The Pierre Lafitte Datebook: A Fake?

[Mark Knight]

The Torbitt document has never been verified. Like the datebook, its provenance has never been established.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

The Torbitt document has never been verified. Like the datebook, its provenance has never been established.

MK-

Verily. 

But I think the onus is on purveyors of sensational new documents to prove authenticity, beyond reasonable doubt. And pretty hard-core reasonable doubt.  

The onus is not on the JFKA research community to prove a new document is fake. 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Michael Griffith writes:

Quote

Leslie, can you just give us a brief summary (i.e., just a few sentences) of what has been done to authenticate the datebook?

That's a reasonable question, but you might be waiting some time for even a brief summary, let alone a comprehensive account. The difficulty of extracting any useful information is worrying.

As far as I can tell, there have been two attempts to authenticate the document, both of which are incomplete and neither of which has succeeded. Whether there are plans to complete these attempts, or to arrange a third attempt, we don't know.

Whether each attempt was made by the same group of experts, or by a separate group of experts, we don't know. Two names have been put forward, though whether each of these two experts examined the ink or the paper or the handwriting, we don't know. Exactly what these two experts concluded, we don't know.

The second attempt at authentication was apparently commissioned by a film company. What the identity of this film company is, we don't know. Where in the world the company is based, we don't know. Whether the film company has made, or intends to make, a film about the datebook or the theory that's based on the datebook, we don't know.

Worryingly, everyone involved appears to be gagged by a non-disclosure agreement. The gagging order seems to apply to the film company's attempt at authentication, but whether it also applies to the original attempt at authentication, we don't know.

What justification there is for imposing a non-disclosure agreement on the examination of what is claimed to be a very significant piece of evidence in a very important unsolved murder case, we don't know. How any sort of gagging order assists in establishing the authenticity of a document, we don't know.

Why the document has been kept out of public view, and why the results of its examination have also been kept out of public view, we don't know, but we can have a pretty good guess.

On the current state of evidence, the datebook appears to be a fake, and a potentially dangerous fake too, since it could be used to undermine serious efforts to find out the truth of the assassination.

Incidentally, this thread is the appropriate one in which to discuss the possible (note the question mark in the title) inauthenticity of the datebook.

[Benjamin Cole]

39 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Michael Griffith writes:

That's a reasonable question, but you might be waiting some time for even a brief summary, let alone a comprehensive account. The difficulty of extracting any useful information is worrying.

As far as I can tell, there have been two attempts to authenticate the document, both of which are incomplete and neither of which has succeeded. Whether there are plans to complete these attempts, or to arrange a third attempt, we don't know.

Whether each attempt was made by the same group of experts, or by a separate group of experts, we don't know. Two names have been put forward, though whether each of these two experts examined the ink or the paper or the handwriting, we don't know. Exactly what these two experts concluded, we don't know.

The second attempt at authentication was apparently commissioned by a film company. What the identity of this film company is, we don't know. Where in the world the company is based, we don't know. Whether the film company has made, or intends to make, a film about the datebook or the theory that's based on the datebook, we don't know.

Worryingly, everyone involved appears to be gagged by a non-disclosure agreement. The gagging order seems to apply to the film company's attempt at authentication, but whether it also applies to the original attempt at authentication, we don't know.

What justification there is for imposing a non-disclosure agreement on the examination of what is claimed to be a very significant piece of evidence in a very important unsolved murder case, we don't know. How any sort of gagging order assists in establishing the authenticity of a document, we don't know.

Why the document has been kept out of public view, and why the results of its examination have also been kept out of public view, we don't know, but we can have a pretty good guess.

On the current state of evidence, the datebook appears to be a fake, and a potentially dangerous fake too, since it could be used to undermine serious efforts to find out the truth of the assassination.

Incidentally, this thread is the appropriate one in which to discuss the possible (note the question mark in the title) inauthenticity of the datebook.

JB--My sentiments also, except that I think it has seen said that the purported film company is in Australia, and some segments were already filmed and "in the can" on the purported datebook and have been for a few years.

Of course if this is true, it suggests a film company spent some money preparing a documentary, and then halted production when efforts to authenticate the documents...resulted in what?  

It stretches credulity that the film company efforts to authenticate the datebook were highly positive---"The datebook is real, hallelujah!"---and then the film company decided to halt production, seeking no return on time and money. 

I am bending over backwards to keep an open mind on any document, and we all agree that certainly it would not be beyond intel agencies to try to suffocate a bona fide new document. 

But really, this situation is testing one patience....

 

[Benjamin Cole]

In addition to the curious Torbitt document/report, there are the writings of Mae Brussell.

https://www.maebrussell.com/Mae Brussell Articles/Nazi Connection to JFK Assass.html

Since we do not know the provenance of the purported Lafitte datebook, it could be the datebook simply lifted information from these (dubious) predecessor documents, and perhaps added in some more-recent info from JFK Records Act releases.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

BC - Thanks for that information!

Yes, it makes little sense for a film company to abandon a project after being told that the document in question is authentic. The "incomplete" nature of the authentication process surely means that the experts have expressed doubts about the authenticity of the datebook. It would be nice to know exactly what their opinion is, and what the justification is for all the secrecy.

If the experts doubt the authenticity of the datebook, it's reasonable for the rest of us to have doubts about any theory that relies on the datebook and requires it to be authentic. That's especially so given the unanswered criticisms made by Greg Doudna, which suggest that the datebook is a fake. For example:

Quote

the ink of the 1963 Lafitte datebook entries could not be matched by the analyst to any of the known inks for 1963.

(https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29044-pierre-lafitte-datebook-1963/?do=findComment&comment=509466)

Quote

the handwriting analysis found that the handwritten entries of the Lafitte datebook "were all made by one and the same individual within a constricted timeframe".

(ibid.)

Quote

Prima facie, it appears Lafitte is not the author of the multiple Skorzeny written references in Lafitte's datebook, since the allusions to Skorzeny appear to postdate Lafitte's death.

(https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29044-pierre-lafitte-datebook-1963/?do=findComment&comment=509153)

 

[Benjamin Cole]

The Lafitte datebook may just be a rehash of the dubious Torbitt document and some musing of Mae Brussel.

On 8/6/2023 at 3:11 PM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

BC - Thanks for that information!

Yes, it makes little sense for a film company to abandon a project after being told that the document in question is authentic. The "incomplete" nature of the authentication process surely means that the experts have expressed doubts about the authenticity of the datebook. It would be nice to know exactly what their opinion is, and what the justification is for all the secrecy.

If the experts doubt the authenticity of the datebook, it's reasonable for the rest of us to have doubts about any theory that relies on the datebook and requires it to be authentic. That's especially so given the unanswered criticisms made by Greg Doudna, which suggest that the datebook is a fake. For example:

 

The dubious datebook may just be a rehash of the also dubious Torbitt document, and some musings of Mae Brussell. 

Oddly, if one does the guilt by association game, Jack Jacqueline Lee Kennedy Onassis (Bouvier) may have been involved in the Nazi plot to murder JFK.

Her family and Jackie were friends with George de Mohrenschildt, and when growing up Jackie called George "Uncle."

"While in New York, de Mohrenschildt became acquainted with the Bouvier family, including future First Lady of the United States Jacqueline Bouvier. Jacqueline grew up calling de Mohrenschildt "Uncle George" and would often sit on his knee.[21] He became a close friend of Jacqueline's aunt Edith Bouvier Beale.[22]"--Wkikipedia

But George De (actually a "von"--he changed that) was a Nazi spy, or so the FBI suspected. Also, George's family was big in White Russia, with sinister links to Nazis. 

Then, darkly, Jackie conveniently marries JFK, and encouraged JFK to go to Dallas. 

Then (this gets better)...

"In 1949 McCloy returned to Germany as American High Commissioner. He commuted the death sentences of a number of nazi war criminals, and gave early releases to others. One was Alfred Krupp, convicted of using slave labor in his armaments factories. Another was Hitler's financial genius, Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, who subsequently went on the payroll of Aristotle Onassis."--Brussell

And how was Jackie Kennedy rewarded after the JFKA?

She was married to Aristotle Onassis! 

There you have it, the instrumental role Jackie Kennedy played in the JFKA. 

I am sure this can all be confirmed by the Lafitte datebook. 

Edited August 24, 2023 by Benjamin Cole