Jump to content
The Education Forum

What has blocked the Marcello-Trafficante solution to the JFK assassination? The legacy of Garrison?


Recommended Posts

Further comment on the Jarnagin story as a possible accidental witnessed glimpse of a mob criminal conspiracy in process for the assassination of JFK

Carroll Jarnagin's story of what he saw and heard in the Carousel Club on Fri Oct 4, 1963 was rejected by the FBI not because of the polygraph (that came later from Wade at the time of the Ruby trial), but because the story of a Ruby-Oswald meeting as told by Jarnagin seemed so outlandish on its face. (There was also the dancer with Jarnagin, whom he never saw again, failing to corroborate overhearing talk of contract murder at the next table, which the FBI considered called into question that Jarnagin did since Jarnagin did not discuss it with her at their table that night.)

Here is what I see. This was a longstanding Dallas attorney writing to J. Edgar Hoover. Was this an attorney in good standing? Yes. Did this attorney have a track record of lying about something of this nature? No. Did this attorney seek publicity or financial gain from this story? No. Did this attorney have psychiatric issues or a history of hallucinations? No. Was this attorney aware of how serious--serious criminally, serious in terms of disbarment--it would be to fabricate a story like this to the head of the FBI? Certainly, yes. Did this attorney believe what he wrote Hoover was true? From what I judge, yes. Was the story reported timely, as opposed to first coming to light years later? Yes, written to Hoover within days following the assassination. Are there features of the story which are obviously outlandish, going beyond misunderstandings or mistakes of an honest witness? Arguably no, if it is understood to have been someone other than Oswald and that that person can be identified and is in agreement with what Jarnagin heard. Is Jarnagin's later claim that there was an attempt on his life which he interpreted as related to his story, credible? According to a family member, yes. Do his family members believe he was a truthful witness? According to a family member (a granddaughter), he was a truthful witness despite his story not being believed. Did Jarnagin ever retract his story in later years? No, he kept to his story to the end of his life, including in his years of sobriety after his victory over alcoholism. 

And so I questioned the standard view--from Warren Commission to conspiracy theorists alike, united in reacting in disbelief concerning a Ruby-Oswald conversation as described by Jarnagin—and therefore rejecting the Jarnagin story in its entirety as a total fabrication. I could see no obvious motive for Jarnigan to fabricate that story as a lying witness; it made no sense that a career attorney would jeopardize himself and his career by fabricating such a story in which he never sought publicity or financial gain and which brought only negative results to his life ... and then I began to see how the story begins to make sense once it is realized who that second individual other than Ruby must have been. And with that realization, things about the Jarnagin story which could not have been invented by Jarnagin to have been in agreement with a Curtis Craford identification, seem to corroborate the basic truthfulness of Jarnagin having overheard not Ruby and Oswald, but Ruby and Craford--that is, a flawed account of a truthful witness, not a fabrication out of whole cloth from a lying witness.

Below are specific features of Jarnagin's story which correspond to Curtis Craford, compelling in that Jarnagin did not know the person he saw and overheard that night was Craford. That is, the points of correspondence to Craford are unshaped testimony with respect to Craford, nor influenced or embellished so as to agree with Craford. In the following the person Jarnagin saw and heard with Ruby (whom Jarnagin mistakenly identified as Oswald) is referred to as “Y”. 

  • Y arrives by hitchhiking to Dallas. ("Ruby: How did you get back? Lee: Hitch-hiked. I just got in.")  Craford was a hitchhiker--he had no car and hitchhiked to Michigan from Dallas starting Nov 23.
  • Jarnagin describes Y’s appearance as unkempt (“his general appearance is somewhat unkempt”). This corresponds with descriptions of Craford.
  • Y has some unknown, true name other than "H.L. Lee", even though he tells Ruby he is now going by "H.L. Lee". Craford is specifically identifiable at times in Oct.-Nov. as using the name of Oswald which was not his own name. As strange as it sounds that Craford made repeated sporadic use of Oswald’s name (with no sign of knowledge on Oswald's part that that was happening), the evidence on this is so convincing as to be certain. Note here that Jarnagin does not claim to have witnessed a man who said his true name was Oswald! Jarnagin says he witnessed a man not named H.L. Lee say he was going to use that name even though he himself had some unknown different true name. From the document Jarnagin sent to Hoover:

Jack Ruby: ----------- (some name not clearly heard or not definitely recalled by the witness)—what are you doing here?

Man who had been sitting alone: Don’t call me by my name.

Jack Ruby: What name are you using?

Man: I’m using the name of H.L. Lee.

  • Y wants a job and money from Ruby, which exactly agrees with the relationship between Craford and Ruby, who provided Craford with both.
  • Y discusses murder for hire with Ruby. Craford before connecting with Ruby had experience as a hitman (per Peter Whitmey interviews).
  • Y considers himself a crack shot with a rifle. Craford was a gun afficionado (per Peter Whitmey). 
  • Ruby discusses with Y that Y will be paid by mob money, with the prospect of repeat business if the mob likes his work. The picture is that Y will be doing this murder for hire as an independent contractor--Y is not a "made man" member of  mob family but a free-lance or independent contractor. This is exactly the picture of Craford.
  • Much of the Ruby and Y conversation revolves around the physical premises and physical layout of the Carousel Club, consistent with Craford whom Ruby let live in a room at the Carousel Club.
  • Y expresses interest in analysis of the best strategic building in downtown Dallas for a sniper assassination. A person using the name of Oswald but who was not Oswald, identifiable as Craford, applied to work in strategic tall buildings in downtown Dallas in at least three instances in Oct-Nov.
  • Y tells a number of biographical details of Oswald as applicable to himself--this may in part be because Craford and Oswald in fact were similar in some respects (dropped out of high school; military service; wife and child in Dallas living separately; may both have recently been in New Orleans; ... or may be Jarnagin misunderstanding Craford rehearsing to Ruby the basics of his Oswald imposter identity to go with when he uses Oswald's name.
  • Y notices Jarnagin has overheard and tells Ruby Jarnagin has "overheard everything" and must be killed. A number of witnesses in a position to identify or associate Craford to crime scenes in Dallas experience death threats or death. 

In conclusion, the Jarnagin story is straightforwardly Ruby and Craford, although Jarnagin did not realize it. Because of the importance of this testimony which if correct gives a glimpse of the most direct talk of a criminal conspiracy in the JFK assassination in advance of the assassination, which the FBI and the Warren Commission did not want to accept, there was powerful incentive to have Jarnagin's account rejected. That may have "caused" a cooked polygraph examination giving negative reported results, with no documentation surviving which would enable expert review (compare the HSCA's panel of polygraph examiners' blistering review of the Warren Commission's polygraph examination of Jack Ruby in a case in which documentation making review possible did survive). 

Remember, it is not necessary to the Marcello-Trafficante theory that the Jarnagin story be from a truthful witness. But this is how I see it, which some may or may not find of interest relevant to this discussion.

For more, see my earlier "Revisiting the Carroll Jarnagin story" (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27404-revisiting-the-carroll-jarnagin-story/). 

And a new find, an interesting Rob Clark podcast, Episode 57 of The Lone Gunman, "The Ballad of Larry Crafard" (June 18, 2015), https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-67-the-ballad-of-larry-crafard/id955267725?i=1000498147636.

 

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Greg - the most important question, which goes to the heart of your subject line, is whether the Mafia angle was blocked. You haven’t truly defined what you mean. If you mean, as is implied in your subject heading, that Marcello Traficante as the spearheads of the assassination is a theory that was blocked, who is doing the blocking? There have been many books and investigators who support that position. The main objection on this forum is that many aspects of the coverup (ongoing) make no sense if this was just a Mafia operation. Again, I’ll ask who was the prime motivator? Is your main point of view is that the ensuing coverup, beginning with LBJ, was done despite their knowledge of Mafia involvement? That would be a difficult pill to swallow for most, including me. Or is it that the Mafia was enlisted by National security state operators to provide shooters to further their aims? Not so difficult to believe that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul B., by "blocked" I do not mean prevented from publishing, but blocked in understanding. 

Who is doing the blocking? Partisans of Garrison is who.

Garrison saw no role of Marcello in any form in the JFK assassination. Because Garrison was not clean, he was a corrupt demagogic southern pol, on a continuum with Huey Long populist demagoguery. The evidence on Garrison's corruption is published, but it is in books and critical websites that Garrison partisans will tell people are not to be trusted or cited. Criticism of Garrison's investigation was interpreted as malevolent forces discrediting Garrison because of the truth of the JFK assassination Garrison uncovered, that truth being that thousands of perpetrators involving dozens of agencies combined to do this plot EXCEPT--EXCEPT! Garrison insisted--Marcello of New Orleans, the mob boss of 3-1/2 states including Dallas. According to Garrison Marcello was as uninvolved in the assassination as an innocent man could be, not involved in organized crime at all, just an honest grocery produce wholesaler with at most a few local ordinance infractions on his record.

Instead of ever questioning Marcello, Garrison focused and channeled the resources at his disposal on Clay Shawnot Marcello connected--pursued an almost non-existent legal case against an innocent man, even when his own staff knew it was a losing case before it was even brought. Why did Garrison do that? I did not think so originally but I do now: because Garrison was misdirecting away from Marcello, to whom Garrison was beholden. 

The block against looking at a mob role in the JFK assassination started with Hoover and the Warren Commission. That the FBI and the Warren Commission did not investigate and covered up mob leads is simple fact. The FBI/WC/LBJ/CIA narratives were focused around either lone-nut Oswald or Castro-did-it (using Oswald) explanations, either one of which did not go to a domestic coup, as a mob investigation (if it bore fruit) could have or would have. Neither of the two proffered acceptable solutions were correct. Both are falsified by Ruby's killing of Oswald. 

For conspiracy researchers, the Marcello-did-NOT-do it dogma started with Garrison. Garrison went after David Ferrie without even once sending someone from his office to question Ferrie's BOSS Marcello. Why? The answer is pretty wide open if looked at from a distance--Garrison was not going to go there because Garrison was compromised, Garrison was corrupt. That does not mean Garrison did not stumble across a few things of interest, the way a Huey Long or a Donald Trump railing against powerful interests or a deep state in Washington, D.C. or broken clocks twice a day get some points right. Garrison's investigation generated a wealth of leads of varying quality, but he just made a mess of things and the mess was so bad and so singularly focused away from Marcello by design (there is no other reasonable interpretation) that I no longer can avoid the obvious conclusion that 2 + 2 = 4 and that Garrison was deflecting from Marcello because Garrison was a Marcello man like so many other public officials across Louisiana and other southern states.

Why then did Garrison go after Ferrie at all, it is asked (and I too have wondered). It looks like Garrison may not have realized at first how close Ferrie was to Marcello. Marcello may have solved that problem by having Ferrie killed, then having Garrison come to understand that any touching of Marcello in Garrison's investigation would not be appreciated. Garrison complied.

It is not that anyone today any longer denies that Marcello was involved in organized crime. Nor is it denied today among conspiracy researchers that Marcello and Trafficante could have played a minor role in the assassination, so long as that is kept to minor. But people keep saying, as if a mantra, that the scale of the coverup makes no sense if it was "just" a Mafia operation. But that is a red herring. Why the "just" ? Well, some mob-did-it authors do argue forms of "just" Mafia, but the true question should be around that "just" qualifier. The "just" qualifier is a straw man objection. To some extent there is some talking past each other here.

The present thinking is, Marcello and Trafficante are allowed to have minor parts in the hit but it is believed they could not have planned and carried out the hit. Why? The reasons start pouring in. Because autopsy. Because LeMay's plane movements Nov 22. Because parade route, etc. and etc. (I have addressed above the “because parade route”).

Nothing in the autopsy, the autopsy photos, the illegal removal of the body from Texas according to Texas state law, or the removal of bullets from the body, was necessary to plan in advance as part of any JFK assassination conspiracy. Those are all red herrings, should just be tossed out as bearing on whether the mob organized the shooting in Dallas. The autopsy would find that JFK was killed by gunshot wounds--no surprise there, why should anyone care about covering that up? If Oswald's rifle was used in the shooting which a lot of evidence says it was, that would show up in the ballistics and implicate Oswald, whether or not Oswald was the shooter of that rifle. There is no need to preplan manipulations in the medical or the autopsy or the ballistics.

Of course a truly massive amount of planned falsification of the medical, photos, autopsy, ballistics et al, forgery of all sorts of evidence, would be necessary if there was a preexisting necessity to have an assassination done by multiple shooters blamed on only one shooter. But why assume that as a necessary advance part of any assassination plot? There is just no basis or grounds to assume that a multiple-shooter assassination was intended in advance to have all evidence forged to make it look like a single shooter. That is just conspiracy theorist hallucination run amok--that that had to have been the advance plan or that there is any reason why there should be such an advance plan. The very complexity of such a plan is staggering, and all for what? Why assume its necessity at all? Because there is no reason why such an assumption is necessary. 

A lot of reasons indicate the original pre-assassination plan was to have it look falsely like a Castro-associated Oswald connected to a rifle used in the shooting as part of a Castro plot. That's it! Nothing about single shooter, Oswald alone, or possibly even Oswald as shooter. Just Castro-connected Oswald associated with a killing rifle, Oswald as part of a conspiracy which killed Kennedy and that conspiracy credited to Castro, q.e.d, ballgame (war on Cuba) ON!!! No vast complexity of needing to have witting doctors and military personnel all read into parts of the plot prepared to do their assigned individual dishonest bit parts in a gigantic forensic and medical and ballistics and photography coverup--and then from those baseless assumptions assumed as premise, object to an otherwise reasonable Marcello/Trafficante-organized-and-did-it argument by saying "but autopsy!" "but missing brain!" "but removal of the body from Texas!" "but faked casket photos!" and on and on. All logical non sequiturs.   

Some combination of messiness in evidence processing and real coverups for various reasons happened after the assassination-not disputing that--only that it had to have been or was pre-planned in those areas prior to the assassination. That is inconsistent with evidence indicating the original plan was not to blame Oswald acting alone, but to use Oswald to blame Castro. For some reason a decision was made at LBJ's level not to go that direction. Why what appears to have been an original intent to false-flag blame Castro was called off at LBJ's level sometime that weekend of Nov 22-24 can be debated--there could be several good possible reasons in explanation--but that that happened is not too controversial any more. 

And yet if that point is clearly understood, it means there was no advance plan to frame Oswald as the sole shooter, and there goes the supposed need to account for including in the assassination plot control over the autopsy room and a lot of other complex matters all of which vanish as objections to the mob doing the JFK assassination in Dallas.

I think small circles within CIA or the Joint Chiefs might have been aware of rumors of an assassination plot in the works which would frame Oswald, and some could have planned, if it was successful, to have that become a Castro-did-it plot, a false flag blaming of Castro. 

But that only requires knowledge, intelligence of a rumor of a mob plot involving Oswald. It is no argument that Marcello and Trafficante could not have organized the assassination in Dealey Plaza--the killing and cleanup of witnesses. If friends in dark places--mobsters in the gangland world enmeshed in civil society and the local political worlds in southern states--were capable of pulling off a full-service Dallas operation, why complicate things? They had the contacts, the resources, the knowhow, the corrupt police and pols, knowledge of the pulse on the street. Why not just let them go ahead and do what they know how to do, and let them do it? 

Garrison went after the CIA. But he did so in a way that was scattershot, with all the logic and precision of a Trump railing against mainstream media organizations as "enemies of the state", or rhetoric demonizing and attacking an ill-defined "deep state". Garrison's investigation channeled southern regional anti-Washington, D.C. sentiments. It sounded good to blame the CIA and LBJ and a long list of other villains as all at the same time having killed Kennedy (except for mob boss Marcello, who in Garrison's investigation was considered as clean of involvement in the assassination as Snow White). But it went nowhere--think about it! It went nowhere! Some well-justified suspicions of Dulles by some authors other than Garrison, some scrutiny of Angleton by John Newman (not Garrison), those went a little somewhere. But although Garrison’s accusations that the CIA killed JFK looked like a courageous assault on all that was corrupt in Washington, D.C., the reality was more like Garrison throwing allegations and suspicions against the wall almost at random, except for the very non-random omission of Marcello. 

Garrison's denial that Marcello was involved in crime or the JFK assassination has been modified among Garrison partisans today to this extent, that it is now acceptable to acknowledge that Marcello was involved in crime, and it is acceptable to acknowledge that the mob may have been involved in a supportive minor role in what happened at Dealey Plaza so long as many other non-mob groups, non-mob people and agencies also and more heavily are involved in a vastly complex and complicated plot, so vast and complex that nobody to this day has a theory as to names and specifics capable of convincing most other other conspiracy theorists let alone the thinking public.

This present status of mystification--this legacy of the Garrison investigation--blocks ability to solve this crime. For how can a crime be solved if the real perpetrator is mistakenly declared exculpated from having a major role, and all that are left as suspects are persons who did not organize any assassination in Dallas? 

The positive argument that the mob did it is that the killing of Oswald was a mob hit integral to the assassination, therefore the default assumption is that the assassination was a mob hit. The question should not be whether Marcello and Trafficante are likely to have done the assassination, but whether if they did, as seems likely, it was done autonomously. I think Blakey got it right in principle on Marcello and Trafficante. However I do not believe this was an autonomous mob decision or operation. I believe somebody had to have given a green light, a favor or two asked among friends in back rooms at high level, a go-ahead, an ask that Oswald be set up as the one blamed, but other than that let the mob take care of how that got done, which they knew how to do, and did.

Thousands were watching, no one saw a thing

It happened so quickly--so quick by surprise

Right there in front of everyone's eyes 

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg - when did you come upon this theory that Garrison was the bad guy, steering us concerned citizens in the wrong direction towards CIA/MI and away from Marcello? I started following this case in 1963. So many good researchers before Garrison came to the same basic conclusions he did. You mention Blakey in your arguments. I feel certain you are aware that Joannides was CIA liaison to Blakey and the Congressional investigators. Even Blakey changed his tune when he found out who Joannides actually was many years later. Lawsuits have failed to pry the still hidden documents on Joannides from CIA. Can there be any doubt he was placed there for that purpose? Your well articulated and thoughtful theory seeks to whitewash official government involvement, characterizing the extent of it as a wink and a nod. If you were willing to find more culpability in the National security state I wouldn’t be here objecting. Perhaps your original heading should have named Garrison up front, since that is your centerpiece. I’ll go with Mort Sahl on this one. He knew and worked with Garrison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg - have you done a similar deep dive into the planned but not executed Chicago assassination plot? If your theory is correct on the Dallas conspiracy it should be possible to see something similar at work in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul B. -- your mention of your experience on the case since 1963 contrasts with me as much more of a late-comer. I was in the fourth grade when JFK was assassinated and felt the grief when a messenger from the principal's office came into our classroom and told us. I would read newspaper and magazine articles over the years that followed with some interest, about Mark Lane and so on, but that was about it. I had an inchoate idea as I would tell friends if asked, I think it was a hit but hold to no theory how it happened, that is, it looked like a hit but all of the back and forth on the conspiracy theories was just confusing. In Santa Barabara in 1977 I was able to read the manuscript of Newcomb and Adams in Perry Adams' living room and talk to him about it--the editor of Probe magazine--prompted by my calling him cold after reading a feature article in the local weekly newspaper about his work on the JFK assassination. In about 1982 I did business in Tulsa, Oklahoma with a retired Dallas Police Department officer who talked at length to me about having been there at the time of the assassination and told me quite a bit of police gossip and humor (to my extreme frustration I long ago lost his name--he told me he once returned a lost dog his family had found, which turned out to be Sheba to Jack Ruby, who was overjoyed almost to the point of tears to get Sheba back). In 2001-2003 I got to know Ruth Paine in the Saint Petersburg (Florida) Friends Meeting. What she said of the JFK assassination was the same as what she tells in the Sixth Floor Museum talks, Mrs. Paine's Garage and so on. During that period I went to Denmark for a year and while there Ruth sent me one or two emails exchanging telling about a Buddhist writer of whom she thought highly and recommended (unfortunately I do not remember the name). In 2018 I learned an old friend in Texas knew John Curington, the aide to H.L. Hunt, and I had the opportunity to visit and interview Curington which I did. I debated whether to make the trip but decided this was a voice of history (he was 91 yrs old) and the Kennedy assassination was important in history so I should do so. That was when I started serious reading of the JFK assassination in preparation for my interview of Curington so as to ask intelligent questions.

Also, my best friend going back to college days told me at the time (early 1970s) that his father, who had left his mother when he was two, was some kind of secret agent and they did not know where he was but thought he might be in Africa. It turned out his father was Vasia Gmirkin of the Soviet Division, CIA, characterized in Tom Mangold's book as the closest thing America had to James Bond. He turns up in the Mary Ferrell site documents as accompanying the defector Nosenko in Nosenko's testimony. He was also one of the CIA agents outed by Philip Agee, which is what ended his time in Africa. Russ (the son) told me how his father, who had tried to renew some contact with his son, told about the great life he had in Mauritania, house with swimming pool etc., and then woke up one morning to read the local newspaper headline emblazoning his name as resident CIA chief instead of "State Department" at the embassy, whereupon his great life there came to an end and he and family had to return to the states. He never forgave Agee for the loss of that nice home with the swimming pool apparently. In about 1990 Russ's father was featured on a 20-20 program (the TV investigative program) as a whistleblower of sorts telling how he had been one of the victims of Angleton blocking promotions of people in the Soviet Division because of Angleton suspecting everyone there of being double agents. The program was aired just after Russ's father died of a brain tumor. 

Your comment caused me to remember Mark Lane was rejecting the mob-did-it idea prior to Garrison. I should correct what I said about Garrison partisanship being the most important factor in blocking a Marcello-Trafficante solution from wider acceptance and development. The #1 factor must be a certain cluster of assumptions widely held. Namely many people (irrespective of the Garrison legacy) assume a necessity of a project manager with the ability to call up the heads of the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, Navy, autopsists, and so on (or alternative means of contact) in order to recruit needed personnel from these various agencies to carry out necessary tasks of a plot to assassinate the president and alter evidence afterward. The plot would have multiple shooters but preparations must be made in advance to, after the assassination, alter all the evidence to make it look like there was only one shooter. Persons across multiple states and agencies would need to be read in, briefed, backup contingency plans made, perhaps legal indemnification guarantees given to certain civil servants who, after talking it over with concerned wives or husbands or consultation with their attorneys, might request such legal security before proceeding. Since Marcello and Trafficante were in no position to organize that scale of multi-agency cooperation across the federal bureaucracy (so the logic goes), it is obvious Marcello and Trafficante could not have done the assassination of Kennedy.

This reasoning or some form thereof (caricature aside)--an honest perception of people of a certain necessary scale of multi-agency pre-assassination coordination, an issue of paradigm in thinking--would be the actual #1 block, which is bigger than the legacy of Garrison even though that played a contributing role.

On this: "If you were willing to find more culpability in the National security state I wouldn’t be here objecting." -- I have this idea of some bad men at high level discussing Kennedy as a "problem", "not a team player", and concluding "something needs to be done", and then the cleanest, most efficient, and deniable way to get something done was one present has a backroom few words exchanged with the right persons, and a Marcello-Trafficante hit is on. (But I also realize this is guessing in the dark.)  

On Chicago, I do not know what to make of that, good question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg - given the close association of William Harvey to John Roselli do you think it’s worth looking at the QJWIN info re William Harvey? I’m not sure if this tidbit filtered through in Coup in Dallas, but Arnold Silver, when he was in CIC US Army after WW 2 was the main interrogator of Otto Skorzeny. He wrote a detailed report on this which I read. (Silver’s name was blocked out of many documents, but eventually his alias was identified). He believed Skorzeny to be a German patriot but not a die hard poopoo, and as such recommended his release. Skorzeny did what he told Silver he would do - relocate to Madrid, where he held court for a few decades, involving himself in many businesses and helping major Nazis to escape, or hide out in Spain. Silver later became CIA Station Chief is Belgium, and kept in close contact with William Harvey, specifically on the QJWIN operation. He was the go-between. 
The reason I bring this up here is that I think, as Harvey said in the Executive Action docs we have, assassination and other dirty deeds should not use Italian Mafia hit men because it did not provide enough deniability. He suggested Corsican I believe. there was an extensive network of Corsican and French operatives for the CIA to draw from, among whom was Jean Souetre, who according to Bernard Fensterwald (I think I have this right).was enlisted by Skorzeny as a trainer of paratroopers, and who knows what else. Souetre was most likely in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963. Many here including Larry Hancock don’t think the evidence of his presence in Dallas was strong, but the French Intelligence services clearly thought he was there. 
My view on the possible Mafia hit on JFK is that they would not have engaged assassins without assurances. A wink and a nod, as you put it, might very well have been the way things were communicated, but what’s up important to me is who was doing the winking and nodding. 
I think the evidence for Ruby’s associations with mobsters is strong, but I don’t agree that the same applied to Oswald, who in my opinion wasn’t an assassin anyway. When I look at possible Mafia involvement I cannot see it in a vacuum. 
Others have pointed out that conspiracies like this necessarily involve very few plotters for reason of secrecy. So your point about the difficulty of imagining so many National security types being in on things is well taken. But they sure got on board quickly after the deed. And a few Secret Servicemen acted very strangely before and during the motorcade. After the fact it was the Dallas Police detectives who took center stage (while LBJ was ordering the body of JFK to be removed from Parkland before an autopsy could be done, and making sure the presidential limousine was flown out ASAP. LBJ made sure that evidence was destroyed), controlling the so called investigation and crime scene. 
Have you looked at the Dallas Police intersection with Army Intelligence? Or Jack Crichton? Who btw was in fact in Madrid in the early 50’s negotiating oil drilling contracts with Franco’s government for his US oil firm. I’ve read that it was Skorzeny who negotiated those contracts for Franco. A strong mind like yours should be able to look more closely at Otto Skorzeny and see that much has been hidden. To consider Skorzeny as the outsourced recruiter of an assassination team does not mean one has to dismiss Marcello and Trafficante. Take a dive into Skorzeny, Souetre, and the European fascist milieu, and leave your doubts about the Lafitte diaries aside for the moment. 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul B., on Souetre et al I realize you may see this differently but I can only say what I think: I consider the Souetre in Dallas story a red herring based on Larry Hancock's analysis which to me is very convincing in showing that is a non-issue, should just be dispensed with. https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/jean-souetre/.

And with the Souetre story gone goes that tenuous connection to Skorzeny as well. The Lafitte diaries aside which I consider of no credibility, the Skorzeny/JFK-assassination argument has nothing substantial that I can see, only blizzards of rabbit holes and scattershot chains-of-weak-association which go nowhere but which are presented in thick books with great energy and volume of detail. My take on it: nothing there and the thick books with blizzards of unrelated details are a distraction, as concerns the JFK assassination.

On William Harvey and QJWIN, first of all I am not aware of any basis or evidence to connect QJWIN with Souetre as speculated or claimed (if actual evidence could be shown on this that would alter it for me, but unsupported speculation on this point is all I see in the thick books with blizzards of irrelevant detail to wade through asserting a QJWIN/Souetre et al connection). I am a little unclear (referring to my own lack of reading in this area, i.e. unclear if others have solved it or not) on QJWIN, whether QJWIN's identity is known and unrelated to Souetre or Skorzeny or whether QJWIN's identity still remains a mystery, but either way I am not aware of evidence connecting to Souetre or Skorzeny.

The William Harvey and QJWIN itself was real enough, as I understand it basically a case of CIA assassination operational capability with the only issue being whether it was operational and if so how much (I doubt the claims that it was never operational). Also William Harvey did not like JFK and his friends did not like JFK. So there is means and motive for a suspect in the JFK assassination. I follow that to that point, but the problem is although open to evidence if there is any, I am not aware of evidence taking it beyond suspicion beyond that point. Then there are questions of plausibility--how do Harvey in Italy, or foreign contract assassins with QJWIN, relate to a lot of indication and evidence that there was ca. 2-3 months of runup in Dallas involving police and street knowledge, in which Ruby and Craford were involved in certain ways, and Ruby and Craford were domestic mob through-and-through, nothing to do with QJWIN. And with the Souetre-in-Dallas idea gone, off the table (per Hancock in the link), either the idea of a foreign team of assassins was the perfect crime in leaving no known trace (travel documents, names, hotel registers, witnesses), or else it did not happen (the simpler interpretation of no trace of evidence). The idea of an invisible team of foreign assassins who arrived in town for a few days, did the assassination, then left, presupposes no 2-3 months runup (or else increased and unnecessary complexity), and leaves hanging what I regard as the known fact of involvement of Ruby and Craford, however uncertain working out the specifics of Ruby and Craford's movements and roles may continue to be. And Ruby and Craford, the known involved in Dallas on-the-ground, are not foreign, simply glimpses of a homegrown domestic US mob assassination focusing on Marcello (and Trafficante). Which is what according to Sorenson Robert F. Kennedy privately thought, that Marcello had gotten his brother. But he could not do anything about it unless or until president himself. 

On not seeing Oswald as mob, I understand that and regard Oswald's role in the assassination as strong evidence, not that the mob did not do it, but that the mob did not do it autonomously. I have heard a clip of Marina in one of the TV network interviews (was unable to locate a link on this to cite this moment, and do not remember which one specifically it was, so speaking from memory) in which Marina gave her own (later) view in which she repudiated her earlier support for Lee's guilt and now believes he was innocent. The newscaster asked her how she could say the mob did the assassination when she had talked instead of spy/CIA involvement and history of Lee. She answered that she was being misunderstood and clarified: she thought the mob did the assassination, but that Lee, of spy/CIA history, did not do the assassination but had been wrongly blamed for the assassination (which had been done by the mob).

As a basic structure that is the best theory of the case that I can see. Marcello/mob not acting autonomously but with a go-ahead from allies inside the government which involved an arrangement to have Oswald blamed. This is not pulled out of the air; if you accept a David Ferrie/Oswald and Banister/Oswald connection in New Orleans summer 1963, there is Oswald's contact with the Marcello organization in the summer of 1963. That Oswald's uncle and mother and Oswald's own childhood had historical roots in the Marcello crime organization simply adds to the plausibility though there is no reason to suppose his uncle and mother had anything to do with a setup of Oswald for being blamed for the assassination. The plausible mechanism for connecting Oswald with the Marcello organization in summer 1963 would be Ferrie and/or Banister. Incidentally when Marcello told van Laningham (if he did) that Oswald the kid used to work for him, Marcello, in running numbers, I do not interpret that as summer 1963 as some do, but if there is anything to that would think that was before Oswald joined the Marines, at a time when he was a teenager and his uncle Dutz Durrett was doing exactly that in the Marcello crime organization.

On LBJ moving the body out of Texas which enabled military control over the autopsy where all the argument and issues of coverup and alteration of evidence come into play, I do not know what to make of the medical and autopsy alteration of evidence arguments but suggest this: that if there was alteration of evidence in order to rig up a single-assassin shooting only from the rear interpretation (i.e. Oswald)--and I agree without personal clarity on these issues that some things look like that could be--I seriously suggest questioning the premise always therefore concluded that that was planned prior to the assassination

No, prior to the assassination there was no prior plan to have Oswald as the lone shooter, or to not have a conspiracy. The plan internal to the plotting of the assassination in the actual criminal conspiracy was to have a criminal conspiracy run by and blamed falsely on Castro by means of Oswald. That was the setup and was going to be used as casus bellus, forcing a U.S. president (in this case LBJ now the new president) into the desired military move into Cuba that the Bay of Pigs invasion had failed to do with JFK. The simplest explanation for why that was called off at LBJ's level before the day was out of the assassination (Nov 22, 1963) is probably because LBJ realized this was happening and did put a stop to it (perhaps thereby for all of his many and real sins, should be recognized as saving the world from world war 3, not entirely rhetorical on LBJ's part when he was telling people privately that that was exactly what was at issue--this is the suggestion of James Galbraith anyway). 

But here is my direction of thinking: forget the idea that the single bullet theory and coverup of the massive exit wound in the back of the head (if so) involved pre-assassination preparation, or was involved in the criminal conspiracy that did the assassination. Interpret those things instead as rapid opportunistic reaction in response, once a decision within hours following the assassination was made to see if the entire thing could be interpreted as done by Oswald alone shooting from behind, and that became the narrative. Not because that narrative was originally planned as part of the hit, but because that became the possible and arguably assisted interpretation after the hit was a fact. 

In this picture, all the real chaos and messiness of the physical evidence of the JFK assassination becomes a matter of real chaos and real messiness combined with basically an extension of a familiar law enforcement phenomenon of what is called in the UK "stitching someone up", in which police either know someone did it or don't care, and simply find ways to have the physical evidence cooperate in putting that person away by hook and by crook. These "stitch ups", to use the UK idiom, most commonly start happening after the arrest, not preplanned before the arrest. That would be the analogy to the JFK assassination.

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg - we are both making inferences. One you make up front is that Ruby and Crafard were involved in the assassination, and because Ruby had mob ties ergo it was a mob hit. And you are postulating, not proving, that the after party shenanigans were unplanned and spontaneous. For your theory to work you postulate that sightings of Oswald were really of Crafard. 
I’m glad you mentioned Larry, whose interpretation of the record on Souetre you sign on to. On that thread I asked Larry whether French Intelligence was satisfied with the FBI response to their query. He did not respond if memory serves. If French Intelligence did not accept the FBI examination of evidence, which you might recall was full of tangential information about various aliases, it’s a whole different ballgame. (As an aside I was privileged as a 16 yr old to attend a debate between Mark Lane and Melvin Belli in NYC in 1964. Belli left the stage permanently half way through, and his frustrated exit line was ‘if you can’t trust the FBI who can you trust?’ Those words remain indelibly imprinted)  We know from what David Talbot dug up and published in The Devil’s Chessboard’ (perhaps someone before him did likewise) that DeGaulle stated that the guys who tried many times to kill him killed JFK. That would be OAS, of which Souetre was a prominent leader. btw it was Larry Hancock who clued me in to the fact that QJWIN was an operation, not an individual, which makes the CIA’s latter day admission that the mysterious operative was Jose Maria Mankel rather suspicious does it not? I have yet to find anything on Mankel that does not originate with the CIA. 
Arnold Silver, whose name was redacted for decades, was the interlocutor for Otto Skorzeny, and later became Harvey’s point man on QJWIN while CIA station chief in either Belgium or Luxembourg (?). Aren’t you at least curious? And of course Harvey and Johnny Roselli were pals and operated in concert in the anti-Castro efforts. That’s Mafia close up right? How far do you think Johnny was from Trafficante and Marcello? For that matter how much distance do you imagine between Harvey and Dulles, or Angleton? 
Forget the thick books on Skorzeny for a bit, and the Lafitte diaries which do as you say need to be authenticated. When I found out that books were coming out on Skorzeny and JFK I did as deep a dive as I could. So much remains hidden, but what comes to the surface is that he was an important post war poopoo and not just a blowhard. During an interview with a Canadian journalist when asked if he had ever worked for Castro his answer was ‘yes, and for the enemies of Castro’. Mossad hired him to destroy Egypt’s nuclear program, knowing it had been Skorzeny in the first place who had helped settle poopoo scientists there. He was protected by Franco’s fascists and moved about rather freely, always watched by American Military officials but never arrested or confronted by them. His papers, that is the ones that his family auctioned off (surely they kept the best for the family archives), show numerous business connections to the World Commerce Corp (Donovan) and to numerous businessmen around the world including in Dallas. 
There is nothing in particular about the connections between Oswald and Mafiosi that send up a red flag, but the footprints of intelligence were certainly there for 6 years, constantly. Ruby was mobbed up, but he had other close ties, and it was LBJ, General Walker, and JBS who he mentioned in his desperation to get out of Dallas jail, where he rather suddenly died before his retrial. So maybe he was scared of his Mafiosi friends too. Maybe he knew too much, maybe they forced him into killing the Patsy. That may suggest prior involvement, but it’s definitely not proof. Would you agree? Crafard is indeed suspicious too. But your proofs of his participation arent proofs at all - agreed? 
Your arguments, well thought out and written, remind me of a former poster here who was certain that Walker and the Far Right in Dallas and New Orleans killed JFK. Like with that theory I have no particular beef with yours other than the fact that neither of you could imagine a bunch of National Security State operators being the puppet masters. The Far Right, both domestic and foreign, and the Mafia were interested parties and would have done anything to defang and demolish the Kennedy Brothers. And there was only a smidgen of room between them - look at Bannister for instance. And the same is true for Alan Dulles, James Angleton and the others, and with the joint Chiefs. All of these interested parties are suspect, all had something major to gain, or so they thought. If hindsight is worth anything here it was the war mongering crowd that benefitted the most directly, with renewed Vietnam policy. Castro loved a long and happy life. So did the anti Castro Cubans get what they wanted? Nope, but the joint Chiefs and the CIA surely did. Qui Bono? 


 

 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,  as far as I can tell French intelligence was satisfied...they located and interviewed the individuals in question including the restaurant employee.  What they were really doing was following up not on any lead they had generated themselves but rather on the minor newspaper report that had brought the whole thing to their attention - that was what generated their inquiry to the FBI in the first place.

After having verified the FBI inquiries as far as I can tell they dropped it, if not their ongoing interest in Souerte's activities.

In any event, here are my posts on the subject for what its worth and I'll leave you and Doug to return to the thread discourse:

https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2018/12/10/jean-souetre/


 

https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2018/12/12/mystery-solved/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

So maybe he was scared of his Mafiosi friends too. Maybe he knew too much, maybe they forced him into killing the Patsy. That may suggest prior involvement, but it’s definitely not proof. Would you agree?

I think it is at the level of proof of prior involvement of whoever told Ruby to kill Oswald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul B. -- thanks for your comments and obviously much is uncertain. 

On Craford’s involvement

On Craford as involved in the assassination, the strongest argument is the argument that Craford, not Oswald, was the killer of Tippit. I have produced probably the most developed argument on that that has yet been done (not completed), https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27367-an-argument-for-actual-innocence-of-oswald-in-the-tippit-case/.

The Tippit case is potentially solvable for real. The killer left his fingerprints on Tippit’s car. Those fingerprints still exist. They have been excluded by expert latent fingerprint analysis as coming from Oswald, i.e. exoneration of Oswald. However, no serious attempt has been made to determine who is the identification of those prints, if possible. I argued that that there is record of finding of the Tippit murder weapon which was covered up and that item of physical evidence—a Smith & Wesson snub-nosed .38 Special found abandoned in a paper bag with fruit, found on a street not far from the Carousel Club by a citizen early Sat morning Nov 23, 1963—that revolver existed, but no known record of its forensic examination or present whereabouts, it is just disappeared, disappeared in law enforcement custody because it was the murder weapon of the only handgun murder that occurred immediately prior to the night of Nov 22/23 requiring abandonment of the murder weapon, the Tippit killing which was done with a .38 Special.

That Craford was confusedly identified as Oswald by witnesses other than the Tippit crime scene witnesses is known and not disputed by anyone, and that removes the force of those witnesses who identified Oswald out of police lineups as the Tippit killer. Other witnesses’ descriptions of the Tippit killer gave descriptions which disagreed with Oswald but agreed with the ca. 1-2 inches shorter and ca. 10 pounds heavier, and darker or ruddy complexion (“medium complexion” versus Oswald’s “light complexion”), as well as the killer’s jacket of “M” size in agreement with the non-thin Craford in disagreement with the size used by the thinner Oswald of “S”.

As for the physical evidence of the four shells found at the Tippit crime scene turned in to the FBI late the next week and found by the FBI lab to be matched to Oswald’s Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolver—a different weapon than the one found abandoned (because just used in a crime) not far from the Carousel the night of Nov 22/23, Craford’s last whereabouts before Craford fled Dallas the same night the abandoned snub-nosed Smith & Wesson .38 Special used in a crime was found, the same night of the Tippit killing—that can be reconstructed:

The Dallas Police already had screwed up two important items of physical evidence in the sense of irregularities or bungling in processing of evidence that would be cause for defense counsel to have the evidence rejected: the processing at the TSBD of the rifle, the shells, the paper bag allegedly associated with the rifle, and the photographs of the boxes at the window. The pressure was such that the resident FBI liaison with the DPD in Dallas, Vincent Drain, as well as Warren Commission counsel and the facts of the matter, questioned and in Drain’s case believed straight-out that DPD Crime Lab chief Day had fabricated a palm print of Oswald on the rifle in order to have a piece of clear evidence in reserve if needed at trial. 

Consequently there was enormous pressure to nail Oswald on the Tippit killing, as Leavelle put it, we want to wrap him up real tight on the Tippit killing. But in the Tippit killing, the find of the killer’s jacket had a serious processing problem, for it had been found and handled by a citizen before handed over to police. That was covered up in the police reporting of its find but if it came out in court would have compromised its use as evidence. 

I believe DPD found mixed brands of Winchester and Remington shells among the first three of four found at the Tippit crime scene, but found original to Oswald’s revolver six Winchester live cartridges which agreed with five spare bullets found in search of Oswald’s person in his pocket, five Winchesters. Immediately, by mid-afternoon it was realized there was a problem, and I believe the problem was solved, in the context of pressure to nail the physical evidence to Oswald, by removing that contradiction in the shells by substituting three live Remington cartridges for three of the Winchesters found in Oswald’s revolver, making 3 + 3. The choice of three was arbitrary since it was known only that the killer had used two brands without knowing the percentage of the ratio. Then four bullets fired from Oswald’s revolver had their shell casings exchanged for the ones found at the Tippit crime scene, and those were turned in to the FBI and the FBI lab accurately found that those shell casings came from bullets fired from Oswald’s revolver.

The inability of the Warren Commission to produce a single one of the officers who originally processed the shell casings found at the Tippit Crime scene and initialed them, to identify their own initials on those shell casings, along with the parallel example of a likely fabricated rifle palm print of Oswald on the rifle by the same DPD Crime Lab, makes the substitutions in this physical evidence of the Tippit shell casings more plausible than simple ad hoc speculation. The point being it is the FBI’s match (accurate) of the shell casings turned in by the DPD to it to Oswald’s revolver which is the linchpin of the case against Oswald, and it is impeachable, not simply in terms of what would be admissible in court, but in terms of actual innocence of Oswald.

There are the issues of timing, no reason for Oswald to be at Tenth Street, the coup de grace final shot of the Tippit killer to the head, not a matter of reliance upon witness testimony for that but a fact found in the Tippit autopsy (indicating a professional hit or killing consistent with a mob killer). There were the two supposed Oswald figures not one at the Texas Theatre and the DPD’s “losing” of names of theatre witnesses and never interviewing highly relevant witnesses there. All that needs to be supposed is the person Brewer saw at his shoe store, and then he and Julia Postal reported enter (without paying for his ticket) the theatre, was not Oswald already in the theatre, but the killer of Tippit, Craford, and a mistaken identification on Brewer’s part. The Tippit killer going to that theatre intent upon killing Oswald after having killed Tippit, but that intent being interrupted by the police arrest of Oswald saving Oswald’s life (for the moment from that one). 

In sum Oswald was not the Tippit killer and Craford is the identification of the killer’s actual identity that makes sense.

Of course whether Oswald is exonerated, and Craford identified as the Tippit killer, will remain a matter of further development of argument and peer review and long-term verdict of Innocence Project type expert analysts. But it follows without much dispute that if the killer of Tippit was Craford, that makes Craford involved in the JFK assassination no less than Ruby who did kill Oswald, that is, minimally working for the ones who did the JFK assassination. And we know Ruby was mob, Craford was mob, and Craford was hosted in the Carousel Club by Ruby in the two months runup to the assassination before he fled Dallas hours after the assassination and Tippit killing.

Aaron Kohn on Garrison and Marcello

I was struck by this interview of Aaron Kohn, of the New Orleans Crime Commission, a private citizens' crime-fighting organization in New Orleans which started in the 1950s, sort of a watchdog against corruption in municipal government and police as its purpose. So far as I can tell both the Crime Commission and Aaron Kohn were honorable in reputation. Apparently they worked well with Garrison at first when Garrison was elected, but that did not last. This is from an interview of Aaron Kohn in Kirkwood, American Grotesque (1970), pp. 528-31:

"Aaron Kohn laid out a theory that I had heard from several other sources, the fulcrum of which is the existence of organized crime in New Orleans. A strong branch of the Mafia is firmly entrenched in the Mardi Gras city. It owns bars, motels, vending machines, sightseeing tours, and, apparently, quite a few politicians. The head of the local Mafia is reputed to be Carlos Marcello, described in the confidential records of the New Orleans police as "one of the most notorious underworld figures in the country."

"Frank Occipinti, a partner with Marcello and his brother in several business ventures, built the house that Garrison lives in and, in fact, lives right next door to the District Attorney. Occhipinti also happens to own the Rowntowner Motor Inn, which happened to be picked as the domicile of jurors in the Shaw case and is also a favorite and almost nightly watering hole of Judge Haggerty. The coziness of the Occhipinti family, the Marcello family and Jim Garrison gives off a heady odor indeed. The FBI knows all about Marcello and the Mafia in New Orleans, the Internal Revenue Department and the police know about him and the Immigration and Naturalization Service has been trying to deport him for years. In fact, Jim Garrison would seem to be the only person in town who denies the Mafia's existence. He once described Carlos Marcello as "a respectable businessman".

"Such indifference would be ludicrous if it weren't so damnably blatantly frightening. If the man who denies the existence of organized crime is the very man elected to fight same, you have a situation rather like an exterminator refusing to acknowledge the existence of termites. One would think he should get into another business. And this is precisely what Aaron Kohn believes Garrison did--the other business being the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy,

"KOHN: He was under considerable attack at the time from our Crime Commission about a pardon he had forced the Governor to grant, which the Governor admitted he should not have granted, and would not have granted other than owing Garrison political favors, for an employee of one of the Cosa Nostra-connected joints on Bourbon Street. And then Garrison lied about why he did it. He lied about it, was caught in the lie, perhaps for the first time since he had been in office. He had been in office by then over four years. There was a television editorial ridiculing him, making him look silly ... In the meantime a grand jury probe was started to investigate organized crime ... and there were a great deal of inconsistencies ... Anyhow, there was all this pressure ... Oh, and incidentally, the press is on the neck of the D.A.'s office all the time. So it was right at this time, the fall of '66, this is when Garrison's assistants, particularly Charles Ward, start leaking to the press, confidentially--when they heard we were trying to probe into what he's doing in these other matters--"Well, he's working on a very important thing. Tremendously important." And then a little bit more. "Has to do with the Kennedy assassination." And this was all being leaked out. Incidentally, all the press representatives up at the Criminal Court Building knew that he was working on this before the States-Item story broke it. In January of '67. You remember he also made statements when things started getting hot that the press handicapped him by breaking the story. The fact is his office had leaked it to all the news media prior--at a time when he's under pressure about organized crime. So it may well be, and again it would not be inconsistent with the pattern of Garrison, because he has said to me so many times, "The best defense is an offense." ...

"He's a man who easily feels threatened. No matter how unreal it might look to other people, to him he is alarmingly threatened. And it may well be that he engages in extravagant diversions when he's threatened. If, in fact, this thing was tossed into his life by Russell Long on that air trip that he talks about, this may have become for him an opportune suggestion for diverting massive attention away from his vulnerability in the organized crime area.

"Q: Because he has stated flatly that there was no organized crime--

"KOHN: He completely denounced those who said there was [organized crime] as having ulterior motives...

"Every time you tried to do anything thereafter, about the inadequacies of the performance of Garrison's office, his major purposes and objectives, and that is the investigatory and prosecutive responsibilities in dealing with the real and present crime problem ... it was always then attacked as being an attempt to handicap his efforts to accomplish this thing of worldwide importance. And I can tell you, the record is clear, of his accusations against everybody that was critical as being a part of a conspiracy and we were included, a vast conspiracy of the 'Eastern Establishment' and the Federal government to keep him from proving the Warren Commission report was wrong.

(. . .)

"KOHN: ... [E]ven a good many of our judges around here are afraid of Garrison. We've got to give them--we realize that if anything is to be done, in the face of the tyranny of this man, which is only in part real, but which is perhaps 80 per cent in the eyes of the beholders, that we're confronted with a real touchy situation. The battle between the Crime Commission and Garrison is a matter of public knowledge. It hasn't changed popular belief in his hates, which is what, really, his supporters believe in. They don't believe in Garrison. They believe in the things he vocalizes for them. He vocalizes popular hates. Hate for Washington, hate for the Supreme Court, hate for law enforcement structures. And therefore he is their man...

"It is frightening ... You must remember that a corrupt governor like Jimmy Davis was re-elected. That a man like Earl Long was re-elected. Let's not forget the mayor of Boston, who went to prison and was then re-elected ... Garrison could be elected to the United States Senate. And make this combined clever intellect with destructive emotional disturbance felt on the national scene...

"You probably see it in my face as I talk. My concern is so deep about this because I have long had the feeling that I have been sitting at the ringside of the evolution of Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, any tyrant who has successfully taken over total control of a massive part of society. With the cooperation of that society. I no longer see this as a matter of Garrison and New Orleans. I see it as the problem which repeats itself through the history of man, civilized man. The willingness of the public, given the right personality, the right demagoguery, and a sufficient amount of almost insane compulsion to use these qualities--they can be led to slaughter. And I'm watching it happen...”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

I see it as the problem which repeats itself through the history of man, civilized man. The willingness of the public, given the right personality, the right demagoguery, and a sufficient amount of almost insane compulsion to use these qualities--they can be led to slaughter. And I'm watching it happen...”

Sounds like Trump cultists.

He actually got them so worked up they willingly stormed the Capital building with extreme violence.

This thread is compelling to follow. The Doudna / Brancato debate exchanges are greatly informative, thought provoking, respectfully presented and appreciated. 

So much interesting information, well researched, right here in front of us.

Good for the forum.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reread the HSCA report on Marcello. They concluded that it was unlikely that he or Trafficante ran the show, but didn’t entirely rule it out. The confidential informant who claimed that Marcello had threatened JFK - famous quote about cutting off the head, stone in my shoe etc - was deemed unreliable. I’m not sure why you blame Garrison in particular. Why not blame the FBI? The report, as well as Kohn, weren’t too thrilled with Regis Kennedy, SAC New Orleans. And Hoover himself wasn’t keen on going after Mafiosi. In any case, it was the FBI investigation of Marcello as a suspect that the HSCA mostly relied upon to come to their conclusion. The informant neglected to mention Marcello’s threats until after the assassination, though supposedly he heard Marcello utter those threats in 1962.

Kohn had lots to say about Garrison, as you point out. And he seems to be reliably anti-organized crime. But he also met with Walter Sheridan (early on in 1967) who did all he could to thwart Garrison. If you’ve studied the Garrison investigation you know that there were mighty forces allayed against him, collusion in various places, inability to bring witnesses in from other states, infiltration into his organization, etc. So in this case Kohn’s view of Garrison may be tainted by his association with those government forces that were trying to shut down the investigation. 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I reread the HSCA report on Marcello. They concluded that it was unlikely that he or Trafficante ran the show, but didn’t entirely rule it out. The confidential informant who claimed that Marcello had threatened JFK - famous quote about cutting off the head, stone in my shoe etc - was deemed unreliable. I’m not sure why you blame Garrison in particular. Why not blame the FBI? The report, as well as Kohn, weren’t too thrilled with Regis Kennedy, SAC New Orleans. And Hoover himself wasn’t keen on going after Mafiosi. In any case, it was the FBI investigation of Marcello as a suspect that the HSCA mostly relied upon to come to their conclusion. The informant neglected to mention Marcello’s threats until after the assassination, though supposedly he heard Marcello utter those threats in 1962.

Kohn had lots to say about Garrison, as you point out. And he seems to be reliably anti-organized crime. But he also met with Walter Sheridan (early on in 1967) who did all he could to thwart Garrison. If you’ve studied the Garrison investigation you know that there were mighty forces allayed against him, collusion in various places, inability to bring witnesses in from other states, infiltration into his organization, etc. So in this case Kohn’s view of Garrison may be tainted by his association with those government forces that were trying to shut down the investigation. 

Great points.

If Garrison truly did not believe Marcello and organized crime were the main planners, executioners and cover-up forces behind the JFK killing, why waste his time trying to prove otherwise? 

I think Garrison saw things through a different lens here. He observed all the things Paul related above.

He saw how the FBI and other agencies and their controlled media were not just working against him but heavily so. In ways beyond organized crime's capabilities.

Sicilian organized crime in 1963 had grown to have immense corruption influence in every level of government and business and even big city police agencies, judges, mayors and even governors all across America.

But still, not to the point of being able to sabotage Garrison and his investigation to the degree it was.

Those high named planted journalists in the national media who were constantly doing hit pieces against Garrison ( much like those who went bananas on Oliver Stone over his JFK film in 1993 ) and the publishing companies that employed them were not paid by the Mafia.

Who instructed Johnny Carson to try to embarrass Garrison on his TV show?

I wonder if William F. Buckley ever invited Garrison to participate in his TV show "Firing Line?" And how much did Buckley write direct hit piece reviews on Garrison?

My guess is Buckley left him alone. Garrison was too hot even for him?

If anyone was compromised by the Mafia it was Hoover himself.

My guess is that LBJ was also influenced at times to turn his attention away from dealing with them. And being "like brothers" with the Mafia denying Hoover he must have been sympatico on that subject to a degree - no?

There were dozens of Mafia big shots all across the country in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Giancana, Trafficante, Marcello, Gambino, you name it.

Every big city area of their domains had DA's. How successful were any of them in dealing with and countering their influence any more than Garrison? Were all those DA's in the pockets of these Godfathers like so many here claim Garrison was?

Organized crime was so entrenched, powerful, wealthy and influential at that time that no one DA could ever personally confront them and make any real dent in their power and influence. They didn't have the resources. Only someone like the FBI could do so. And if they refused to confront them fully as Hoover did ... what more could be done?

RFK as Attorney General and with the full force resources of his justice department tried to take on the national Mafia and was still only partially successful in thwarting and diminishing their power and influence.

What could Jim Garrison have done with Marcello on his limited budget and resources?

It took Robert Kennedy and the full power of our federal government to finally confront Marcello in any seriously challenging and effecting way.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
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...