Getting Down to the Nuts and Bolts ... and the question of Cubans in "direct capacities"

[Leslie Sharp]

10 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Let's ask this Ben... what attributes of the datebook would convince you it was inauthentic given that the physical attributes have been proven to be of the time period?  Not trying to prove a negative... just that authentication of the time period, utensils, etc, does not authenticate the "when" of the writing if done not long after 1963...  yet as I begin my journey, there is little reason to suspect it being an act of counter-intelligence...  One doesn't redirect an investigation by providing more clues, names and dates than has ever come before due to the chances of finding conflicts...  so to my point here...

Off the top of my head:

Statements on dates which create a conflict with known fact - for example, the datebook places Oswald in Mexico meeting a man on the 27th... but that's all.  I have proven Oswald was not at the 2 compounds or the hotel but did not exclude the possibility he is flown in and out of Mexico after meeting with ODIO in Dallas.  There is an explanation which accounts for both sets of understood facts - and for why we know nothing about Oswald between Sept 28 and Oct 3.  Worse yet, the first FBI report which identifies where Oswald went is from KAACK dated Oct 31st. - as if they were completely unaware of the Paines and Irving from the 4th thru the entire month...  As if they were not aware of where he gets a job and what he was doing in Dallas when the FBI - due to the CIA BS - puts him in Mexico all week

Including newly introduced names just to add credibility - but see #1 - Werbel, McWillie, Walker, Oswald, JJA, Souetre, Willoughby, Davis, Ella R, Tracy Barnes, Joannides, Skorzeny, Martello, Quigley, OSARN, Silverthorne, Jack Ruby, Oswald "caretaker", George DeM, Ilya Skorzeny, Bowen/Osborne, Hudson, Jack C, Filiol (assassin), Tippit, ...

Yet many if not most of these are names which are at best, at the fringes of the narrative most of us have been working with for years...  yet are all names we know and which make sense in the narrative of the assassination and the shadows of the conspiracy.

Another authentication thought remains in the fact LaFitte and White both kept datebooks and notes on other projects.. What concerns me is whether that is in fact true and how do these other pages compare to the year 1963 notes.  If LaFitte has a number of these books from over the years, I'd be more inclined to accept the authenticity more readily.  From the reading Hank appears to be making that point - only a portion of his "notes" were allowed to be seen from a much larger collection.

@Leslie Sharp  it is hard enough to get members here to internalize the facts about the rifle for example.  The items of evidence are all props and easily proven to be inauthentic yet arguments persist about the details.   I doubt many of us have handled any of the evidence we so freely write about... some have.  I cannot see how this item of evidence can be 100% authenticated.

Yet as raised above Ben, if this is some elaborate hoax designed to steer us away from the JFK conspiracy realities, it begs for item by item verification - if anything it makes us look harder at areas the CIA/FBI/et al have kept under lock and key over 60 years.  Joannides is a prime example.  Most of us never heard of LaFitte or Liliol.

So how about we take some time and address this with logic and the collective knowledge of the members, rather than dismiss it due to our own historical prejudices against the disproving of one's work and/or ideas about the case?

 

 

 

 

@David Josephs Statements on dates which create a conflict with known fact - for example, the datebook places Oswald in Mexico meeting a man on the 27th... but that's all.  I have proven Oswald was not at the 2 compounds or the hotel but did not exclude the possibility he is flown in and out of Mexico after meeting with ODIO in Dallas.  There is an explanation which accounts for both sets of understood facts - and for why we know nothing about Oswald between Sept 28 and Oct 3.  Worse yet, the first FBI report which identifies where Oswald went is from KAACK dated Oct 31st. - as if they were completely unaware of the Paines and Irving from the 4th thru the entire month...  As if they were not aware of where he gets a job and what he was doing in Dallas when the FBI - due to the CIA BS - puts him in Mexico all week

I won't try to force a round peg in a square hole, but since I've not studied your research pls don't be offended if I reserve judgement.  In doing so, I'll qualify my responses with "let's assume" you have proven:

The entry in question is;
(hashtag doodle) Algur - Mex City

Ilya

—— Oswald - Comercio Hotel to

meet with Tom D. at Luma

T says Yes 

 

Let's consider that Lafitte isn't writing in the past tense, e.g., Oswald was at the Comercio Hotel and then met Tom Davis at Hotel Luna.

Lafitte is making a note about a future appt.  Do we know, from Lafitte's notes, that Oswald checked into the Comercio? No.  Do we know, from Lafitte's notes, that he met Tom Davis at Broglie's Hotel Luma? No.

So far, so good; however, Hank  interviewed witnesses to corroborate that Lee Oswald — the Oswald that Lafitte had been assigned to track in New Orleans (whether personally or contracted out) — was seen in Mexico City.  Carolyn Hawley Davis, Thomas Eli Davis's wife told Hank she recognized him and knew that he was someone Tom had known in the past; June Cobb confirmed with Hank that the story Elena Garo and her daughter recounted was consistent and convincing. June had also seen Tom D. around town and made a remark that Oswald and Tom must have made an interesting pair.  Note: June has been much maligned by the community, beginning as I recall by John Newman.  I can, at a later date, share Hank's experience during that particular dynamic. Suffice to say that June's credibility remained solid as far as Hank was concerned.  Unfortunately, there is a document stored somewhere that might clear up some of the controversy but thus far the person in possession hasn't made the document public, contrary to an assurance that he would, eventually.
 

So, with the witness testimony in mind, can we move to your research/proof that Oswald wasn't in MC?

1) do you know where he was if he wasn't in Mexico City during the days in question?

We have him traveling on September 26. And, he is definitely (according to Pierre) in Dallas by October 6.  the notes in between related to Bowen and [Wilson] Hudson, school cover in Mexico, Tom at Embassy, done, money from Dallas and Davis-MX City, here next week?, then, cable to Madrid ok, tell Tom D Says come to Madrid, then, Askins/Willoughby ok, Caretaker at 10:30, and finally, October 6, Oswald — issue (!) check with caretaker . . .

2) if Oswald flew to MC, do you know for what purpose, where he might have stayed, was it a turnaround? etc. 

 

We occasionally bumped against the possibility that several of the "Oswald" entries could very well refer to Victor Oswald, Madrid-based international arms dealer with Otto Skorzeny. We see the name Oswald in three more entries before your SA Milton Kaack* document on October 31: October 9, October 17, and October 25. The 17th entry indicates that Angleton had contacted Pierre the day before to say a high level gather in DC had taken place, that Lancelot as a "go" and "ok", followed by Oswald - others;  the 25th says that Oswald is set in place.

Does this detail on these dates contradict your research/proof? Is it possible this is filling in some gaps? 

And does it behove us to consider as you posit that an Oswald different from the fella in New Orleans who was initially being tracked by Lafitte traveled to MC and Lafitte simply didn't make the distinction in his datebook?

Of note, On August 26, Lafitte notes: Oswald — bank?  M — meet T.  A note above the date banner reads Passport (3).  Does that align with any dates/detail you have? And then as we've noted, Oswald is mentioned on September 22 Oswald - Mex City Gaudet? and September 24 Oswald D/T (Labadie/Florida) W.J.

*Kaack appears in the datebook on July 30.
 

Edited July 25, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[David Josephs]

7 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I won't try to force a round peg in a square hole, but since I've not studied your research pls don't be offended if I reserve judgement.

The real possibility exists that between Sept 27th and Oct 3rd - when we have no information regarding his whereabouts other than his being in Dallas the evening of the 26th and in Dallas Oct 3rd/4th - the man Ruby killed was in Mexico, by some means other than bus or commercial transportation, and back in Dallas by the 3rd.

I am confident about Oswald not having been in Mexico in contact with the Cuban or Russian embassy, or interacting with anyone based on these reports and the fact the FBI hides these reports in plain sight within their index of documents. (see below)  The office of Mexican Interior, the Gobernacion where the FBI has the highest placed asset, Hernandez OCHOA also chimes in on Nov 8th with a "No Info"... when we all know finding evidence of Oswald in Mexico would be of huge advantage after 11/22 in cementing his legacy.

But that did not happen, and there remains more evidence it was not Oswald at the consulates than there is evidence of him being there.

But as you wrote about the datebook evidence, this does not prove little Oswald did not fly in and out to meet with Tom Davis as I'd have to doubt the FBI would be let in on such a meeting.

The note says 10:30... am or pm on the 27th ?  The real problem about the 27th is that the morning calls were in Spanish and should have been given to Mrs. Tarasoff, not Boris for translation as he was only Russian.  In a memo focusing on the transcripts of the 28th and Oct 1st - the CIA gives us this...  Only the Russian consulate/embassy was recorded with once again the question of "where does this person get the # for the Soviet Military Attache?" which is used in a subsequent call when "Oswald" first uses it then is asked to call back at the correct #.

The report below is not talking about Oswald.  And Duran tells us after the morning photo shoot and application, Oswald did not come back.  It is the after 4pm transcripts which begin to create the needed associations and are the beginning of a series of faked calls, phony stories and wild accusations.

Yet none of this makes his meeting Tom Davis impossible on the 27th.  Nor does it conflict with his not being seen in Mexico City by scores of informants and assets as if I have the hotel correctly, it is about 20 miles south of the Cuban Consulate and the Hotel del Comercio.

Bottom line - there is no conflict if he is quietly in and out...  my concern is the sources are Tom's wife, and June Cobb...  now while I can appreciate her dealing with Hank in a "credible" way, all that I know about June Cobb is not reassuring...  She remained one of the most staunch supporters of the bogus "rave party" story when there was already bad blood between de PAZ's and the Duran's. 

A 1965 interview with Sra. de PAZ (RIF 104-10013-10087 provided by Malcolm Blunt and probably not available online) :

She believes that the date of the party was about September 2 or 3  , 1963.  It was a few days before the visit of the Soviet astronaut, Gagarin. She believes it was a Monday or Tuesday because It was an odd night to have a party. 

  The report goes on to say she names everyone at this party - quite a list - yet only COBB and Tom's wife have said for sure he was in Mexico.  

That would be my only problem at this point...  Hank believing June Cobb, and the very short list of corroborating witnesses to the Davis meet and/or seeing Oswald.

But as I say, nothing which makes either set of facts conflicting.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Ben - The very fact we have W. Harvey's handwritten notes on ZR/RIFLE should be enough to counter the idea Spies didn't write incriminating and potentially illegal activities and plans down.  And I'm pretty sure we've never encountered anyone like Lafitte or his teams before.

Usually a "fraud" like this is designed to lead people away from conspirators, not name more, unless the idea is to bury them in BS so they don't find the real culprits - yet in this case we have more names to investigate while at the same time we see, if this is correct, the entirety of the events from that day forward to the WCR is simply dripping with nothing but diversion and fraud - which we knew - but now we can know who the possible players and activities leading up to the event, being covered up, were.  The medical/physical evidence cover-up, perpetrated by the Military/SS/FBI, is the other piece of the puzzle making it forever impossible to ever know what exactly happened.

I think it remains in our best interest to assume it is authentic and proceed from there with verification of content...  if not authentic we need a reason to feel that way, and so far, I see no reason other than the conflict it creates with others whose work depends on this being determined a fraud.

I ask you - what if the events are all real but the book is determined a fraud...  how does that change this new batch of leads and conclusions?

I think it remains in our best interest to assume it is authentic and proceed from there with verification of content--DJ

DJ---We are on different pages on this one.

I would like to see a seasoned board of independent, objective document examiners and JFKA experts review the properly sequestered datebook, without fear or favor. 

I am entirely open to the idea of the CIA making heavy use of Nazis and former Nazis, and that such elements may have run their own ops, through devious methods, or lack of good oversight. 

Side note: Bill Harvey suffered from hubris (to put it mildly). Also alcoholism. He might be the sort of exception who violates even mediocre spy-craft. I doubt Harvey was a good spy or anything else. 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 7/15/2023 at 5:23 PM, Paul Brancato said:

First sentence - what did Lafitte and Angleton correspond about and when? Did I miss this in Coup in Dallas? Do you have the documents? 

Paul, maybe you've seen this by now but this is from the first page of this thread about 2/3 of the way down.  I don't remember seeing it in Coup.  There are more relevant comments about this as the post goes on, and, a few more throughout the thread.  As I understand it now, there were two notes to JJA from Laffite.  Leslie has a fading, delicate copy of one, a copy of the other, the one on the first page is somewhere in Hank's files.  It talks about not using Cubans as shooters, an assassin named Ostrich who was not used.  This was after the assassination.

Maybe Leslie will correct me or elaborate.

From: Hank Albarelli  
Date: January 16, 2019 at 7:06:54 AM EST
To: dickr
Subject: Note to Angleton

There's a very interesting post-assassination note to Angleton from Lafitte (this from [you] the Angleton family member)

that points up two things: there was an assassin referred to as "Ostrich" that Lafitte agrees w/Angleton as being very good

(but seemingly not used in Dallas) and Lafitte agrees w/Angleton on the merits of having not used cubans in "direct

capacities." I'm pretty certain I knoqw who Ostrich is/was but will only say once I'm absolutely there.

 

[Ron Bulman]

I've been going to note somewhere for several days something I came across in the end notes for A Secret Order.  Chapter Two, pg. 431.  "Authors files, authors interviews with Phen Laffite, Miami, 1999-2007."

I'm guessing this is Pierre's son?  So, Hank remained on cordial enough terms to maintain ongoing interviews with Phen for eight years.  Maybe a level of trust developed over that time between them.

It seems Hank wasn't in the search for the Truth for short term fame or fortune.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Ron Bulman

[Leslie Sharp]

On 7/30/2023 at 9:49 PM, Ron Bulman said:

I've been going to note somewhere for several days something I came across in the end notes for A Secret Order.  Chapter Two, pg. 431.  "Authors files, authors interviews with Phen Laffite, Miami, 1999-2007."

I'm guessing this is Pierre's son?  So, Hank remained on cordial enough terms to maintain ongoing interviews with Phen for eight years.  Maybe a level of trust developed over that time between them.

It seems Hank wasn't in the search for the Truth for short term fame or fortune.

Ron, that was my experience of Hank.  The producer of the anticipated documentary based on Coup in Dallas told me, and Hank, that he believed Hank would win a Pulitzer. Not only did it not phase Hank, he scoffed.  He was the personification of humility, and I assure you, he didn't achieve financial fortune in his lifetime; his fortune was a  profession he was committed, respect of his peers, and his loving family including those grandsons he was utterly besotted by.

Phen, as noted also in several references in ATM, was his primary source following Rene Lafitte's death in 2000.  So, he interacted with her over the next 18 years; it was as I said, a fragile dynamic because she was only honoring Rene's wishes and not entirely enthusiastic about the project herself.

Edited August 1, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

On 7/24/2023 at 7:12 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Paul, maybe you've seen this by now but this is from the first page of this thread about 2/3 of the way down.  I don't remember seeing it in Coup.  There are more relevant comments about this as the post goes on, and, a few more throughout the thread.  As I understand it now, there were two notes to JJA from Laffite.  Leslie has a fading, delicate copy of one, a copy of the other, the one on the first page is somewhere in Hank's files.  It talks about not using Cubans as shooters, an assassin named Ostrich who was not used.  This was after the assassination.

Maybe Leslie will correct me or elaborate.

From: Hank Albarelli  
Date: January 16, 2019 at 7:06:54 AM EST
To: dickr
Subject: Note to Angleton

There's a very interesting post-assassination note to Angleton from Lafitte (this from [you] the Angleton family member)

that points up two things: there was an assassin referred to as "Ostrich" that Lafitte agrees w/Angleton as being very good

(but seemingly not used in Dallas) and Lafitte agrees w/Angleton on the merits of having not used cubans in "direct

capacities." I'm pretty certain I knoqw who Ostrich is/was but will only say once I'm absolutely there.

 

Sorry, Ron.  I thought I had responded to this; perhaps on another thread?

I shared Hank's note in response to the hypothesis that a large cadre of Cuban nationals might have played significant roles in Dallas.  I think the note speaks for itself, but I'm glad to expand on it if you're interested.

We've since identified a primary candidate for OSTRICH, from a document dated mid 1940s which references both Otto Skorzeny and Gerard Litt - LaMalice and LaCagoule, and identified in Pierre Lafitte's 1963 datebook.

[Leslie Sharp]

On 7/24/2023 at 7:11 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

I think it remains in our best interest to assume it is authentic and proceed from there with verification of content--DJ

DJ---We are on different pages on this one.

I would like to see a seasoned board of independent, objective document examiners and JFKA experts review the properly sequestered datebook, without fear or favor. 

I am entirely open to the idea of the CIA making heavy use of Nazis and former Nazis, and that such elements may have run their own ops, through devious methods, or lack of good oversight. 

Side note: Bill Harvey suffered from hubris (to put it mildly). Also alcoholism. He might be the sort of exception who violates even mediocre spy-craft. I doubt Harvey was a good spy or anything else. 

 

 

Benjamin, as noted elsewhere, a number of JFKA experts have held the datebook; among them, a select few have the full PDF of the entries.  They are all currently bound by Non-Disclosure. We anticipate a softcover edition of Coup, after which the NDA will be lifted, unless and until the authentication process is completed first, at which time every skeptic will have to deal with their unfounded "skepticism" as they see fit. 

[Leslie Sharp]

Returning to the nuts and bolts, 

 

By September 12, the name Askins has surfaced in Lafitte's realm.  Charles "Boots" Askins, notorious award-winning marksman and fire-arms expert is under consideration.

Two days later, the name Canon appears for the first time.  Cactus Jack Canon, a Texas-born trained marksman who ran Gen. Willoughby's "K. Org." in Korea, is on the radar for Lancelot Project, the plan to murder Kennedy in Dallas.

 

Wedged between these two references is the name Rudel.  The prime candidate is SS Stuka Pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel who had recently filed one of dozens of visa applications he sought during the Cold War.  He was declined, and then suddenly, overnight, the visa was approved so that he could attend a conference at Wright Patterson slated for the first quarter of October.

[Evan Marshall]

I knew Charley Askins and never heard him called Boots. All the contempary  gun writers I've talked to never heard it either. Naming an operation to murder JFK of Camelot fame as "Lancelot" is simply stupid. As I've said before I've had three books published and am currently working three more and none of them have anything to do with JFK. I have no interest in writing such a book and have satisfied myself that elements of JM Wave and anti-Castro Cubans were involved. Met and talked to a Vietnam era sniper who was bought in as unneeded backup and a Green Beret Master Breecher who informed me the car parked by the underpass was full of explosives in case JFK reached that point alive. There was AND is all sorts of "talent" in this country to perform the task and the actual name of the operation was "Black Crows". I find Tipping Point the most credible book.

And I learned as a Homicide copper that confidential informants are never identified. Don't believe me? I really don't care because I'm not trying to entice folks buy my JFK book because there won't be one!

Edited August 2, 2023 by Evan Marshall

[Jonathan Cohen]

17 minutes ago, Evan Marshall said:

Met and talked to a Vietnam era sniper who was bought in as unneeded backup and a Green Beret Master Breecher who informed me the car parked by the underpass was full of explosives in case JFK reached that point alive.

To which specific car parked by the underpass are you referring?

[Evan Marshall]

 

he did nod id just that it was there and they didn't care if Jackie ended up dead too!

[Charles Blackmon]

1 minute ago, Evan Marshall said:

 

he did nod id just that it was there and they didn't care if Jackie ended up dead too!

If it came to that (blowing up the explosive-laden car) I guess the perps really did not care that everyone would see that there was a conspiracy. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

6 minutes ago, Evan Marshall said:

he did nod id just that it was there and they didn't care if Jackie ended up dead too!

Is there any actual evidence to support the notion that such a car was parked by the Triple Underpass?

[Evan Marshall]

The anti-Castro Cubans weren't worried about what people thought as long as JFK was publicly murdered