The Attempted Assassination of Charles deGaulle

[Steve Thomas]

31 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Date?
I'll accept the gear.

Leslie,

I don't know the exact date. The photographer didn't date them; but you've seen pictures of the prison, you've seen pictures of the men in the prison. You know when they went in and when they came out.

As far as sosmeone feeding Fensterwald false information, I've told you about Gilbert Lecavalier.

Steve Thomas

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Leslie,

I don't know the exact date. The photographer didn't date them; but you've seen pictures of the prison, you've seen pictures of the men in the prison. You know when they went in and when they came out.

As far as sosmeone feeding Fensterwald false information, I've told you about Gilbert Lecavalier.

Steve Thomas

Is there evidence that Lecavalier had reason to feed Fensterwald false information? In what capacity?

I'll get back to you related to dates of the photos.

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Now this is a response worthy consideration.  Let me 'chew' on it, read the Columbia version of events and get back with you.  Thanks.

Hey--I am groping in the dark, along with us all. 

I am not a Trump supporter or a Nixon supporter. 

I did like Carter, and think JFK was one of the most intelligent people ever.

I welcome views from all sides of every question. 

[Leslie Sharp]

@Steve Thomas

Re: Some pertinent notes from the Jeanneney 2016 book Un Attentat - Petit-Clamart - 22 Aout 1962

I received an email with this subject heading about an hour ago. As the author of the email mentions you by name, and is apparently following our discussion, I thought I would share the relevant paragraph..

Fyi, in the event you aren't familiar with him personally, I think Jeffrey Sundberg teaches engineering at the University of Arizona as evidenced in his university-related email address.

. . . As [Lajos] Marton still lives - at least he did when I checked a few months ago, when Steve Thomas began participating in the Souetre thread on the EF - and might be more than happy to gain a lucrative financial settlement for being quite inaccurately named as a principal in the JFKA, I cautioned my correspondents - most of them are cc'd above - and admonished them to try to keep this information away from the attention of a lawyer or even the public in general.  I do see that the information about the imprisonment of both Marton and Varga has in the past few hours made its way to the public Ed Forum.  Whether this has developed a momentum of its own, I don't know, but I do urge you to consider not pursuing this further, lest Marton, or a lawyer willing to file suit in court on his behalf, catches wind of the contents of CiD.

Given the substantive blunder on Marton and Varga's purported arrival with Souetre in Mexico City in mid-November 1963, one wonders what other information in CiD stems from the same dodgy informant. . . .

I wonder if you have any thoughts?

[Mark Knight]

Ben,

I'm still struggling to understand how you're linking ex-President Trump to the attempted deGaulle assassination. 

The attempted assassination of deGaulle...That's the topic of this thread...right?

If you insist there's a "deep state" connection to Trump, then you should be posting that in either the POLITICAL DISCUSSION area or the JFK DEEP POLITICS area of the forum.

**********           ***********           **********

For the most part, the possible OAS/CIA nexus should probably also be in the JFK DEEP POLITICS section, but Skorenzy et al aren't the only actors being discussed...so on another level, the possible connection to the OAS or a rogue member or two makes this the appropriate forum for this discussion, IMHO.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

Ben,

I'm still struggling to understand how you're linking ex-President Trump to the attempted deGaulle assassination. 

The attempted assassination of deGaulle...That's the topic of this thread...right?

If you insist there's a "deep state" connection to Trump, then you should be posting that in either the POLITICAL DISCUSSION area or the JFK DEEP POLITICS area of the forum.

**********           ***********           **********

For the most part, the possible OAS/CIA nexus should probably also be in the JFK DEEP POLITICS section, but Skorenzy et al aren't the only actors being discussed...so on another level, the possible connection to the OAS or a rogue member or two makes this the appropriate forum for this discussion, IMHO.

Well, maybe I am out of school.

My view is there were four presidential regime change-ops in postwar US history. 

JFK, Nixon, Carter, Trump. 

We should be examining the perma-intel state, and setting aside partisan politics. Anti-Trump and anti-Biden rants are misplaced in the EF-JFKA. 

Actually, I forget how Trump become involved in this thread. But initially, It wasn't me.

All threads lead to Trump, I something think. You know how that goes. 

Hey, you are the moderator, and so place this thread wherever it belongs, and I will happily abide by your decision and all your decisions. 

Thanks for doing the thankless task of moderation. 

[Mark Knight]

9 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, maybe I am out of school.

My view is there were four presidential regime change-ops in postwar US history. 

JFK, Nixon, Carter, Trump. 

We should be examining the perma-intel state, and setting aside partisan politics. Anti-Trump and anti-Biden rants are misplaced in the EF-JFKA. 

Actually, I forget how Trump become involved in this thread. But initially, It wasn't me.

All threads lead to Trump, I something think. You know how that goes. 

Hey, you are the moderator, and so place this thread wherever it belongs, and I will happily abide by your decision and all your decisions. 

Thanks for doing the thankless task of moderation. 

This thread is specifically about the de Gaulle assassination attempts and possible connections to the JFK assassination. 

Show me that you can link the OAS or others who attempted to assassinate Charles de Gaulle to Donald J. Trump, and I will consider your comments germane to this thread. At the moment, I fail to see a connection.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

This thread is specifically about the de Gaulle assassination attempts and possible connections to the JFK assassination. 

Show me that you can link the OAS or others who attempted to assassinate Charles de Gaulle to Donald J. Trump, and I will consider your comments germane to this thread. At the moment, I fail to see a connection.

 

Oh, you are probably right. 

My view is conjectural, but in my defense----

The same globalist elements that assassinated JFK, and wanted to assassinate de Gaulle (remember, de Gaulle wanted out of Algeria) survive (and thrive) to this day, and conduct regime-change-ops in the US and elsewhere to install compliant leaders. 

I contend that, since the 1960s, the explosion of global enterprises (the multinationals), of related (and financed) think tanks, academic and media allies, and of course the gigantic US military and surveillance state---why, what JFK tried to face down has grown 10-fold since. 

If you want to know who murdered JFK, take a look around---the same forces that run the US today, and its surveillance and prosecutorial agencies. 

But, hey, I will not utter the word "Tr-mp" on this thread ever again. 

I now go mute on this thread. 

[Leslie Sharp]

16 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Ok, as a courtesy I will respond. 

Regarding the Russiagate Hoax, try this. It is 24,000 words from Columbia Journalism Review:

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php

I have cited the four-part series as one explanation, among many, of the dubious origins of, and quality of, the Russiagate investigations and TV show. I have cited this series to you before, as a worthy read. 

I understand you may disagree with the authors of the CJR piece (considered a liberal-left East Coast publication). 

That's fine. But surely (if you actually read the length CJR article) you must concede that the Russiagate Hoax topic is debatable, and reasonable people can disagree if it was a hoax or not. 

You contend there was substance in the Mueller Report. I contend it was largely conjecture--as in the words of FBI lead investigator Peter Strzok, "There is no big there there."

We differ. 

Later, I will cite reasons that the "Russian social media campaign" was largely make-believe as well.  Read up on the Hamilton 68 project, as covered by Matt Taibbi. 

Again, if you have different views than me, that is fine.

But to insist I have not explained my views is not correct.

Nor are your views any more, or any less "factual" than mine, or those of the Columbia Journalism Review, or Matt Taibbi. 

On top of all that, the truth has a way of leaking out over decades. 

Carter's October surprise, or the JFKA case. And what really happened at the CIA-infested Watergate burglary job? 

Don't be too sure of what is fact, or smoke and mirrors. 

Keep an open mind. 

I will try not to be tiresome.

 

Ben, I tried.  I read Gerth's piece which I think we agree is more about media coverage than the Mueller investigation itself.  A word search of parts 1 and 2 for the term, Mueller Report comes up empty. I was hoping we could deliberate the facts, not views.

 The facts of the investigation as presented in the Mueller Report ...

The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity

The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.

Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.

A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.

 

Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016 

Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]

Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]

Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]

 

The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton” 

In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President.[5]Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.

Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”[6]

Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.”[7] A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.[8]

The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.

The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.

The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]

 

Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct 

The Mueller Report states that if the Special Counsel’s Office felt they could clear the president of wrongdoing, they would have said so. Instead, the Report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” the President[10] and explains that the Office of Special Counsel “accepted” the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.[11]

The Mueller report details multiple episodes in which there is evidence that the President obstructed justice. The pattern of conduct and the manner in which the President sought to impede investigations—including through one-on-one meetings with senior officials—is damning to the President.

Five episodes of obstructive conduct stand out as being particularly serious:

In June 2017 President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to order the firing of the Special Counsel after press reports that Mueller was investigating the President for obstruction of justice;[12] months later Trump asked McGahn to falsely refute press accounts reporting this directive and create a false paper record on this issue – all of which McGahn refused to do.[13]

After National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump cleared his office for a one-on-one meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go;” he also asked then-Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo saying Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she did not know whether that was true.[14]

In July 2017, the President directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to instruct the Attorney General to limit Mueller’s investigation, a step the Report asserted “was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”[15]

In 2017 and 2018, the President asked the Attorney General to “un-recuse” himself from the Mueller inquiry, actions from which a “reasonable inference” could be made that “the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia Investigation.”[16]

The Report raises questions about whether the President, by and through his private attorneys, floated the possibility of pardons for the purpose of influencing the cooperation of Flynn, Manafort*, and an unnamed person with law enforcement.[17]

*After the fall of Nixon, [Roger] Stone pursued a Rasputin-esque political career and formed a consultancy firm with Republican lobbyist Paul Manafort whose credentials would later earn him a brief role as campaign chairman for presidential candidate Donald Trump, a stint that implicated him enough to be among the suspects of the Russian collusion allegations that roiled the 2016 US elections. Manafort was indicted in October 2017 on charges of mortgage fraud, conspiracy, and falsifying bank records; he was tried, convicted and sentenced to seven-plus years. Before leaving office, President Trump pardoned Paul Manafort.

 In 1980, Stone and Manafort’s firm had gotten behind the presidential candidacy of California Governor Ronald Reagan. When Stone was provided a Rolodex of New York supporters of the governor, the only name he considered of value was Roy Cohn. A decade later, Stone joined the presidential campaign of Arlen Specter who is known by assassination researchers as having invented the “magic bullet” theory that persuaded the Warren Commission that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin of President Kennedy. 

 

[John Cotter]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, maybe I am out of school.

My view is there were four presidential regime change-ops in postwar US history. 

JFK, Nixon, Carter, Trump. 

We should be examining the perma-intel state, and setting aside partisan politics. Anti-Trump and anti-Biden rants are misplaced in the EF-JFKA. 

Actually, I forget how Trump become involved in this thread. But initially, It wasn't me.

All threads lead to Trump, I something think. You know how that goes. 

Hey, you are the moderator, and so place this thread wherever it belongs, and I will happily abide by your decision and all your decisions. 

Thanks for doing the thankless task of moderation. 

That seems an interesting and relevant thesis, Benjamin.

Perhaps the forum rules should be amended to prescribe that any US president may be mentioned except you know who.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

That seems an interesting and relevant thesis, Benjamin.

Perhaps the forum rules should be amended to prescribe that any US president may be mentioned except you know who.

A good exception---except that I think Tr-mp was the target of a regime-change op. 

Here's the thing: When I discuss regime-change ops against JFK, Nixon, Carter, Trump, I am not discussing the relative merits of each President---the man or his administration. 

You can't think less of Nixon's Vietnam policies than me, and he had a very troubled character. But ( in a nutshell) I think the Watergate burglary has the look of a CIA op. I have questions, reasonable doubt. 

I won't mention you know who, as that might trigger a Niagara of animus. 

Hope all is well in Ireland. Even when I disagree with you, I enjoy reading your commentary. 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Ben, I tried.  I read Gerth's piece which I think we agree is more about media coverage than the Mueller investigation itself.  A word search of parts 1 and 2 for the term, Mueller Report comes up empty. I was hoping we could deliberate the facts, not views.

 The facts of the investigation as presented in the Mueller Report ...

The Special Counsel investigation uncovered extensive criminal activity

The investigation produced 37 indictments; seven guilty pleas or convictions; and compelling evidence that the president obstructed justice on multiple occasions. Mueller also uncovered and referred 14 criminal matters to other components of the Department of Justice.

Trump associates repeatedly lied to investigators about their contacts with Russians, and President Trump refused to answer questions about his efforts to impede federal proceedings and influence the testimony of witnesses.

A statement signed by over 1,000 former federal prosecutors concluded that if any other American engaged in the same efforts to impede federal proceedings the way Trump did, they would likely be indicted for multiple charges of obstruction of justice.

 

Russia engaged in extensive attacks on the U.S. election system in 2016 

Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]

Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]

Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]

 

The investigation “identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign” and established that the Trump Campaign “showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton” 

In 2015 and 2016, Michael Cohen pursued a hotel/residence project in Moscow on behalf of Trump while he was campaigning for President.[5]Then-candidate Trump personally signed a letter of intent.

Senior members of the Trump campaign, including Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner took a June 9, 2016, meeting with Russian nationals at Trump Tower, New York, after outreach from an intermediary informed Trump, Jr., that the Russians had derogatory information on Clinton that was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”[6]

Beginning in June 2016, a Trump associate “forecast to senior [Trump] Campaign officials that WikiLeaks would release information damaging to candidate Clinton.”[7] A section of the Report that remains heavily redacted suggests that Roger Stone was this associate and that he had significant contacts with the campaign about Wikileaks.[8]

The Report described multiple occasions where Trump associates lied to investigators about Trump associate contacts with Russia. Trump associates George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen all admitted that they made false statements to federal investigators or to Congress about their contacts. In addition, Roger Stone faces trial this fall for obstruction of justice, five counts of making false statements, and one count of witness tampering.

The Report contains no evidence that any Trump campaign official reported their contacts with Russia or WikiLeaks to U.S. law enforcement authorities during the campaign or presidential transition, despite public reports on Russian hacking starting in June 2016 and candidate Trump’s August 2016 intelligence briefing warning him that Russia was seeking to interfere in the election.

The Report raised questions about why Trump associates and then-candidate Trump repeatedly asserted Trump had no connections to Russia.[9]

 

Special Counsel Mueller declined to exonerate President Trump and instead detailed multiple episodes in which he engaged in obstructive conduct 

The Mueller Report states that if the Special Counsel’s Office felt they could clear the president of wrongdoing, they would have said so. Instead, the Report explicitly states that it “does not exonerate” the President[10] and explains that the Office of Special Counsel “accepted” the Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be indicted.[11]

The Mueller report details multiple episodes in which there is evidence that the President obstructed justice. The pattern of conduct and the manner in which the President sought to impede investigations—including through one-on-one meetings with senior officials—is damning to the President.

Five episodes of obstructive conduct stand out as being particularly serious:

In June 2017 President Trump directed White House Counsel Don McGahn to order the firing of the Special Counsel after press reports that Mueller was investigating the President for obstruction of justice;[12] months later Trump asked McGahn to falsely refute press accounts reporting this directive and create a false paper record on this issue – all of which McGahn refused to do.[13]

After National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying to FBI investigators about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, Trump cleared his office for a one-on-one meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and asked Comey to “let [Flynn] go;” he also asked then-Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland to draft an internal memo saying Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she did not know whether that was true.[14]

In July 2017, the President directed former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to instruct the Attorney General to limit Mueller’s investigation, a step the Report asserted “was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”[15]

In 2017 and 2018, the President asked the Attorney General to “un-recuse” himself from the Mueller inquiry, actions from which a “reasonable inference” could be made that “the President believed that an unrecused Attorney General would play a protective role and could shield the President from the ongoing Russia Investigation.”[16]

The Report raises questions about whether the President, by and through his private attorneys, floated the possibility of pardons for the purpose of influencing the cooperation of Flynn, Manafort*, and an unnamed person with law enforcement.[17]

 

*After the fall of Nixon, [Roger] Stone pursued a Rasputin-esque political career and formed a consultancy firm with Republican lobbyist Paul Manafort whose credentials would later earn him a brief role as campaign chairman for presidential candidate Donald Trump, a stint that implicated him enough to be among the suspects of the Russian collusion allegations that roiled the 2016 US elections. Manafort was indicted in October 2017 on charges of mortgage fraud, conspiracy, and falsifying bank records; he was tried, convicted and sentenced to seven-plus years. Before leaving office, President Trump pardoned Paul Manafort.

 In 1980, Stone and Manafort’s firm had gotten behind the presidential candidacy of California Governor Ronald Reagan. When Stone was provided a Rolodex of New York supporters of the governor, the only name he considered of value was Roy Cohn. A decade later, Stone joined the presidential campaign of Arlen Specter who is known by assassination researchers as having invented the “magic bullet” theory that persuaded the Warren Commission that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin of President Kennedy. 

 

Thanks for reading Parts I and 1.

I thought the whole CJR  series could have been cut in half. 

If you have enough stamina, try parts 3 and 4. My memory is fading, but surely Mueller was mentioned in there. 

---30---

Remember, a government investigation (any government investigation, of LHO or Tr-mp) is like a kangaroo court:

No defense counsel, no evidence is submitted except by the prosecution, no witnesses called except by the prosecution, no cross-examination of witnesses by the defense, no examination of evidence by the defense, and the narrative is heavily controlled, usually aided by a complicit media. 

Conjecture and innuendo and hearsay can populate the investigation. 

As an aside, curiously the Flynn case (which you mention) seems to have ended up in some sort of legal no-man's land. Flynn changed his plea, and the feds backed down. Then the judge said he would not accept the prosecution backing down...and there it stands. But is that a strong case? One where the prosecutors walk away from the case? 

In addition, when I say Trump was the target of a regime-change op, that does not mean he was a saint. It means the state will prosecute him, surveil his associates, stories will be leaked and planted in an easily manipulated and biased media, and the legislature will impeach him. 

Events may be manufactured to make the target look bad. 

In fact, the DC establishment initially tried to remove Tr-mp from office not through the election box, but through impeachment. And they said his election was illegitimate from the start, due to Moscow influence, as you point out. 

When thinking about regime-change ops, remember that LIFE magazine had ready to go with a likely career-ending expose on LBJ, literally slated to un near or on Nov. 22. Instead the story was held in perpetuity. 

So it is not what true that matters, it is what gets printed. 

Same with Agnew. The guy was likely a Maryland crooked pol. But when it came time to depose Nixon, first they deposed Agnew. Agnew's  crookedness was acceptable until it wasn't. Agnew was first the target of a regime change op, and then Nixon. 

Just IMHO.  Given the moderator's comments, I will not post in this thread anymore. 

 

 

[John Cotter]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

A good exception---except that I think Tr-mp was the target of a regime-change op. 

Here's the thing: When I discuss regime-change ops against JFK, Nixon, Carter, Trump, I am not discussing the relative merits of each President---the man or his administration. 

You can't think less of Nixon's Vietnam policies than me, and he had a very troubled character. But ( in a nutshell) I think the Watergate burglary has the look of a CIA op. I have questions, reasonable doubt. 

I won't mention you know who, as that might trigger a Niagara of animus. 

Hope all is well in Ireland. Even when I disagree with you, I enjoy reading your commentary. 

It’s all well here in “the land of saints and scholars”, Benjamin, except for the usual clouds, rain, muck and the perfectly legal political corruption.

As you suggest, they’ve got more sophisticated since the 60s in their methods of shafting political leaders who have ideas above their station – in other words, who think they’re more than just puppets.

As Allen Dulles said, “That little Kennedy … he thought he was a god.”

[Paul Brancato]

23 hours ago, David Butler said:

He was arrested in September 1963 Paul....

Sounds authoritative enough. He mentions twice that these two were not on the flight with Souetre to Mexico City on Nov 12, 1963. So - was Souetre on that flight? Is he simply saying that Souetre wasn’t in prison so he doesn’t know where he was then?

[Leslie Sharp]

4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Sounds authoritative enough. He mentions twice that these two were not on the flight with Souetre to Mexico City on Nov 12, 1963. So - was Souetre on that flight? Is he simply saying that Souetre wasn’t in prison so he doesn’t know where he was then?

Silverthorne was in Paris off and on in 1963. 
We're in pursuit of leads that could establish how this unfolded, i.e., WK Harvey, DFS Mexico, Interpol, INS ...