Jean Rene Souetre expelled from the US 18hrs after JFKA?!

[Leslie Sharp]

Out of curiosity, considering recent vehement defense of Hungarian revolutionary hero and convicted assassin Lajos Marton who is suspected of having traveled with Jean Rene Souetre in 1963, I’m tracking the breadcrumbs from Hank's “Hungarians” who surfaced in his investigation into the assassination in Dallas — the scene of the crime — and possible implications for current events.

 

‘ . . . Pierre Lafitte, in a volatile October 9 datebook entry, mentions Hungarians in context of [Jean Rene] Souetre and the Lancelot project [the plot to assassination Kennedy in Dallas]. 
 

OSARN_OSARN_OSARN_

OSARN-get Willoughby-Litt- 

plus Souetre, others (Hungarians)

Lancelot proj - kill squads Dallas,

New York, Tampa-(Labadie) -T says 

called Oswald to purpose- weapons- 

Walker. Davis in N.O. with 

swamp groups Florida (Decker, 

Bender, Vickers, K of M)---
— Lafitte datebook, October 9, 1963

To underscore the ideology driving Otto’s choice for involvement in the plot to kill Kennedy, one that unites all those named on October 9 . . . the history of the Secret Organization of National Revolutionary Action (OSARN) as presented in Chapter 1 warrants repeating as well: 

OSARN was closely aligned with Benito Mussolini and Hitler. OSARN’s purpose was stated: “We want to build a new Europe in cooperation with national socialist German and all other European nations freed from liberal capitalism, Judaism, Bolshevism and French Masons . . . to regenerate France and the French race . . . to ensure that Jews who stay in France are subject to harsh laws, preventing them from infesting our race. . . . OSARN was also closely associated with Reinhardt Heydrich, head of the dreaded N-AZI Gestapo.” @Coup in Dallas

 

For contextual continuity or continuity of the coup:

NPR August 4, 2022

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is set to give the kickoff address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, in Dallas.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has drawn sharp condemnation across the globe for anti-democratic moves inside Hungary. He inspired a fresh round of condemnation last week for saying, quote, "we do not want to become peoples of mixed race." One top aide described the speech as pure National Socialist text and quit. Yet this week, Orban is in the U.S., where he has been warmly embraced by former President Trump and other conservative voices

(NPR's David] FOLKENFLIK: Orban met with Trump at his New Jersey estate on Tuesday and is scheduled to kick off CPAC's Dallas conference later today - same group, different location. The conference excites a certain cadre of hard-line donors and activists. Speakers in Dallas include Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Fox News' Sean Hannity and conspiracy peddler Jack Posobiec*  In Orban, attendees will hear from a European leader who promotes an explicitly Christian and white vision of Hungary, a leader who built up a hard border and severe policies to keep out migrants. Orban's ruling party has also ground down political opponents, bought off or starved independent voices in the press and in universities and targeted human rights groups. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1115541985

*Jack Posobiec has been cited during debates on Kennedy related threads on Ed Forum, particularly the now defunct EF thread titled, “the end results of the last 57 years” launched in 2020.  

How might this all come together? Albarelli would likely suggest “high strangeness”; I believe the clue may reside in vehement defense of Hungarian revolutionary heroes and convicted assassins. 

[Paul Brancato]

When one googles OSARN you are led only to Le Cagoule. Is OSARN a latter day name for it? 

[Leslie Sharp]

10 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

When one googles OSARN you are led only to Le Cagoule. Is OSARN a latter day name for it? 

Vice versa, Paul. Organisation Secrète d'action Revolutionnaire Nationale morphed into La Cagoule, the cowl, although I think some continue to use the names interchangeably.   

On October 9, Lafitte appears to use Osarn as a rallying cry. 

OSARN

 On October 9, 1963, Pierre Lafitte, while in New Orleans, Louisiana, wrote in his datebook, “OSARN- OSARN-OSARN . . .” before getting down to the business of progressing the operation destined for the city of Dallas. 

            Another close associate of the murderous Filliol was Jacques Correze, a man who over the past half-century has consistently been labeled a bloodthirsty racist and shapeshifter who causally oversaw Filliol’s homicidal activities. Correze had been a high-ranking member of La Cagoule and the personal assistant of Eugene Deloncle, and served as a critical link in the funding of La Cagoule by Eugene Schuller, founder of the L’Oréal cosmetic company. 

            During World War II, Jacques Correze and Eugene Schuller were staunch supporters of the pro-N-azi Vichy regime. Earlier on, Correze was associated with the pro-fascist militant groups, Camelots du Roi, the Secret Organization of National Revolutionary Action (OSARN), and the Knights of Gladiators, whose members wore costumes whose design was taken from the Ku Klux Klan in the United States. OSARN was closely aligned with Benito Mussolini and Hitler. OSARN’s purpose was stated: “We want to build a new Europe in cooperation with national socialist German and all other European nations freed from liberal capitalism, Judaism, Bolshevism and French Masons… to regenerate France and the French race… to ensure that Jews who stay in France are subject to harsh laws, preventing them from infesting our race… to create a socialist economy which guarantees a fair distribution of production by simultaneously increasing both wages and production.” OSARN was also closely associated with Reinhardt Heydrich, head of Hitler’s dreaded National Socialist Gestapo whom Otto Skorzeny had occasion to interact with.

[Ron Bulman]

13 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

When one googles OSARN you are led only to Le Cagoule. Is OSARN a latter day name for it? 

Paul, OSARN = Secret Organization of National Revolutionary Action. 

I was going to try to summarize but I see Leslie has replied. 

I'm off to a really slow start but given your comments and questions over the last few years I think you would find this book really interesting, and would provide interesting questions and comments in turn if you read it.  It's not expensive, my copy was $15.  

The assassination of Admiral Darlan by Fernand with the involvement of the OSS is a prequel for Oswald and the CIA.

[Roger Odisio]

The question of the Dallas expulsion is important.  Here is my take on it so far.

 

January 20 or 21, 1964  A French reporter, Louis Assemat-Tessandier, met a man in a Montreal apartment.  The man had been drinking.  He told of being in Dallas at the time of the murder and being expelled from the country that weekend.  He did not admit being involved in the murder and apparently did not explain why he was expelled.  
 
The man tried to contact Louis again 8 or 10 times after the initial encounter.  But Louis thought he was menacing, was afraid of him, and avoided any further contact.  Calling back incessantly, it's likely that person wanted to know what he had told Louis in a drunken stupor. Alcohol not only lowers inhibitions allowing things to be revealed that would otherwise remain hidden, it clouds memory.  The man had made a big mistake. Even without the full story, the expulsion was a problem for him.  Who else except the person expelled, besides those doing the expulsion, would know about the incident, especially when done so clandestinely, to have told the reporter about it less than 2 months later?
 
Feb. 19, 1964   Louis published the man's story almost a month after the encounter,  in an obscure newspaper, Cote-Basque Soir.  Louis did not name the man in the article. 
 
Louis' article came to the attention of French authorities. DeGaulle was scheduled to go the Mexico on March 15.  The French looked into the story it to assess its validity and the extent to which that person could be a threat to DeGaulle. 
 
Feb 29, 1964  The Bayone police interviewed Louis and asked him who the man was.  Louis said the man told him his name was Michel Roux.  But Louis described the man as tall, tanned, and handsome.  That describes Souetre who was a lean 6'1".  Roux was 5'8" with dark hair and physically could not be mistaken for Souetre.  
 
Souetre and his aliases were well known to the French. They suspected him of being involved in at least one of the OAS attempts to assassinate DeGaule in 1962, from which DeGaulle narrowly escaped.  
 
March 5, 1964  The French concluded the source of the story was Jean Souetre, not Roux.  We know that because they sent an urgent inquiry on to the New York Office  of the FBI asking for information about Souetre, and only Souetre.  No contingency language was used. “Subject [singular] is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French army and an activist in the OAS.”  Souetre, not Roux.  The included a photo of Souetre.  They mentioned Souetre's aliases of Roux and Michael Mertz (both real people) not as additional suspects, but only as aliases of Souetre in case that may help the Americans get to the bottom of the case.
 
They asked: why was Souetre expelled from Dallas that weekend and what was his destination?

 

French authorities were worried about DeGaulle's safety going to Mexico.  Had they been concerned about Roux of Mertz, they would have asked the FBI about them too. They didn't.  They focused solely on Souetre.

 

(Note to Bill and Larry. When Bud Fensterwald was in France in the early 80s he asked to see the file French authorities had on Souetre. They refused, citing something like privacy concerns as I recall.  Souetre was alive then; he died in 2001.

 

As you know, Chap 7, section D, of the ARRB Final Report is entitled Pursuit of Records from Foreign Governments. The JFK Act says it is "the sense of Congress" that the State Dept. should seek relevant foreign records.  The State Dept was required to "cooperate in full with the Review Board" in seeking disclosure. JFK Act Section 10(b)(3).  But State didn't much cooperate and not a lot was done while the ARRB was in existence.  

 

It's important to now ask NARA to seek Souetre's file from the French. The CIA also had a file on him which should be on your list, but good luck getting that.  If the French file still exists, it should show the results of the French investigation that led to the Souetre inquiry being sent to the US in 1964.  Unlike the CIA (ahem) the French are a disinterested party to the JFKA and might be more willing to cooperate.)

 

The Americans did not want to talk about Souetre.  The inquiry was forwarded to the CIA  and INS.  All three agencies denied any knowledge of Souetre or the expulsion.

 

March 6, 1964 The FBI was already telling Paris that the appropriate police, credit, and agency checks in Dallas and Fort Worth have produced nothing on Souetre.  There were no direct flights from Houston to Canada, nor any record of Souetre on a Pan Am flight to Mexico City on Nov. 23-25.  Hoover had already determined that Roux (the real person) *was* in the Dallas area.  He had entered the US on Nov. 19 and exited Dec. 6 of his own volition.

 

It was as if they were prepared beforehand to answer these questions.

 

March 9, 1964  The CIA told the FBI that they had advised them (the FBI) by letter dated July 12, 1963 to the State Dept., that Souetre had contacted them for "help in anti-DeGaulle activities". The CIA had published a report on June 25, 1963, captioned, "alleged plans of a Secret Army Organization in Portugal for post-DeGaulle takeover in France", in which they included a photo of Souetre. They said they rejected Souetre's advances asking them for help.

 

It was a classic CIA limited hangout, designed to divert from the questions about Souetre, while at the same time distancing themselves from him and taking the sting out of their stonewalling of the questions. 

 

March 10,1964  The FBI's report focused on Roux. You see, they were was saying, it was all a case of mistaken identity. Roux *was* in the area and didn't kill anyone. 

 

But they offered nothing about Souetre's whereabouts or the expulsion (they didn't try to claim Roux was expelled, which would have been nonsensical).  They didn't explain Louis's description of his source, which couldn't be Roux.  Nor did they explain how Roux could have known about the expulsion to tell Louis about it. They didn't try to refute the original determination by the French that Souetre was the source of the expulsion story which prompted the inquiry.  In short, the FBI's answer to the inquiry was a transparent, easily dismissed, nonsequitor.
 
The French located Roux after getting the FBI response. He said he had talked to the reporter but only by phone, and denied he had said anything like what appeared in the newspaper story.  His denial had been brushed aside by the FBI, never refuted.
 
French authorities were not fooled by the FBI diversion.  They assumed the FBI "answer" was all they were going to get from the Americans. But time was running short to decide about DeGaulle's trip.  

 

March 13, 1964  French authorities closed down the inquiry, having learned nothing of importance from American intelligence.  Eight days after it began.  They beefed up security and DeGaulle went to Mexico. 

 

If Souetre was quietly expelled from Dallas that weekend with no record, it means he was part of the murder. Which likely leads to the CIA's ZRRifle project for trained assassins.  And Bill Harvey and ultimately Allen Dulles.  Imo, nothing of the magnitude of the JFKA would have been done without Dulles' knowledge and approval, and a coverup plan in place.  They could not fail.  Their necks were on the line. They were likely to get only one chance to eliminate Kennedy. 
 

[Steve Thomas]

3 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

The question of the Dallas expulsion is important.  Here is my take on it so far.

 

January 20 or 21, 1964  A French reporter, Louis Assemat-Tessandier, met a man in a Montreal apartment.  The man had been drinking.  He told of being in Dallas at the time of the murder and being expelled from the country that weekend.  He did not admit being involved in the murder and apparently did not explain why he was expelled. 

Roger,

A couple of things we might want to keep in mind:

1) The story by Louis Aeeemat-Tessandier might not be true. It might be a plant. What do we know of the author, or the paper?

2) In my years of studying Jean-Rene Souetre, I've never run across any accounts of him being a drinker. On the other hand, Michel-Victor Mertz was a known scoundrel and heroin dealer and after his double-cross of the OAS in the attack on DeGaulle at Pont-Sur-Seine in September, 1961, he was either exiled to, or fled to Montreal because he had been "outed"

3) Maurice Philipps, in his blog, "I Have Some Secrets For You:

https://somesecretsforyou.blogspot.com/2006/01/photo-gallery-2-from-de-dallas.html

says that it was Mertz who was deported from Dallas, not Souetre. If you ever get the chance, read his book,

From Montreal to Dallas

 

4) One has to read that memo carefully. Some of that is coming from the French, but some of it also is coming from the American writer of the memo. For instance, you can't say,

"Souetre and his aliases were well known to the French", but then follow that up with,

“Subject [singular] is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter..."

If he was "well known" to the French, they would never say, "he was believed to be..."

If the French knew he was deported, how could they not know when or where?

Steve Thomas

 

[Leslie Sharp]

3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Roger,

A couple of things we might want to keep in mind:

1) The story by Louis Aeeemat-Tessandier might not be true. It might be a plant. What do we know of the author, or the paper?

2) In my years of studying Jean-Rene Souetre, I've never run across any accounts of him being a drinker. On the other hand, Michel-Victor Mertz was a known scoundrel and heroin dealer and after his double-cross of the OAS in the attack on DeGaulle at Pont-Sur-Seine in September, 1961, he was either exiled to, or fled to Montreal because he had been "outed"

3) Maurice Philipps, in his blog, "I Have Some Secrets For You:

https://somesecretsforyou.blogspot.com/2006/01/photo-gallery-2-from-de-dallas.html

says that it was Mertz who was deported from Dallas, not Souetre. If you ever get the chance, read his book,

From Montreal to Dallas

 

4) One has to read that memo carefully. Some of that is coming from the French, but some of it also is coming from the American writer of the memo. For instance, you can't say,

"Souetre and his aliases were well known to the French", but then follow that up with,

“Subject [singular] is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter..."

If he was "well known" to the French, they would never say, "he was believed to be..."

If the French knew he was deported, how could they not know when or where?

Steve Thomas

 

Steve, @Roger Odisio,
 I agree. From what we know about his training, discipline, and loyalty it would be totally out of character and therefore implausible for Souetre to "get drunk" and implicate himself and those he had served and trained with for years. I think the Montreal scene does however fit to a degree with what is known about Mertz.

I also agree that the following are problematic and hint to a possible deliberate obfuscation on the part of some or all who were involved in this communique.

“Subject [singular] is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter..."

If he was "well known" to the French, they would never say, "he was believed to be..."

If the French knew he was deported, how could they not know when or where?

Until we establish whether the Dallas INS reports were either destroyed or remained classified for the past sixty years, we can only speculate why the French reached out in early 1964.  

And until we get to the bottom of the status of the files the HSCA received from Shaw/Fensterwald as well as those Blakey later referred to as "still classified so I have to be careful",  those who refuse to consider Lafitte's records will continue to shadow-box. We on the other hand are moving swiftly to determine the chain of command within INS that caused the expulsion of French citizen(s), incidents that may well have been red herrings.  We do know Souetre flew out in a plane piloted by Joseph Silverthorne. 

Aeeemit-Tessandier's reporting wouldn't and shouldn't be accepted as solid evidence on its own, and a similar standard should apply to Souetre's own claims not to mention those of his friends that he wasn't in Dallas. 

It's possible SDECE Philippe de Vosjoli's fingerprints are on this, regardless of the official record asserting he had resigned earlier.  Resignation does not insist that one has severed all contacts with one's peers and subordinates.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Paul Brancato]

Some things don’t fit. Mertz, if that is who was in Dallas and secretly flown out, wasn’t part of OAS and would not have presented a danger to DeGaulle. Am I reading that right? He therefore wouldn’t have been able to share any such story with the Canadian journalist, who would have been making it up, and he didn’t fit the physical description given by the journalist, whereas Souetre did. The idea that Souetre couldn’t have been drunk - come on. Maybe he did drink on occasion. Maybe he couldn’t hold his liquor and the girls enticed him. Maybe no one got flown out of Dallas on any official flight. Note that Lafitte has Souetre being flown out privately, and that would not necessarily have been on the FBI radar. The official obfuscation of this story is frustrating 

[Ron Bulman]

26 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 Resignation does not insist that one has severed all contacts with one's peers and subordinates.

I've not gotten to Vosjoli yet in the book.  I remember he was the top French (?) in the U S.  But this made me think of Dulles.  I think I've read JFK officially didn't fire him but asked for his resignation.  To avoid a politica/newsl firestorm for firing the long time director and to allow him a more gracious exit.  With the alternative that he would be fired.

[Steve Thomas]

10 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

and he didn’t fit the physical description given by the journalist, whereas Souetre did.

Paul,

I wondered about that.

Do you have a physical description of  Michel-Victor Mertz?

Steve Thomas

[Leslie Sharp]

42 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Paul,

I wondered about that.

Do you have a physical description of  Michel-Victor Mertz?

Steve Thomas

I've posted photos of Mertz earlier in this thread as I recall.

[Roger Odisio]

5 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Roger,

A couple of things we might want to keep in mind:

1) The story by Louis Aeeemat-Tessandier might not be true. It might be a plant. What do we know of the author, or the paper?

2) In my years of studying Jean-Rene Souetre, I've never run across any accounts of him being a drinker. On the other hand, Michel-Victor Mertz was a known scoundrel and heroin dealer and after his double-cross of the OAS in the attack on DeGaulle at Pont-Sur-Seine in September, 1961, he was either exiled to, or fled to Montreal because he had been "outed"

3) Maurice Philipps, in his blog, "I Have Some Secrets For You:

https://somesecretsforyou.blogspot.com/2006/01/photo-gallery-2-from-de-dallas.html

says that it was Mertz who was deported from Dallas, not Souetre. If you ever get the chance, read his book,

From Montreal to Dallas

 

4) One has to read that memo carefully. Some of that is coming from the French, but some of it also is coming from the American writer of the memo. For instance, you can't say,

"Souetre and his aliases were well known to the French", but then follow that up with,

“Subject [singular] is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter..."

If he was "well known" to the French, they would never say, "he was believed to be..."

If the French knew he was deported, how could they not know when or where?

Steve Thomas

 

Roger,

 

A couple of things we might want to keep in mind:

 

1) The story by Louis Aeeemat-Tessandier might not be true. It might be a plant. What do we know of the author, or the paper?

 

RO:  That is possible.  I haven't been able to find the original article.  Have you? Anyone?  But how would such a plant work? Earlier you floated the idea that one branch of French Intelligence may have planted the story to discredit the OAS, somehow without the knowledge or involvement of other branches, including DeGaule himself, who were taking the story seriously.  These factions never talked, and French authorities sent off their inquiry to the US about Souetre.  Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?  Bottom line for me, French authorities looked into the story, the police interviewed the reporter, and they concluded that the story and the threat posed by the source were real.

 

2) In my years of studying Jean-Rene Souetre, I've never run across any accounts of him being a drinker. On the other hand, Michel-Victor Mertz was a known scoundrel and heroin dealer and after his double-cross of the OAS in the attack on DeGaulle at Pont-Sur-Seine in September, 1961, he was either exiled to, or fled to Montreal because he had been "outed"

 

RO:  I didn't say Souetre was a drinker, nor did he have to be, to have been drinking that night.  This was less than 2 months after someone blew Kennedy's brains out and splattered them all over the street.  There likely was some trauma from that which would have affected Souetre as a shooter, unless you think he was a monster, which you clearly do not. The incessant return calls to Louis indicates some anguish about what he  blurted out that night. In fact, a nondrinker not used to handling alcohol was *more* likely to have blurted out inconvenient facts.

 

3) Maurice Philipps, in his blog, "I Have Some Secrets For You:

 

https://somesecretsforyou.blogspot.com/2006/01/photo-gallery-2-from-de-dallas.html

 

says that it was Mertz who was deported from Dallas, not Souetre. If you ever get the chance, read his book,

 

From Montreal to Dallas

 

RO:  The book was published 27 years ago and written in French. I did look thru his blog written in English but could find nothing about Mertz. C'mom Steve, don't be circumspect.  Tell me where to find this claim. In the meantime, tell me more than that cryptic note.  What does Phillips think the expulsion means.  Why was Mertz expelled from Dallas?.  Does that mean  he was part of the assassination team? The French only asked about Souetre.  Could they have missed all of this about Mertz, so much that he wasn't worth asking the US about?  And what do you imagine, Steve? After getting the inquiry from the French, the FBI sat around musing.  We can't talk about Souetre.  Which diversion should we use: (1) Mertz because he was living in Canada at the time of the story, or (2) Roux because we know he was in the Dallas during the JFKA?  Ah, let's use Roux. 

 

 

4) One has to read that memo carefully. Some of that is coming from the French, but some of it also is coming from the American writer of the memo. For instance, you can't say,

 

"Souetre and his aliases were well known to the French", but then follow that up with,

 

“Subject [singular] is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter..."

 

If he was "well known" to the French, they would never say, "he was believed to be..."

 

RO:  Earlier I mentioned the phrase "not identical" was used to indicate two separate persons were being talked about:  I.e., Soeutre was not identical to Roux.  You popped on to explain that simply meant they were different people. I said I knew that; I quoted the phrase because I thought it was an odd "bueraucratical" way to put that fact.  Remember that Steve?  Now you're back with a different twist on the phrase, not identical.  Except this one doesn't make sense. The French included two aliases of Souetre in their inquiry.  Are you really trying to deny the aliases were not well known to them?

 

If the French knew he was deported, how could they not know when or where?

 

RO:  The French concluded it was Souetre, not Roux, who told the reporter of the expulsion the weekend of the JFKA.  That meant they concluded it was Souetre who was deported.  So they asked US Intelligence why was he deported and to where.

 

Is that all you got, Steve?  I posted this in part to get the reaction of those who claimed early in this thread that the question of whether had been in Dallas and was deported had already been answered in the negative.

 

 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Steve et Al - I too would like much more about the book’s assertions, but it’s impossible to get, even in French, which I don’t read anyway. Steve - if you’ve read it and have good notes and some time would you fill us in as best you can. 

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I've posted photos of Mertz earlier in this thread as I recall.

And I believe that you or somebody here said that he was dark haired and 5’9” or thereabouts. Is that correct? 

[Roger Odisio]

4 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Steve, @Roger Odisio,
 I agree. From what we know about his training, discipline, and loyalty it would be totally out of character and therefore implausible for Souetre to "get drunk" and implicate himself and those he had served and trained with for years. I think the Montreal scene does however fit to a degree with what is known about Mertz.

I also agree that the following are problematic and hint to a possible deliberate obfuscation on the part of some or all who were involved in this communique.

“Subject [singular] is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter..."

If he was "well known" to the French, they would never say, "he was believed to be..."

If the French knew he was deported, how could they not know when or where?

Until we establish whether the Dallas INS reports were either destroyed or remained classified for the past sixty years, we can only speculate why the French reached out in early 1964.  

And until we get to the bottom of the status of the files the HSCA received from Shaw/Fensterwald as well as those Blakey later referred to as "still classified so I have to be careful",  those who refuse to consider Lafitte's records will continue to shadow-box. We on the other hand are moving swiftly to determine the chain of command within INS that caused the expulsion of French citizen(s), incidents that may well have been red herrings.  We do know Souetre flew out in a plane piloted by Joseph Silverthorne. 

Aeeemit-Tessandier's reporting wouldn't and shouldn't be accepted as solid evidence on its own, and a similar standard should apply to Souetre's own claims not to mention those of his friends that he wasn't in Dallas. 

It's possible SDECE Philippe de Vosjoli's fingerprints are on this, regardless of the official record asserting he had resigned earlier.  Resignation does not insist that one has severed all contacts with one's peers and subordinates.

 

 

I agree. From what we know about his training, discipline, and loyalty it would be totally out of character and therefore implausible for Souetre to "get drunk" and implicate himself and those he had served and trained with for years.

 

RO:  We're talking about real people with real emotions who sometimes make mistakes. Not your idea of a toy soldier in which training and discipline eliminates all of that.

 

I think the Montreal scene does however fit to a degree with what is known about Mertz.

 

RO: If you think Mertz could have been the source of the story that means you think he was expelled.  How does that work, Leslie?

I also agree that the following are problematic and hint to a possible deliberate obfuscation on the part of some or all who were involved in this communique.

 

“Subject [singular] is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter..."

 

If he was "well known" to the French, they would never say, "he was believed to be..."

 

If the French knew he was deported, how could they not know when or where?

 

RO:  Both of these thoughts are confused nonsense that hints at nothing of the sort.  I hope you read my response to them in my comments to Steve. 

Until we establish whether the Dallas INS reports were either destroyed or remained classified for the past sixty years, we can only speculate why the French reached out in early 1964.  

 

RO: No, we know why the French inquired about Souetre to the US.  It was because they looked into the expulsion story, interviewed the reporter, and concluded both the story and the possible threat from Souetre to DeGaulle were real.

And until we get to the bottom of the status of the files the HSCA received from Shaw/Fensterwald as well as those Blakey later referred to as "still classified so I have to be careful",  those who refuse to consider Lafitte's records will continue to shadow-box. We on the other hand are moving swiftly to determine the chain of command within INS that caused the expulsion of French citizen(s), incidents that may well have been red herrings.  We do know Souetre flew out in a plane piloted by Joseph Silverthorne. 

 

RO:  The CIA had their own planes and pilots.  You just named Silverthorne as the pilot who flew Souetre out of Dallas.  If you think Souetre was there, undoubtedly the planners would have had a plan in place to expell him after the job.  Secretly.  Without involving commercial airlines or the INS. Without any record of him having even been in Dallas.

 

Aeeemit-Tessandier's reporting wouldn't and shouldn't be accepted as solid evidence on its own, and a similar standard should apply to Souetre's own claims not to mention those of his friends that he wasn't in Dallas. 

 

RO:  No one is accepting A-T's reporting on its own.  I am giving weight to the French investigation of it, including the police interviewing of A-T, which led them to send an urgent inquiry to the US about why Souetre was expelled and to where. If someone can tear the article apart, I'm all ears.