and Thornley. 

It also occurs to me that the same someone may have attempted to create a phony overlap with "Oswald" and Thornley in Mexico City. Thornley's denials that he met or saw "Oswald" in Mexico City are disingenuous: he did not meet our "Oswald", but he may (or may not) have interacted with a different Lee Harvey Oswald in late August or early September of 1963. 

Edited by Paul Jolliffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

That Thornley interview is part  of his limited hangout 1.  By that I mean after Garrison and after he has been caught lying about 5-7 different ways.  As you can see, he is still the guy playing the piano downstairs without any knowledge of what is going on upstairs.  Even though he was in Banister's office while Oswald was there, may have picked up the flyers at Jones, was seen with Oswald at least a few times in the Quarter, knew Butler and Bringuier, and followed their film of their debate with an interview at WDSU right after the assassination--keeping up the lie he had not seen LHO that summer.  But then after the interview, he has a drink with the newsman who escorted him to the studio and says, yes I did see Oswald in the Quarter and knew him pretty well. 

Here is my question:  If Oswald had met Thornley in New Orleans and it had all been by accident, old friends encountering each other, what would there have been to conceal about that? Nothing that I can see.  So why do it?  It was the fact that they had met so often and Thornley was interactive with that whole malignant network about Oswald that had been using his name for fake Cuban transactions since 1961, that is what drew it out of the world of any kind of benign friendship into something more sinister. I mean can you imagine Banister's reaction upon learning that Thornley already has a novel to go about Oswald in the summer of 1963?

Why do I say limited hangout 1?  Because Thornley's limited hangout 2 was the piece of pulp fiction manuscript that Thornley was utterly intent on getting to Garrison once the Church Committee and HSCA began to heat up. And which Garrison, suspecting what it was about, tried to avoid.  There are parts of this piece of rubbish laying around the web.  But someone sent it to me many years ago in its intact version from NARA. It is really a badly put together slice of disinformation--not misinformation--but out and out black propaganda.  That is, its meant to completely disguise what really happened.  This is Limited Hangout 2 and its what he was selling in the nineties on TV as his excuse for wanting to murder JFK.

Kerry Thornley never told the truth.  Even when he was under oath.  Further, he never wanted to tell the truth to anyone.  And he had a league of escorts to help hide the truth of what he had done, and its now ended up with his posthumous minstrel/balladeer Gorightly.  Who combines them all, while leaving out just about everything I wrote about.  I mean can you imagine not even knowing Baldwin's connection to the CIA? Or explaining Kennedy's connection with Katanga?

Therefore, it has not been easy to reconstruct Thornley out of the ashes so to speak.  Plus, as I said, the files we have on him are incomplete to begin with due to things like Connick incinerating many of them.  IMO, Thornley had a lot to hide and it went all the way back to his true relationship with Oswald in 1959.  I think that may be why he told Dowell and Goldsmith that Oswald was not a communist. Which meant he lied his head off to the Warren Commission. But Kerry did a lot of lying about Oswald.  That was his job.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am recalling this correctly, the Jones Printing episode did not occur in the fall, it was the early summer, in May.

Which, if true, it means that Oswald met Thornley within weeks of his arrival and that Thornley was helping him in the first phase of his operation, the underground part.  This was likely out of Banister's office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

If I am recalling this correctly, the Jones Printing episode did not occur in the fall, it was the early summer, in May.

Which, if true, it means that Oswald met Thornley within weeks of his arrival and that Thornley was helping him in the first phase of his operation, the underground part.  This was likely out of Banister's office.

Jim,

You and I agree that Thornley probably did cross paths with "Oswald" that summer in New Orleans, and that Weisberg's suspicion that Thornley picked up the flyers from Jones Printing was correct. We also agree that the destruction of Garrison's files means we'll never really know the full extent of whatever it was that Garrison believed Thornley's true role to be. 

However, there was nothing in our "Oswald's" behavior in the summer of '63 in New Orleans that indicated he was being groomed as a potential assassin patsy - he wasn't frequenting rifle ranges, popping off at other people's targets, mouthing off about how JFK ought to be shot, getting a rifle repaired, bragging that he was soon due to come into some money, etc. 

No, all of that (fake) behavior occurred in Dallas, not New Orleans.

So, that indicates to me that the whole slew of suspicious characters in New Orleans - including Kerry Thornley - did not yet know of, or were not included in the plans to frame "Oswald" as an assassin.  Otherwise, they surely would have done more than have "Oswald" pass out flyers, start (and lose) arguments on TV and radio, and attend a voter registration drive in Clinton, etc.

In New Orleans, "Oswald's" role seemed to be designed to discredit various leftist organizations, most notably the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, but also the New Orleans Committee for Peaceful Alternatives (COPA), the ACLU,  and possibly even the Jesuits at Spring Hill College in Alabama. ("Oswald" spoke there about contemporary life in the USSR in July of 1963. Clay Shaw spoke about International Relations at Spring Hill one month earlier.  Did Shaw - or someone - pressure the Murret family to invite "Oswald" to give a speech there? What a bizarre coincidence, if coincidence it was!)

President Kennedy's Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed in Moscow by Secretary of State Dean Rusk on August 5, 1963. However, before the Senate ultimately ratified the treaty on September 23, 1963, the debate was hot and heavy. Opposition was intense, especially among the reactionary right. Fear that the treaty would leave us vulnerable to the Soviets was rampant in New Orleans and throughout much of America. At that very same time, from the first week in August to the third week in September, our "Oswald" was making a fool of himself in public: on street corners, in radio interviews and debates, and on TV. 

That is not a coincidence - "Oswald's" overarching  mission in New Orleans (whether he knew it or not) was to discredit President Kennedy's Test Ban and JFK's (secret) rapprochement with Cuba. 

(Whether either "Oswald's" speaking appearance at Spring Hill College in Alabama in July, or his strange arrival/charade at the voter registration drive in Clinton had anything to do with the Showdown at the Schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama in June, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.) 

Ultimately, "Oswald's" mission in New Orleans failed - Kennedy's treaty was ratified, his (secret) hopes and plans for a '"normalized" relationship with Cuba were continuing unabated and he seemed prepared to begin to desegregate the American South.

By early October, our "Oswald" was safely ensconced in Dallas, and by the 16th, he was working at a building overlooking the murder site. I believe "Oswald's" move from New Orleans to Texas was the sign that the conspirators had changed their plans: they were now intending to kill JFK with "Oswald" as the patsy. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Paul Jolliffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

I have a lot of respect for you and your work.  I think you are one of the most valuable posters here.  But I disagree with this interpretation.

The key for me is the fact that Bringuier got out the Castro/Oswald broadsheet within 24 hours via CIA funding, and Butler was in Washington that weekend, at Dodd's request. And their video of the debate is at WDSU, with Kerry waiting to be interviewed.

That afternoon, the films of the lonely Oswald leafleting in the streets of New Orleans are broadcast to the nation.  And then the whole background story comes through that afternoon on a call by Seth Kantor to Hal Hendrix, nicknamed the spook.  Then that call gets scrubbed from the log sheet, and it turns out that one of the handlers for Hendrix was Phillips.

I have talked to reporters about this.  And they said, it  surprised them how fast the entire background on Oswald got out there since, relatively speaking, he was  an obscure person. That scene in the film JFK, with Mr X in New Zealand, that was not at all a false pattern or was it exaggerated.  People are still trying to figure out where that picture came from.

The point is, by the morning  of the 23rd, Oswald is guilty in the public's mind, he did it and he did it for a communist cause. It got so bad that Castro had to give a speech explaining how no, he was not behind the assassination. And most of that imputation was done by his actions in New Orleans.

The helpers, were of course Ruth and Michael Paine, who were oh so eager to go on TV.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...