Pierre Lafitte datebook, 1963

[Greg Doudna]

Leslie would it be possible for you to stop further deflecting (most recently on my east Texas personal history, as if trying to make that some focus of attention, as if that is relevant) and at long last say straight, who is the legal owner of the datebook? 

And, who would financially benefit if, hypothetically, the legal owner were to choose to sell it?

Do you have a financial interest in the appraisal value of the datebook (the physical item), affected by whether it is authentic or forged? 

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

It is possible the datebook was fabricated later, as in the 2000s. 

That remains an explanation for everything in the datebook until the document is authenticated, or debunked, by an expert (seriously expert) panel of independent examiners. 

I take it at present there are parties, who may have conflicts of interest, who have access to the datebook.  The datebook can thus be "updated" as we speak? 

That is to say, the datebook has not been placed under lock-and-key at a secure location chosen by independent experts, and careful records kept of all who come into contact with the datebook. 

It has been written in this forum there are items of information in the datebook not revealed to the general public, until the recent 2023 partial JFK doc release. 

I have asked for two examples of this. 

 

 

 

Benjamin, You must have missed my response on Monté's AECASSOWARY thread:

It reads in part:
fyi, simply because information in the Lafitte materials has not been available to the general public in the form of documents until 2023."--RM

I believe Monté is referring to the broader issue of government documents released in 2023. Specific to the datebook entries as I've shared previously, Dick Russell provided a limited analysis of the 1963 Lafitte datebook.  (His full analysis can be found in the Front Matter of Coup in Dallas.) Dick focused on the following names that appear in Lafitte's datebook, six of which did not surface in public records — news reports, interview notes, FOIA responses, government citations, etc. — until the mid-to-late 1970s, with the remaining names surfacing in the 1990s.

Dick writes,

Let me here offer my insights into some of the names and dates in the datebook, and their potential significance in revealing the identities of the perpetrators behind what’s been called “the crime of the century.” I should add that the datebook also contains references to individuals whose names have not appeared before in assassination-related documents. From the datebook, it can only be concluded that Lafitte was directly involved with a number of people covertly connected to the assassination. 

SOUETRE. This clearly is Jean Rene Souetre, whose name appears in a number of entries between April 25 and December 4. It appears that Souetre was part of a “kill squad” who showed up for meetings in New Orleans, Madrid, and Mexico City prior to the assassination. Souetre’s name first appeared in the “assassination literature” following a 1977 release of CIA documents, which stated that “he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination . . . to either Mexico or Canada.” According to what the FBI told a Souetre acquaintance whom I interviewed, he’d been “flown out that afternoon by a private pilot . . . in a government plane.” Souetre was a known hitman for the OAS, a terrorist group in France that had targeted President de Gaulle. 

WILLOUGHBY: Until my first book came out in 1992, assembling circumstantial evidence linking retired General Charles Willoughby as a possible “mastermind” of the assassination, no one had raised such a possibility before. The datebook cites the far-right General Willoughby numerous times, specifying: “Nov 22 – Willoughby backup – team [with a strikethrough of the word team] squad – tech building – phone booth/bridge.” Prior to that, an April 12 entry states: “Willoughby soldier kill squads.” 

SILVERTHORNE: That same datebook entry says: “Silverthorne – Ft. Worth – Airport – Mexico.” The name of Silverthorne did not appear publicly until the late 1970s, when CIA officer William Harvey’s handwritten notes about the agency’s QJ/WIN assassination program were released. Silverthorne was a pilot who traveled “for a certain federal agency” to “countless countries” for “reasons best left unsaid,” according to author Albarelli’s 1996 interview with him.

ANGLETON: Listed in the datebook by his last name as well as initials (JA and JJA), the then-head of Counterintelligence for the CIA appears to have been involved in “high-level gathering in DC'' during which “Lancelot planning” was discussed. The Lancelot reference is to a plot to kill JFK. The datebook’s final mention of James Angleton,(December 5, 1963) states: “JA – CLOSE OUT LANCELOT.” Angleton’s name was not generally known until the mid-1970s, when he was forced out of the CIA following revelations that he’d organized an illegal domestic spying program. 

GEORGE W.: The several references in the datebook, including one (August 29) regarding “shipment of LSD for New Orleans & Dallas – Texas laws?” are clearly referencing George White. He was a key operative in the CIA’s top-secret MKULTRA program to control human behavior using drugs, hypnosis, and other means. He worked undercover for the same narcotics agency as Lafitte. White’s name never came to light until 1977 during a congressional investigation. 

TOM D.: Also referred to in several entries, this was Thomas Eli Davis, Jr., first mentioned in 1978 in the assassination literature as having trained anti-Castro Cubans and had been acquainted with Jack Ruby. The September 27 entry about Mexico City says: “Oswald – Comercio Hotel – meet with Tom D. at Luma.” It was stated by the Warren Commission that Oswald had been to the Comercio; the Hotel Luma was first mentioned in my 1992 book as a meeting point. The September 29 datebook implies (“Tom at embassy – done”) that Davis, who resembled Oswald, had impersonated him in visiting either the Cuban or Russian embassies in Mexico City. 

CRICHTON: The name of Jack Crichton, who was connected to Military Intelligence and arranged the first translators for Marina Oswald after the assassination, appears several times in datebook entries in advance of the assassination. 

A. L. EHRMAN: This July 30 entry clearly refers to Anita L. Ehrman, a foreign correspondent whose body was found that day in her Washington apartment. The only other reference to this appears in my 1992 book, citing a notebook seized from Richard Case Nagell by the FBI on September 20, 1963 but not released until 1975. That entry says: “ANITA L. EHRMAN. 7-30-63 WASHINGTON, D.C.” Nagell was involved with Oswald in an assassination plot. 

(Dick was careful to close with, 'assuming the datebook is authentic, the aforementioned stands.')

[Greg Doudna]

8 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

p.s. on page 576 of Coup in Dallas, the Nov 20 entry is transcribed as "Lanny-Filiol ... call Storey ... DeM ... Frank B...."

However the photograph of the Nov 20, 1963 entry has only the first three of those four names. The fourth, "Frank B", is non-existent in the photograph, and instead (where "Frank B" would be) there is something different: "Rifle into building..."

Is that a typo, or is that a relic of an earlier composition draft by the author(s), prior to the writing of that entry in the datebook, inadvertantly surviving into the published book? 
 

 

Greg, good sleuthing, and Iwon't make excuses, but suffice to say: Hank's unexpected (and personally destabilizing) death, complications with access to the datebook in the early months, Covid, and life, impacted bringing a perfectly edited version of our M/s across the finish line under pressure of the last available pub date.

Frank B here does not appear in the November 20, and yes, a relic of the pre-final edit of the M/s.  

I am looking at the original text as I type.  November 20 reads:
Lamy - Filiol at

hotel (names)

Call Storey - Duvall

DeM.—

Rifle into building —

yes/ok/DPD —

(DUUM) 

(I'm anxious to get with David J. to determine whether the last word or acronym, or string of letters is DUUM. If so, I believe I have an interpretation.)

Reference to Brandstetter appears in the October 21 entry:
 

Frank B. here - others

Jack - 1/day - MC

Thanks for this (I have added the bold above), clarifying that various pressures understandably "impacted bringing a perfectly edited version of our M/s across the finish line under pressure of the last available pub date".

But do you see, this comes close to looking like an indication of forgery.

For there is a clear, non-trivial, non-typo difference in the final element of the Nov 20, 1963 entry, between a written transcript source (call that "T") reflected in the publication of the book, and what shows in the photograph which was actually handwritten in the datebook (call that "D").

Now there are only two possible ways this can go, and the question is which was first in chronological sequence: creation of T, or creation of D?

Option #1 (D is first). In this reconstruction, D reflects handwriting of Jean-Pierre Lafitte on Nov 20, 1963. Much later, in the ca. 2000s or 2010s, someone looked at the datebook, saw with their eyes in the photo "Rifle into building —yes/ok/DPD —(DUUM)"  ... and transcribed that as "Frank B".

Is that a plausible error that anyone could easily make? Think about it. 

Or Option #2 (T is first). In preparation for a forgery, at some point well after 1963, the true author first prepared a draft of the various entries which in planning to be, at a final stage, handwritten into a 1963 calendar book with handwriting falsely purported to be that of the late Jean-Pierre Lafitte.

After planning and preparing what would be written in the datebook (making use of, in some cases, later-date-available JFK assassination lore and details, e.g. the ones identified by Dick Russell), at a final stage (not the first stage), the planned entries would be, and were, handwritten into the physical datebook by the forger.

In that process, the forger "improved" the Nov 20 entry, changing the final item for that date entry to allude to the story of Castor taking a rifle in to the TSBD on Nov 20.

However, through an oversight, the already-existing transcript or working copy, T, prepared by the forger, was not updated and not corrected by the forger to match what the forger actually wrote in the datebook for Nov 20.

Through the circumstances you describe, that discrepancy was overlooked and went undetected. No one manually at the editing stage cross-checked the forger's transcript (or copy thereof), T--which preceded the forger's writing in the datebook--to update and harmonize T with what was actually in the datebook for Nov 20.

Under this scenario, Option #2, the transcript for Nov 20 published in Coup in Dallas reflects a stage of composition development prior to when the Nov 20 entry was handwritten in the datebook. 

The very lack of editorial checking and harmonization between the two (T and D), that you have confirmed, at the point of publication of Coup in Dallas, therefore explains how the earlier stage of the forger's composition, T, survived to publication in disagreement with D, the final production of the forger.

 

In Option #1,  D precedes T, consistent with authenticity, but suffers from questionable plausibility as to mechanism of the error.

In Option #2, T precedes D, meaning forgery, with plausible mechanism/explanation for the discrepancy.

 

Disclaimer: I would not consider this point stand-alone proof of forgery in itself, considered in isolation, because I have enough experience with study of errors in handwritten copies of ancient texts to know that copyist errors can happen (Option #1).

However, I also know from experience in studying scribal copying errors the most common kinds and causes of copying errors, with names such as homeoteleuton (eye-skip due to words or phrases having the same ending); homeoarchy (eye-skip due to words or phrases having the same beginning); dittography (mistaken repetition of a sequence); transposition or metathesis (switching or reversing the order of words, or letters in a word); contamination (extraneous element from elsewhere mistakenly copied on the page); and deliberate alteration (copyist acts as editor to correct and improve the original) ... and the discrepancy under consideration in this case is not one of those.

The problem here is the error which must be supposed in Option #1 (consistent with authenticity of D) does not easily fall into a common and known cause or kind of copying error.

Defenders of Option #1 should seriously consider how such an error in copying could occur like that, and if there is no good explanation, compare that to the ease or natural explanation for the discrepancy under the scenario of #2, forgery.  

So while not decisive (to me), this error does look funny, and is on a continuum with other things suggestive of suspected forgery. 

Although I do not regard this point as ultimately decisive, and others' individual judgments may vary, all else being equal I believe this point adds weight in favor of the datebook being a forgery, rather than authenticity.  

I also add this: if Option #2 is true, then it is a forgery; that is evidence of forgery. If it is Option #1, it could be authentic (it would be consistent with it being authentic) but that is not positive evidence that it is authentic.  

[Andrej Stancak]

My concern regarding Lafitte's datebook is also that of authenticity of the document. The JFKA case has been badly damaged by false data and made-up stories, hence the reluctance to jump in on Albarelli's account of Lafitte's datebook. 

However, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.

It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

 

Even the enhanced version of this record does not allow unequivocal interpretation of some of the words or syllables, e.g., the one highlighted with arrow.  Why the word "buiding" (?) is missing an "l"?  Is this misspelling consistent across the datebook? How frequent was it and in which records did it occur?

My point is that the datebook needed to be scanned with the highest possible resolution in the first place, and if it has not been done yet, a new scan is required. Referring to my notes above, the datebook would preferably be in possession of the NARA (in the best case) and a high-resolution copy of the datebook needs to be available to the public. Before reading about a widespread conspiracy involving Nazi elements, I would first like to analyse the primary evidence.  

 

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by Andrej Stancak

[Guest Doug Campbell]

@Leslie Sharp A question, Ma'am: Have you yourself ever actually seen the datebook in person? Held it in your hands?

Edited July 29, 2023 by Doug Campbell

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

My concern regarding Lafitte's datebook is also that of authenticity of the document. The JFKA case has been badly damaged by false data and made-up stories, hence the reluctance to jump in on Albarelli's account of Lafitte's datebook. 

However, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.

It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

 

Even the enhanced version of this record does not allow unequivocal interpretation of some of the words or syllables, e.g., the one highlighted with arrow.  Why the word "buiding" (?) is missing an "l"?  Is this misspelling consistent across the datebook? How frequent was it and in which records did it occur?

My point is that the datebook needed to be scanned with the highest possible resolution in the first place, and if it has not been done yet, a new scan is required. Referring to my notes above, the datebook would preferably be in possession of the NARA (in the best case) and a high-resolution copy of the datebook needs to be available to the public. Before reading about a widespread conspiracy involving Nazi elements, I would first like to analyse the primary evidence.  

 

 

 

 

That first word is "Rifles"? Really?

Why does the "R" look like the "f"? And is that an an "R"? 

And yes, bare minimum standard is the securing of the datebook to an independent and audited location. 

 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thanks for this (I have added the bold above), clarifying that various pressures understandably "impacted bringing a perfectly edited version of our M/s across the finish line under pressure of the last available pub date".

But do you see, this comes close to looking like an indication of forgery.

For there is a clear, non-trivial, non-typo difference in the final element of the Nov 20, 1963 entry, between a written transcript source (call that "T") reflected in the publication of the book, and what shows in the photograph which was actually handwritten in the datebook (call that "D").

Now there are only two possible ways this can go, and the question is which was first in chronological sequence: creation of T, or creation of D?

Option #1 (D is first). In this reconstruction, D reflects handwriting of Jean-Pierre Lafitte on Nov 20, 1963. Much later, in the ca. 2000s or 2010s, someone looked at the datebook, saw with their eyes in the photo "Rifle into building —yes/ok/DPD —(DUUM)"  ... and transcribed that as "Frank B".

Is that a plausible error that anyone could easily make? Think about it. 

Or Option #2 (T is first). In preparation for a forgery, at some point well after 1963, the true author first prepared a draft of the various entries which in planning to be, at a final stage, handwritten into a 1963 calendar book with handwriting falsely purported to be that of the late Jean-Pierre Lafitte.

After planning and preparing what would be written in the datebook (making use of, in some cases, later-date-available JFK assassination lore and details, e.g. the ones identified by Dick Russell), at a final stage (not the first stage), the planned entries would be, and were, handwritten into the physical datebook by the forger.

In that process, the forger "improved" the Nov 20 entry, changing the final item for that date entry to allude to the story of Castor taking a rifle in to the TSBD on Nov 20.

However, through an oversight, the already-existing transcript or working copy, T, prepared by the forger, was not updated and not corrected by the forger to match what the forger actually wrote in the datebook for Nov 20.

Through the circumstances you describe, that discrepancy was overlooked and went undetected. No one manually at the editing stage cross-checked the forger's transcript (or copy thereof), T--which preceded the forger's writing in the datebook--to update and harmonize T with what was actually in the datebook for Nov 20.

Under this scenario, Option #2, the transcript for Nov 20 published in Coup in Dallas reflects a stage of composition development prior to when the Nov 20 entry was handwritten in the datebook. 

The very lack of editorial checking and harmonization between the two (T and D), that you have confirmed, at the point of publication of Coup in Dallas, therefore explains how the earlier stage of the forger's composition, T, survived to publication in disagreement with D, the final production of the forger.

 

In Option #1,  D precedes T, consistent with authenticity, but suffers from questionable plausibility as to mechanism of the error.

In Option #2, T precedes D, meaning forgery, with plausible mechanism/explanation for the discrepancy.

 

Disclaimer: I would not consider this point stand-alone proof of forgery in itself, considered in isolation, because I have enough experience with study of errors in handwritten copies of ancient texts to know that copyist errors can happen (Option #1).

However, I also know from experience in studying scribal copying errors the most common kinds and causes of copying errors, with names such as homeoteleuton (eye-skip due to words or phrases having the same ending); homeoarchy (eye-skip due to words or phrases having the same beginning); dittography (mistaken repetition of a sequence); transposition or metathesis (switching or reversing the order of words, or letters in a word); contamination (extraneous element from elsewhere mistakenly copied on the page); and deliberate alteration (copyist acts as editor to correct and improve the original) ... and the discrepancy under consideration in this case is not one of those.

The problem here is the error which must be supposed in Option #1 (consistent with authenticity of D) does not easily fall into a common and known cause or kind of copying error.

Defenders of Option #1 should seriously consider how such an error in copying could occur like that, and if there is no good explanation, compare that to the ease or natural explanation for the discrepancy under the scenario of #2, forgery.  

So while not decisive (to me), this error does look funny, and is on a continuum with other things suggestive of suspected forgery. 

Although I do not regard this point as ultimately decisive, and others' individual judgments may vary, all else being equal I believe this point adds weight in favor of the datebook being a forgery, rather than authenticity.  

I also add this: if Option #2 is true, then it is a forgery; that is evidence of forgery. If it is Option #1, it could be authentic (it would be consistent with it being authentic) but that is not positive evidence that it is authentic.  

@Greg Doudna

Would you please respond to my question:

 Have you crossed paths with Valery Aginsky?

[Leslie Sharp]

7 hours ago, Doug Campbell said:

@Leslie Sharp A question, Ma'am: Have you yourself ever actually seen the datebook in person? Held it in your hands?

@Doug Campbell Yes. and Yes, as have more than a dozen respected researchers and authors in addition to all interested attendees at the Chris Gallop day-conference in November 2022, and all interested attendees at the David Denton Historic Group in Dallas, November 2022.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

11 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

My concern regarding Lafitte's datebook is also that of authenticity of the document. The JFKA case has been badly damaged by false data and made-up stories, hence the reluctance to jump in on Albarelli's account of Lafitte's datebook. 

However, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.

It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

 

Even the enhanced version of this record does not allow unequivocal interpretation of some of the words or syllables, e.g., the one highlighted with arrow.  Why the word "buiding" (?) is missing an "l"?  Is this misspelling consistent across the datebook? How frequent was it and in which records did it occur?

My point is that the datebook needed to be scanned with the highest possible resolution in the first place, and if it has not been done yet, a new scan is required. Referring to my notes above, the datebook would preferably be in possession of the NARA (in the best case) and a high-resolution copy of the datebook needs to be available to the public. Before reading about a widespread conspiracy involving Nazi elements, I would first like to analyse the primary evidence.  

 

 

 

 

We used the original as the source for what you see published in Coup in Dallas. 

You are welcome to your own interpretation, but the entry reads as I've presented.

DUUM is Latin for the French word "deux".  Lafitte (fluent in French, btw) is noting that two rifles are in the building. on November 20.

[Ron Bulman]

On 7/28/2023 at 12:09 AM, Ron Bulman said:

Then we have the datebook, 60 years ago today.  George, OS talk . . . to Stockdale about P Graham.  This is from the abbreviated notes on page 575.  I think the full quote mentioned Olson.  

Then seven days later owner, publisher, editor of the Washington Post commits suicide with a shotgun.  After some unusual behavior in previous weeks.

Philip Graham, 48, Publisher, a Suicide (nytimes.com)

Speaking of George (Hunter-White),since he's mentioned in the datebook more than once, and, he was an associate of Pierre Laffite, who reputedly introduced him to James Jesus Angleton, I think I'll park this article on him I stumbled across yesterday here.

The Diaries Of a CIA Operative - The Washington Post

[Leslie Sharp]

11 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

My concern regarding Lafitte's datebook is also that of authenticity of the document. The JFKA case has been badly damaged by false data and made-up stories, hence the reluctance to jump in on Albarelli's account of Lafitte's datebook. 

However, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.

It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

 

Even the enhanced version of this record does not allow unequivocal interpretation of some of the words or syllables, e.g., the one highlighted with arrow.  Why the word "buiding" (?) is missing an "l"?  Is this misspelling consistent across the datebook? How frequent was it and in which records did it occur?

My point is that the datebook needed to be scanned with the highest possible resolution in the first place, and if it has not been done yet, a new scan is required. Referring to my notes above, the datebook would preferably be in possession of the NARA (in the best case) and a high-resolution copy of the datebook needs to be available to the public. Before reading about a widespread conspiracy involving Nazi elements, I would first like to analyse the primary evidence.  

 

 

 

 

@Andrej Stancak It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

I appreciate your remarks, and it's understandable that anyone following the assassination research would have a subjective feeling about what is right or wrong in this field of inquiry:

I've asked myself:

1) Why hasn't the Robert Kennedy family allowed access to the files he accumulated during his private investigation into who killed his brother?

2) Why haven't expert(s) on Win Scott published the remaining diaries in his private collection?  A single reference is made in Our Man in Mexico to Scott's post as the Western European division of Office of Special Operations "overseeing all espionage operations collecting intelligence in the friendly nations of West Germany, France, and Great Britain.: We know now that the machinations of Madrid-based Otto Skorzeny crossed Win's desk in the early years of the Cold War. 

3) Why hasn't the DC attorney(s) made available to the "community" writ large the Shaw/Fensterwald records and research on Jean Rene Souetre provided to the HSCA?

4) How many private archives sit idle?

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

35 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Speaking of George (Hunter-White),since he's mentioned in the datebook more than once, and, he was an associate of Pierre Laffite, who reputedly introduced him to James Jesus Angleton, I think I'll park this article on him I stumbled across yesterday here.

The Diaries Of a CIA Operative - The Washington Post

Great find, Ron.

fwiw, I've long thought that Hank became intrigued by Hunter White much much earlier than he indicated in ATM.  Hank was hired as investigator for Carter's Office of Personnel early in the administration, 1977. This WaPo article on Hunter White came out in September. Hank would have been in a position to develop long-term relationships in DC during those four years.

[Leslie Sharp]

12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

My concern regarding Lafitte's datebook is also that of authenticity of the document. The JFKA case has been badly damaged by false data and made-up stories, hence the reluctance to jump in on Albarelli's account of Lafitte's datebook. 

However, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.

It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

 

Even the enhanced version of this record does not allow unequivocal interpretation of some of the words or syllables, e.g., the one highlighted with arrow.  Why the word "buiding" (?) is missing an "l"?  Is this misspelling consistent across the datebook? How frequent was it and in which records did it occur?

My point is that the datebook needed to be scanned with the highest possible resolution in the first place, and if it has not been done yet, a new scan is required. Referring to my notes above, the datebook would preferably be in possession of the NARA (in the best case) and a high-resolution copy of the datebook needs to be available to the public. Before reading about a widespread conspiracy involving Nazi elements, I would first like to analyse the primary evidence.  

 

 

 

 

@Andrej Stancak Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

We worked with (and continue to) the original datebook.

Can you expand on why this particular entry may be relevant to your perspective — your reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald?

[Leslie Sharp]

12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

My concern regarding Lafitte's datebook is also that of authenticity of the document. The JFKA case has been badly damaged by false data and made-up stories, hence the reluctance to jump in on Albarelli's account of Lafitte's datebook. 

However, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.

It feels wrong that Lafitte's family and Albarelli could decide which records to show to the public and which not. What if anything in unpublished parts of the datebook would be of greater importance than the published records? What if any of the records would shed new light on Lafitte's role in the assassination case? Also, the unpublished entries could help to verify the integrity of the datebook as such.

Finally, I am not convinced that deciphering of the handwritten records from the comparatively poor quality records was accurate enough. Here is an example of one record which I find to be the most relevant from the perspective of my reasoning of who was behind the shooting and fabricating evidence to frame Lee Oswald:

 

Even the enhanced version of this record does not allow unequivocal interpretation of some of the words or syllables, e.g., the one highlighted with arrow.  Why the word "buiding" (?) is missing an "l"?  Is this misspelling consistent across the datebook? How frequent was it and in which records did it occur?

My point is that the datebook needed to be scanned with the highest possible resolution in the first place, and if it has not been done yet, a new scan is required. Referring to my notes above, the datebook would preferably be in possession of the NARA (in the best case) and a high-resolution copy of the datebook needs to be available to the public. Before reading about a widespread conspiracy involving Nazi elements, I would first like to analyse the primary evidence.  

 

 

 

 

@Andrej StancakHowever, the JFK assassination is still an open criminal case and it should be possible to ask the law-enforcement institutions (e.g., the FBI) to solicit the datebook from Lafitte's family on evidentiary grounds. As it is related to the JFK assassination, the NARA should eventually get hold of it. Either it is a piece of evidence in a criminal case and it then needs to be taken seriously and consequantially, or it is not a piece of legally relevant evidence.
 

I've given serious consideration to the question of subpoenas and have in fact sought legal counsel related to the possibility of a civil suit.

 Please see my previous comment that lists three  specific instances that in my view warrant similar consideration.  Perhaps a class action civil suit for a long list of repositories of possible evidence is in order. Would you like to spearhead the effort?

1) Why hasn't the Robert Kennedy family allowed access to the files he accumulated during his private investigation into who killed his brother? Isn't RFK Jr. now in the prime position to advance interest in this cold case investigation? Coup was edited by the same editor, published by the same publisher on the same date as Robert's Fauci book. I think Albarelli would have been especially impressed by that particular High Strangeness and Synchronicity.

2) Why haven't expert(s) on Win Scott published the remaining diaries in his private collection?  A single reference is made in Our Man in Mexico to Scott's post as the Western European division of Office of Special Operations "overseeing all espionage operations collecting intelligence in the friendly nations of West Germany, France, and Great Britain.: We know now that the machinations of Madrid-based Otto Skorzeny crossed Win's desk in the early years of the Cold War. 

3) Why hasn't the DC attorney(s) made available to the "community" writ large the Shaw/Fensterwald records and research on Jean Rene Souetre provided to the HSCA?


Until then, this datebook remains private property.

We are, however, considering publication of a facsimile of the datebook as a summpluent to Hank's Coup in Dallas because as an American who is watching the possible death knell of our democracy because we didn't "solve this cold case murder investigation decades ago," this evidence should be in the public domain. I've remained faithful to Hank's commitment to his sources; they have abandoned the datebook; I trust he will understand the position I'm now in and will support this next step. 

If the facsimile project progresses, the question becomes: have I actually weakened its impact, its admissibility as "metaphorical" evidence?  

Edited July 29, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

16 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Leslie would it be possible for you to stop further deflecting (most recently on my east Texas personal history, as if trying to make that some focus of attention, as if that is relevant) and at long last say straight, who is the legal owner of the datebook? 

And, who would financially benefit if, hypothetically, the legal owner were to choose to sell it?

Do you have a financial interest in the appraisal value of the datebook (the physical item), affected by whether it is authentic or forged? 

I will make a trade, Greg.  You cease with insinuations that I'm attempting to profit from a fraud perpetrated on me by Hank perpetrated on him by a "conman," and I'll resist publicly positing my questions/hypothesis related to your history and motivations.

Have you crossed paths with Valery Aginsky?

Edited July 29, 2023 by Leslie Sharp