Pierre Lafitte datebook, 1963

[Paul Brancato]

Anyone reading or posting here besides Leslie should be assumed to have the worthy motive of authenticating what might be a hugely important document. 

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna @Benjamin Cole The discussion related to previous attempts at authentication is closed.

Please read the proposal, Benjamin, and perhaps you can persuade Greg to continue his quest for an ink analyst.

 

I prefer a completely transparent and totally aboveboard process---unconditional in every way---for an evaluation of the likely ersatz datebook. 

Every aspect of the authentication process---from emails sent to experts soliciting services, to the selection of an expert panel, to the examinations to the results---posted online in real time, for all to see. 

IMHO, your stance of endless stipulations and conditions, and proposed limited inquiries, and shadow seeking...is not the earnest stance of a truth-seeker releasing the uncertain document to the public to be verified. 

 

 

 

[Tom Gram]

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Anyone reading or posting here besides Leslie should be assumed to have the worthy motive of authenticating what might be a hugely important document. 

Leslie is making that impossible. This circus of a thread reflects that 1) Albarelli and Co. tried to get a documentary produced on the datebook, but the producers didn’t want to shoot a film on a forgery so they commissioned an ink analysis; 2) the results of the ink analysis were not favorable to authenticity, so the producers cancelled the project; and 3) Albarelli and Co. locked up the production company in NDAs so the results of the ink analysis couldn’t be made public, and went ahead and published a book on the datebook anyway. 

Leslie even called Greg a narcissist just for asking who is in control of the NDAs, and refused to answer, then subsequently admitted the reports belong to those “involved in the project” and told Greg to “stand down”. Personal insults are a violation of forum rules. So is posting under an alias though… 

Leslie has repeatedly questioned Greg’s motives, when it is crystal clear to anyone reading this thread that Greg has a genuine interest in the provenance of the datebook and is trying to get to the truth. However, Leslie has obstructed that truth at every available opportunity. To paraphrase Greg Parker, she “treats the truth like a ball in dodgeball”. 

Leslie even had the gall to criticize Greg for not being interested in the “success of Coup in Dallas”. Why the hell should he be? Leslie’s ridiculous “good-faith” offer of allowing Greg to pursue an ink analysis on the datebook - as long as he complies with a page and a half of vague, sketchy conditions - while she refuses to pay a dime says it all: she either has zero interest in pursuing authentication of the datebook, or she already knows it’s a fake. The “success of Coup in Dallas” i.e. monetizing the datebook is clearly the only goal here, and an unfavorable authentication report would demolish any future sales. 

Leslie’s replies in this thread have more red flags than a Soviet Embassy. Her condescending, evasive attitude towards anyone who questions the authenticity of the datebook, and persistent refusal to give straight answers to basic questions has demolished her credibility, and the only way to repair it at this point is complete, unconditional transparency. That means, at a minimum: 1) HD photos of the entire datebook, published online for everyone to see; 2) an independent expert ink/handwriting analysis, etc. and publicly available report.

However, Leslie will not “release” the datebook under any circumstances; and she obviously will not pursue genuine authentication efforts. Instead, she flips out, questions people’s motives, insults them, claims that they are ignorant about the JFKA, and basically resorts to bullying whenever someone calls her out. I’ve already been the subject of a couple of these freak-outs, and I’m sure another one is on the way.

Why should anyone be polite to someone who reacts like that? Greg D. has displayed remarkable patience in dealing with this nonsense, but I’m with Ben on this. 

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

IMHO, your stance of endless stipulations and conditions, and proposed limited inquiries, and shadow seeking...is not the earnest stance of a truth-seeker releasing the uncertain document to the public to be verified. 

[Leslie Sharp]

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Anyone reading or posting here besides Leslie should be assumed to have the worthy motive of authenticating what might be a hugely important document. 

Those directly engaged in this conversation at the moment, Paul, have expressed less than worthy motives in the past; in fact they have each attacked this potentially hugely important document again, in spite of never laying eyes on the physical instrument. Two years later, having failed in their attempts to impede my commitment to provide large swaths of Hank's investigation to those unable to or disinterested in  securing a full copy of Coup, they now interject themselves into the process of authentication?

Following Greg Doudna's offer to identify an analyst that might be willing to examine the ink for minimal if any charge, I've laid out entirely reasonable  terms and conditions.  I'm disappointed that so far he has rejected the parameters; perhaps he will change his mind and exhibit that worthy motive behind his offer you suggest.

[Leslie Sharp]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I prefer a completely transparent and totally aboveboard process---unconditional in every way---for an evaluation of the likely ersatz datebook. 

Every aspect of the authentication process---from emails sent to experts soliciting services, to the selection of an expert panel, to the examinations to the results---posted online in real time, for all to see. 

IMHO, your stance of endless stipulations and conditions, and proposed limited inquiries, and shadow seeking...is not the earnest stance of a truth-seeker releasing the uncertain document to the public to be verified. 

 

 

 

Please read the terms and conditions provided Greg in response to his offer.  

[Leslie Sharp]

9 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Leslie is making that impossible. This circus of a thread reflects that 1) Albarelli and Co. tried to get a documentary produced on the datebook, but the producers didn’t want to shoot a film on a forgery so they commissioned an ink analysis; 2) the results of the ink analysis were not favorable to authenticity, so the producers cancelled the project; and 3) Albarelli and Co. locked up the production company in NDAs so the results of the ink analysis couldn’t be made public, and went ahead and published a book on the datebook anyway. 

Leslie even called Greg a narcissist just for asking who is in control of the NDAs, and refused to answer, then subsequently admitted the reports belong to those “involved in the project” and told Greg to “stand down”. Personal insults are a violation of forum rules. So is posting under an alias though… 

Leslie has repeatedly questioned Greg’s motives, when it is crystal clear to anyone reading this thread that Greg has a genuine interest in the provenance of the datebook and is trying to get to the truth. However, Leslie has obstructed that truth at every available opportunity. To paraphrase Greg Parker, she “treats the truth like a ball in dodgeball”. 

Leslie even had the gall to criticize Greg for not being interested in the “success of Coup in Dallas”. Why the hell should he be? Leslie’s ridiculous “good-faith” offer of allowing Greg to pursue an ink analysis on the datebook - as long as he complies with a page and a half of vague, sketchy conditions - while she refuses to pay a dime says it all: she either has zero interest in pursuing authentication of the datebook, or she already knows it’s a fake. The “success of Coup in Dallas” i.e. monetizing the datebook is clearly the only goal here, and an unfavorable authentication report would demolish any future sales. 

Leslie’s replies in this thread have more red flags than a Soviet Embassy. Her condescending, evasive attitude towards anyone who questions the authenticity of the datebook, and persistent refusal to give straight answers to basic questions has demolished her credibility, and the only way to repair it at this point is complete, unconditional transparency. That means, at a minimum: 1) HD photos of the entire datebook, published online for everyone to see; 2) an independent expert ink/handwriting analysis, etc. and publicly available report.

However, Leslie will not “release” the datebook under any circumstances; and she obviously will not pursue genuine authentication efforts. Instead, she flips out, questions people’s motives, insults them, claims that they are ignorant about the JFKA, and basically resorts to bullying whenever someone calls her out. I’ve already been the subject of a couple of these freak-outs, and I’m sure another one is on the way.

Why should anyone be polite to someone who reacts like that? Greg D. has displayed remarkable patience in dealing with this nonsense, but I’m with Ben on this. 

Please read the terms and conditions provided Greg in response to his offer.

[Leslie Sharp]

 

 

The Skorzenys

 

Ilse 8:00 PM

—Lafitte datebook, June 19, 1963

 

 

Cable to Madrid – all – ok – tell Tom D.

O says come to Madrid

—Lafitte datebook, October 1, 1963

. . .  Otto, the Chief Tactician

Lafitte first makes specific note of Otto Skorzeny in his 1963 datebook on April 30, Walker + Souetre in New Orleans/Arms (Davis?) -- where? Cable to O. As detailed previously, Skorzeny ran special forces training camps outside of Madrid, and among his chief trainers in the arts of sabotage and assassinations was Jean Rene Souetre, the extreme right OAS officer known for his expert marksmanship. Another close associate of both Lafitte and of Skorzeny was a French terrorist who had served in La Cagoule, Jean Filiol. Filiol and his mistress, Alice Renee Lamy, who was also an expert shot, were infamous for the interrogation and torture of over one hundred people in one day in occupied Paris. Decades later, Lamy and Filiol found their way to Dallas in late 1963, checking into a hotel, likely Lafitte’s favorite, The Stoneleigh on Maple Ave. in Oak Lawn as we read in our closing chapter. 

            Three weeks later Pierre writes simply, “ask OS/Ilse.” Between those entries he continues to name Souetre, adding [Thomas Eli] Davis, and [Clay LaVerne] Shaw. On June 20, Lafitte indicates that he has cabled, or he plans to cable, Otto Skorzeny. On this date, Pierre also has Frank Wisner, former head of the agency’s OPC, on his mind.

            We don’t see Otto again until the 28th of July, when Pierre writes, “George” [Hunter-White] / Otto talk to Stockdale about P. Graham.” This suggests that Hunter-White, aware of Otto’s history with Ambassador Grant Stockdale, is asking about Phil Graham, or he’s asking Otto to phone Stockdale to discuss Graham. (See chapter 4.) 

            Otto and his valued trainer, Jean Souetre are named in the same entry again on August 11th when Pierre notes that he has sent a cable to O in Madrid, followed by Souetre’s name. The first week of September, in a chilling note, Pierre writes, O.S. gas guns - 6, followed by Garland here - A [in a circle]. Garland is no doubt a reference to a close associate of George Hunter-White, Garland Williams. The familiarity of using his Christian name in the entry represents a decade-long association between Lafitte, Williams, and “George” Hunter-White. 

            Author Albarelli was in contact with the Williams family in search of additional Lafitte correspondence but met a wall when the subject of money in exchange proved problematic on a number of levels. Williams was former head of the NY branch of the FNB and officer with the Army’s Central Intelligence Corps. He had also worked directly for Joseph Caldwell King, as identified in author Albarelli’s A Terrible Mistake, assisting the former chief of the CIA’s Western Hemisphere as he oversaw the agency’s Amazon Natural Drug Co. The intriguing entries presented previously about an August gathering in Antoine’s Room in New Orleans that included George Joannides are all the more so if indeed the “King” named in that entry was actually Joseph Caldwell King. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Greg Doudna]

41 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I'm disappointed that so far he has rejected the parameters; perhaps he will change his mind and exhibit that worthy motive behind his offer you suggest.

I thought you wanted me to “butt out”. You’re inviting me back in?

11 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You may ask permission and you can anticipate that not everyone grants requests…

Thank you!! I would like to do that. 

i am having difficulty discovering to whom I should address a request for permission who has legal authority to authorize disclosure of the scientists’ findings of the ink analyses that have been done. 

Would you advise as to contact information odor Phen Lafitte, identified in Coup in Dallas as the Copyright holder on the Datebook, so that I may contact her for the two purposes of (a) request for a copyright permission; and (b) inquiry whether she has controlling legal authority to authorize release or waiver to the scientists from their NDA’s concerning disclosure of the ink analyses?

Thank you. 

[Leslie Sharp]

11 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I thought you wanted me to “butt out”. You’re inviting me back in?

Thank you!! I would like to do that. 

i am having difficulty discovering to whom I should address a request for permission who has legal authority to authorize disclosure of the scientists’ findings of the ink analyses that have been done. 

Would you advise as to contact information odor Phen Lafitte, identified in Coup in Dallas as the Copyright holder on the Datebook, so that I may contact her for the two purposes of (a) request for a copyright permission; and (b) inquiry whether she has controlling legal authority to authorize release or waiver to the scientists from their NDA’s concerning disclosure of the ink analyses?

Thank you. 

In general, of course you can ask and you can anticipate not everyone is obligated to grant permission. You've asked for contact information and I've rejected your request.

The conversation related to previous attempts at authentication is closed.

Let me know if you want to reconsider the terms and conditions I offered in response to your initial offer. For your edification, the datebook was orphaned.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Guest Doug Campbell]

Two points:

1. The single most consistent roadblock, the one person throwing the most ridiculous nonsense-speak out, the one person doing the most to impede the research community in gaining any access to the findings of the previous analysis on the datebook is the one person on the internet doing the most to convince the research community that the datebook is real. 

2. Given what we know about the UBER-prolific use of aliases and pseudonyms by CIA personnel during Covert Cold War Operations of this time period,  the very appearance of the name 'Joannides" in reference to George Joannides of the CIA is an unmistakable indication that the datebook entry referring to Joannides was made after Jefferson Morley's fine work in bringing to light exactly who-and-what George Joannides was, both in the early 60's and late 70's. 

Conan-Doyle's Holmes: "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever's left- however improbable- must be the truth."

It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would use dozens of aliases in the field while trying to topple Castro, yet have absolutely no compunction whatsoever with sharing his REAL, GIVEN NAME with a conman and known-prolific FBI informant while plotting to murder The Sitting President Of The United States. 

It's a ridiculous notion.

Now that the impossible has been eliminated, what's left? The Joannides entries were added after Morley informed The Research Community of who- and- what Joannides was. And since the entries were made after Morley's work on Joannides, then the entries were not made in 1963. 

What should have "set the hook" turns out to have been an unfortunate oversight, an over-reach on the part of...well, whoever thought adding Joannides to the datebook was a good idea. Should have used "Mr. Howard", or "Walter Newby".

Edited August 23, 2023 by Doug Campbell

[Leslie Sharp]

6 minutes ago, Doug Campbell said:

Two points:

1. The single most consistent roadblock, the one person throwing the most ridiculous nonsense-speak out, the one person doing the most to attempt to impede the research community in gaining access to the findings of the previous analysis on the datebook is the one person on the internet doing the most to convince the research community that the datebook is real. 

2. Given what we know about the UBER-prolific use of aliases and pseudonyms by CIA personnel during Covert Cold War Operations of this time period,  the very appearance of the name 'Joannides" in reference to George Joannides of the CIA is an unmistakable indication that the datebook entry referring to Joannides was made after Jefferson Morley's fine work in bringing to light exactly who-and-what George Joannides was, both in the early 60's and late 70's. 

Conan-Doyle's Holmes: "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever's left- however improbable- must be the truth."

It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would used dozens of aliases in the field while trying to topple Castro, yet have absolutely no compunction whatsoever with sharing his REAL, GIVEN NAME with a conman and known-prolific FBI informant while plotting to murder The Sitting President Of The United States. 

It's a ridiculous notion.

Now that the impossible has been eliminated, what's left? The Joannides entries were added after Morley informed The Research Community of who- and- what Joannides was. 

What should have "set the hook" turns out to have been an unfortunate oversight on the part of...well, whoever thought adding Joannides to the datebook was a good idea. Should have used "Mr. Howard", or "Walter Newby".

Then again, when Hank Albarelli provided Mr. Morley with what should have been welcomed confirmation back in 2013/14, Mr. Morley reacted, essentially, "prove it."  My interpretation of the interaction is that in essence Jeff questioned Hank's professional integrity; anyone who knew Hank would know what happened next.

It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would used dozens of aliases in the field

I'm curious to know your credential to make such a determination ... are you former agency?

Had you read Coup, you would have a better understanding of the dynamics between Lafittte and Harvey - Barnes and those he was coordinating on their behalf.

If James Angleton knew Joannides by his legal name, and if Angleton referred to him as Joannides with his friend — yes, friend with whom he and Cicely dined occasionally — then it's logical Pierre Lafitte would pen the name Joannides in his datebook as the Lancelot Project unfolded.

[Guest Doug Campbell]

I think you mis-quoted me. The full quote:

"It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would used dozens of aliases in the field while trying to topple Castro, yet have absolutely no compunction whatsoever with sharing his REAL, GIVEN NAME with a conman and known-prolific FBI informant while plotting to murder The Sitting President Of The United States."

100%. On. The. Money. It's a ridiculous notion, and borders on being insulting to the intelligence of anyone who's ever studied the CIA Primary Resource Documentation of The Case in any detail. We know better.

Re: Morley and Albarelli: I can believe that. Morley's a smart guy, knows his business. It's almost a certainty that he thought the same thing I did regarding Joannides' name appearing in the datebook. I'd have responded the same way he did. But with more eye-rolls, probably.

If your only "proof" that Angleton ever dined with Lafitte is the datebook, keep it. Not interested. Those entries are no more accurate a reflection of events than the Joannides entries. 

Oh, and I bought the book on 12/5/21. I've tried to read it 3 times. I always end up just shaking my head and logging onto the Mary Ferrell Foundation archives to cleanse my palette.

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Doug Campbell

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, Doug Campbell said:

I think you mis-quoted me. The full quote:

"It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would used dozens of aliases in the field while trying to topple Castro, yet have absolutely no compunction whatsoever with sharing his REAL, GIVEN NAME with a conman and known-prolific FBI informant while plotting to murder The Sitting President Of The United States."

100%. On. The. Money. It's a ridiculous notion, and borders on being insulting to the intelligence of anyone who's ever studied the CIA Primary Resource Documentation of The Case in any detail. We know better.

Re: Morley and Albarelli: I can believe that. Morley's a smart guy, knows his business. It's almost a certaintly that he thought the same thing I did regarding Joannides' name appearing in the datebook. I'd have responded the same way he did. But with more eye-rolls, probably.

If you're only "proof" that Angleton ever dined with Lafitte is the datebook, keep it. Not interested. Those entries are no more accurate a reflection of events than the Joannides entries. 

Oh, and I bought the book on 12/5/21. I've tried to read it 3 times. I always end up just shaking my head and logging onto the Mary Ferrell Foundation archives to cleanse my palette.

 

Cleansing your palette or burying your head in the sand of what has been spoon-fed to the "community"?  Ever look into Oliver Curme's history?

Agents provacateur often use  "prove it" as a tease, Doug. 

There are numerous references to Angleton's friendship with his prized contractor Lafitte aside from the datebook; but then, with one's head in the sand, one would never read those would they?

I think your inability to read Coup, after three attempts, might say a good deal more about you than it does Albarelli's investigation?

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Doug Campbell said:

I think you mis-quoted me. The full quote:

"It is not possible that CIA's George Joannides would used dozens of aliases in the field while trying to topple Castro, yet have absolutely no compunction whatsoever with sharing his REAL, GIVEN NAME with a conman and known-prolific FBI informant while plotting to murder The Sitting President Of The United States."

100%. On. The. Money. It's a ridiculous notion, and borders on being insulting to the intelligence of anyone who's ever studied the CIA Primary Resource Documentation of The Case in any detail. We know better.

Re: Morley and Albarelli: I can believe that. Morley's a smart guy, knows his business. It's almost a certaintly that he thought the same thing I did regarding Joannides' name appearing in the datebook. I'd have responded the same way he did. But with more eye-rolls, probably.

If you're only "proof" that Angleton ever dined with Lafitte is the datebook, keep it. Not interested. Those entries are no more accurate a reflection of events than the Joannides entries. 

Oh, and I bought the book on 12/5/21. I've tried to read it 3 times. I always end up just shaking my head and logging onto the Mary Ferrell Foundation archives to cleanse my palette.

 

found this today-- sent to Morley a few years ago...

Inbox

 

Hank Albarelli <hankalbarelli@icloud.com>	Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 10:44 AM
to me,

 

 

Joannides & Lafitte in New Orleans, 1963

 

Over fifteen years ago, while beginning to research a book on the odd death of U.S. Army biochemist, Dr. Frank R. Olson, I became aware of the existence of an enigmatic character with the unlikely name Jean Pierre Lafitte. The origins of my awareness came from my perusal of the 1952 and 1953 diaries of Federal Bureau of Narcotics official George Hunter White; a September 20, 1977 article in the New York Times by investigative journalists John M. Crewdson and Jo Thomas; and the private notes and correspondence of James R. Phelan, an investigative journalist and writer, who, in the 1950s through the 1960s, was quite close to both Lafitte and White. 

 

Later, during the year 2000, my knowledge about Lafitte grew considerably greater after I was consulted on Frank Olson’s murder by investigators for New York City District Attorney Robert Morgenthau’s office. Spurred by these meetings, I made about a dozen trips to northern New England and southern Florida to interview several individuals who were close to Pierre Lafitte. 

 

About 18 months ago, while researching a forthcoming biography of George Hunter White, these interviews resulted in my gaining access to some of the personal writings of Lafitte, including his private date books, which stylistically are quite similar to those of FBN official and CIA consultant, George White. Suffice it to say, I became intrigued with the life and activities of the man known as Jean Pierre Lafitte, who beginning in 1952, through to about 1978, covertly work for the FBN, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and INS. Lafitte also managed to carry out a number of major, international swindling schemes and operated a number of well-known restaurants. 

 

In June 1952, according to a letter by George White, the CIA officially recruited Lafitte as a “special employee” after he was summoned to Washington, D.C. to meet with CIA officials, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb and James Jesus Angleton. Wrote White: “Expecting to be at CIA only a day, Lafitte was held over for a few days. I hope to hell they know what they are in for. I suspect even to that crew that he’s one of a kind.” While at CIA headquarters, Lafitte also met Agency Security Chief, Sheffield Edwards, Frank Wisner, and Richard Helms. Subsequently, Lafitte undertook a number of covert domestic and international assignments for the CIA, including a trip to the Republic of the Congo in December 1960, which coincided with the January 1961 CIA-assisted assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Lafitte’s work for the CIA lasted until about 1978. 

 

While writing my book on Olson’s murder, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA’s Secret Cold War Experiments [Trine Day, 2009], of which Lafitte played an integral and deadly role, I could not avoid learning about a number of provocative connections between Monsieur Lafitte and Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Not the least of these connections was that Lafitte, using an assumed named, throughout the 1960s lived in New Orleans. Indeed, in an incident that caused a flap at CIA headquarters in December 1969, the FBI arrested Lafitte in New Orleans. Briefly detained, he was released after a number of discrete phone calls from Capitol Hill were made to FBI headquarters. At the time of his arrest, Lafitte worked as the head chef at the Plimsoll Club, then part of the International Trade Mart.  

 

Portions of Lafitte’s date books for his New Orleans years are revealing of his dealings with various CIA officials, including at least 3 apparent meetings with CIA Western Hemisphere Division employee, George Efythron Joannides. Interestingly, Lafitte’s second encounter with Joannides occurred the second week of August 1963, just days after Lee Harvey Oswald’s Friday, August 9 arrest for provoking a disturbance through leafleting for his Fair Play for Cuba Committee New Orleans chapter. Lafitte’s handwritten notations for Friday, August 16, 1963 read: “… at Antoines room— Martello, Joanides [sic] & Labadie. Quigly [sic] interview Oswald over street demonstration. Call Holdout.” Another notation, made 6 days later reads: “Talk Joanides Cuba—refers to K Organization in Mexico— similar setup now. [D]iscuss with King, ask George and Charles about Havana, Mexico trips…” 

 

NOTES: “Antoines room” is thought to be Antoine’s, a well-known New Orleans restaurant that hosted meetings and gatherings in a number of private rooms. There are several references to Antoine’s in the date books.  “Martello” appears to be a reference to New Orleans Police Department officer, Lt. Francis L. Martello; not to be confused with Francis “Monk”  Martello. Lt. Martello interviewed Oswald in the New Orleans lockup on August 10, 1963. “Quigly” is perhaps a misspelling of the name Quigley. FBI SA John L. Quigley also interviewed Oswald in New Orleans jail. “Labadie” is a known alias, as in Jean Labadie, that Lafitte used often in New York City, but it is also the surname of Stephen J. Labadie, a special agent for the FBI. “Holdout” is unknown; perhaps it is a code-name for a program or confidential informer. “King” is most likely J.C. King, CIA Western Hemisphere director, but could possibly be William Harvey, as some CIA associated people occasionally and mockingly referred to Harvey as “King.” “George and Charlie” are believed to be FBN officials.

 

 

Copyright © 2013—H.P. Albarelli Jr. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

Between October 1st, when Lafitte says that he sent a cable to Madrid that all was ok, and to tell Tom D. (Davis), he then notes, O. says come to Madrid. Eight days later, in the most incriminating statement written by Lafitte to date reveals a recap of Otto’s strategy, worth repeating once again now that we have Otto’s role as tactician in context: 

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)---

 

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 including Lafitte, 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 Nazi Gestapo.” 

By 5th of November, within a day or two of Tom and Carolyn Davis’s arrival in Madrid, Otto had told Pierre that Lancelot is a “go,” adding reference to a “phone booth.” This is particularly telling if the Davis couple had just delivered detailed schematics of Dealey Plaza and the kill zone. By November 15th, Otto seems to have reconsidered the tech building—phone booth/bridge, telling Lafitte to “turn them.” That is the last mention of Otto or Ilse Skorzeny until the 28th, when Pierre makes a note to “call Madrid.” The 1st of December, he is sending cables to New York and Madrid.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Leslie Sharp