Rob Reiner And Soledad O'Brien Aim To Reveal JFK's Real Killers

[Richard Booth]

On 11/27/2023 at 3:58 PM, John Deignan said:

At 4:15 he says there are 4 known paid assassins in Dallas that day. 

Pretty sure he will likely name Jean Souetre there ... a known French OAS affiliated "assassin" that some records indicate was in Dallas that day.

However, the guy went on to live a full life and one account said he worked as security for a casino in later years. Which does not track: anyone who took the JFK job would have been financially set and also likely would have been rubbed out. No loose ends. 

I think he will also name Herminio Diaz Garcia, using the Cuban DGI/Fabian Escalante stuff & Tony Cuesta stuff on him.

This leaves two others. Wonder who he will name, certainly if any evidence has been out on this the dogged researchers who have worked this case for 20+ years would already know about it and I seriously doubt that Reiner uncovered anything new for this podcast: it's just a script written by Hoffman based on existing and known details. 

[Richard Booth]

Just now, Richard Booth said:

Pretty sure he will likely name Jean Souetre there ... a known French OAS affiliated "assassin" that some records indicate was in Dallas that day.

However, the guy went on to live a full life and one account said he worked as security for a casino in later years. Which does not track: anyone who took the JFK job would have been financially set and also likely would have been rubbed out. No loose ends. 

I think he will also name Herminio Diaz Garcia, using the Cuban DGI/Fabian Escalante stuff & Tony Cuesta stuff on him.

This leaves two others. Wonder who he will name, certainly if any evidence has been out on this the dogged researchers who have worked this case for 20+ years would already know about it and I seriously doubt that Reiner uncovered anything new for this podcast: it's just a script written by Hoffman based on existing and known details. 

Wonder if he might try to shoehorn Loran Hall into this. (see: the story about Hall where he gave his son or stepson a Manlicher-Carcano rifle and told him to hide it, and Hall's comments over the years that allude to it)

He might mention how Loran Hall and Gerry Hemming both say they were offered money to take the job. Both have said in interviews from the late 70s that they were offered money to do the job, using almost identical language.

[Leslie Sharp]

@Richard Booth you can anticipate Col. Jack Canon will be identified. Much of this material relies on Dick Russell’s original breakthroughs in the investigation published in 1992, The Man Who Knew Too Much.  It was Richard Case Nagell who first revealed Canon’s role in Dealey. 
 

Over a decade later, Hank Albarelli secured access to private records that, among other explosive revelations, confirm Jack Canon was in Dallas as a key element in the assassination as was Col. Charles Askins — renowned sharpshooter since the 1930s.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

On 11/28/2023 at 2:25 AM, Greg Kooyman said:

I am so disappointed that Rob Reiner didn’t do any serious fact checking for this series.  I was turned off immediately when he mentioned Tosh Plumlee and his ludicrous story.  It’s too bad because I am sure that Rob’s podcast is reaching a lot of new listeners that may not know that Plumlee’s story is pure fiction.   I was hoping that Reiner would bring something new to the discussion.  I was wrong.  What a waste of a platform.

I may be a little more forgiving than you...but at bottom your sentiments are correct. 

BTW, Reiner is now palsy-walsy with senior CIA officials. 

Perhaps they are not alarmed, but rather amused, at this confection of suppositions amalgamated by Reiner.  That they somewhat encouraged. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[James DiEugenio]

Ben:

How do you know that he is palsy walsy? Did I miss something.?

[Paul Brancato]

25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben:

How do you know that he is palsy walsy? Did I miss something.?

Uh - no I don’t think so. Everyone is such an expert, and they are sure Rob Reiner is less so. He is shining a spotlight on this because unlike us he can. Give the guy credit and a free pass for now. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

12 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Give the guy credit and a free pass for now. 

Why should he, or anyone else, be given a free pass to disseminate blatant falsehoods and reintroduce nonsense such as the story of Tosh Plumlee?

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ben:

How do you know that he is palsy walsy? Did I miss something.?

JD--

Reiner gave a dispiriting interview with Jeff Morley, in which he recounted meeting (as I recall) three CIA ex-chiefs. He then asked Brennan what he thought...I plan a review of the Morley interview, if I can find it again. 

Perhaps I am too harsh on Reiner. But is sure seems like Reiner is just bandy-snatching various memes and stories (Plumlee, French assassins) that have been floating around for generations. 

There are many very solid JFKA researchers---Tink Thompson, Larry Hancock, Jeff Morley and yourself --who almost certainly would not have advised the Reiner confection. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

@Benjamin Cole it’s my understanding the  Reiner  - O’Brien podcast, “Who Killed JFK,” in the most literal sense, is intended to appeal to a wide audience and will  risk naming shooters. Those you identify as perhaps better qualified to advise the project have not — to my knowledge — taken that risk.  

[Roger Odisio]

21 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Benjamin Cole it’s my understanding the  Reiner  - O’Brien podcast, “Who Killed JFK,” in the most literal sense, is intended to appeal to a wide audience and will  risk naming shooters. Those you identify as perhaps better qualified to advise the project have not — to my knowledge — taken that risk.  

Naming the shooters is risky in the sense you mean, and I think, more difficult than naming the people who planned and covered up the murder. It's also far less important.  The shooters are all dead.

The planners went on the create the fractured, war mongering society we live in today that JFK sought to prevent.  None of that will change until we come to grips with who did it and why.

[Leslie Sharp]

@Roger Odisio I appreciate your position, but our mission statement all along -- solve a cold case murder investigation -- has been soup to nuts: identify the shooters, who developed the strategy for them, who paid them to shoot, who got them out of Dallas, who managed the lay of the land, why was Dallas the perfect scene of the crime, etc.  I think you see where this is going, up the food chain rather than top down.  As I think you and  I have discussed, if "we" have it right, the investigations will eventually converge. 

I too have my concerns about the podcast, particularly their purported assertion they have positioned the shooters.  We're not there yet.

I was equally concerned in the early days that the PM crowd stated openly that they didn't give a damn who DID kill Kennedy, they just wanted to exonerate Oswald. Your comment hints that might still be the prevailing attitude? 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[James DiEugenio]

Ben:

I did not know that about Rob meeting with the likes of Brennan.

Whew.

I guess I should write about all this later on after the show has concluded.

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

27 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Roger Odisio I appreciate your position, but our mission statement all along -- solve a cold case murder investigation -- has been soup to nuts: identify the shooters, who developed the strategy for them, who paid them to shoot, who got them out of Dallas, who managed the lay of the land, why was Dallas the perfect scene of the crime, etc.  I think you see where this is going, up the food chain rather than top down.  As I think you and  I have discussed, if "we" have it right, the investigations will eventually converge. 

I too have my concerns about the podcast, particularly their purported assertion they have positioned the shooters.  We're not there yet.

I was equally concerned in the early days that the PM crowd stated openly that they didn't give a damn who DID kill Kennedy, they just wanted to exonerate Oswald. Your comment hints that might still be the prevailing attitude? 

I'm not aware that the "PM crowd" as a group said they didn't care who killed Kennedy. Some individuals may have.

If Oswald is exonerated, it leads naturally to the question of who did kill Kennedy and why.  I'm on record as saying I think that's the most logical, and possibly productive, way to get to the bigger question. The public has been fed the Oswald story to such an extent that destroying it is likely to be a good, maybe the best, way to get attention to what really happened.

There are several ways to exonerate Oswald, not just by showing him to be PM.  Another way is what the Tink Thmpson group at Duquesne explained.  There were two, not one, head shots hitting Kennedy less than one second apart.  And more than three shots altogether.  That combined with the *fact* that Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time, whether or not he is PM, exonerates the Oswald as the lone assassin in the WR.

Once you get there I can't imagine anyone not caring about who did it then.

 

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, I agree with those skeptical about naming the shooters. This has been done before, and almost always ends up making the research community look foolish. Naming the shooters is, at this point, a publicity stunt, which will almost certainly backfire. 

[Leslie Sharp]

@Roger Odisio I think we're on parallel paths then. I must have misunderstood.. identifying the shooters is essential to identification of who hired them, and from there . . .

I believe someone at the Duquesne conference said 11 shots fired?