‘My friend was a secret CIA agent – and I think she was the second JFK shooter’

[Leslie Sharp]

@Paul Brancato Paul, first, I think it's incumbent to distinguish fact from speculation presented in AWIK. Your point that June Cobb is integral to solving the case (my words not yours but I assume that's the bottom line) seems predicated on the claims made in Haverstick's book without solid evidence. 

I'll go out on a limb and say that I am 99% certain that if June was Babuska Lady, Hank would have known and would have published. I reserve the 1% because Hank played his cards close and may have intended to drop a bombshell in his planned MC/June Cobb book. Subjectively? Instinct tells me it is an absurd claim.

 

I agree that it's strange Mary H. didn't contact Hank since ASO was in the public domaine by 2013. One would think she would be anxious to interview anyone who knew June, particularly a fellow investigative journalist who publicly acknowledged his close friendship with June. It actually makes no sense, so for that reason I'm leaving open the possibility Mary did contact Hank and he declined the interview.  It is my understanding that instead, she relied on John Newman to a degree, so there's that to consider. I only know Hank's side of that history so I'll refrain from public debate.

I hope to have a chance to communicate directly with MH at some point.  Her deep dive into Arnold Silver et al is important, and perhaps more substantative than speculation regarding June and Jerrie. Therein rests the conundrum raised in this work.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

 

@Greg Doudna Your purported keen interest in Hank's other work is confusing and dare I say suspect, Greg. Considering the unprofessionalism you exhibited on this forum and on Amazon when the book based on his last active investigation first hit the stands, surely you understand why I recoil at faux interest.

 

As I said, I'm interested in contunued deliberations related to material presented in AWIK vs. Coup in Dallas. What did you think about the section in Haverstick's book regarding nickel transactions compared to the lengthy analysis presented in Coup? 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

@Paul Brancato  Considering what we now know, is it logical that Otto Skorzeny was dismissed as being "unsuitable"? Perhaps the author chose to highlight an isolated, one-off  incident, but for some reason, Otto and Ilse are then virtually airbrushed from AWIK. (Note: Major Ganis published in 2018; we published in late 2021.)

My preliminary take (based on a limited read of AWIK so far) is anyone who pursues the QJ/WIN programme objectively is compelled to consider Otto, and by extension his wife, far more carefully than is evidenced in this work, especially if one is writing a bombshell K. assassination book. 

Since Mary H. was not a lifelong assassination researcher (she has certainly earned her stripes now), it's obvious she would rely on seasoned experts, but did any have a particulay heavy finger on the scales?

In your view, had Hank (or Ralph) weighed in, might her pursuit of the Skorzenys been more aggresive?  She skirts on some significant events and had she read Ganis or Albarelli, I think she might better or further recognize their importance.

If Jerrie Cobb lived intermittently in Dallas during the early '60s, all the more intriguing.

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

On 11/20/2023 at 1:35 AM, Pete Mellor said:

Certainly June/Jerrie Cobb remains somewhat mysterious.  Covered by Newman's 'Countdown to Darkness' & files still being kept out of the public domain.

Her reports on Oswald in MC are weird.  As for the purpose and function of the Redbird aircraft, that remains unknown.

This report is incorrect concerning Babushka's camera as per Bev Oliver's explanation.   But who knows?

Anything on Cobb, IMO, shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater.

Pete, is there a specific reason you think "anything on Cobb . . . "?

 

I hear and read that a lot, but I've yet to track the original source of said skepticism. I assume someone tilled the soil of doubt; seems to me it would be useful to follow the breadcrumbs. Who knows what might have motivated someone to exclude her knowledge of characters and events from that period.   Why did Win Scott jump to mind? 

[Leslie Sharp]

On 11/20/2023 at 1:35 AM, Pete Mellor said:

Certainly June/Jerrie Cobb remains somewhat mysterious.  Covered by Newman's 'Countdown to Darkness' & files still being kept out of the public domain.

Her reports on Oswald in MC are weird.  As for the purpose and function of the Redbird aircraft, that remains unknown.

This report is incorrect concerning Babushka's camera as per Bev Oliver's explanation.   But who knows?

Anything on Cobb, IMO, shouldn't be thrown out with 

Edited November 26, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Paul Brancato  Considering what we now know, is it logical that Otto Skorzeny was dismissed as being "unsuitable"? Perhaps the author chose to highlight an isolated, one-off  incident, but for some reason, Otto and Ilse are then virtually airbrushed from AWIK. (Note: Major Ganis published in 2018; we published in late 2021.)

My preliminary take (based on a limited read of AWIK so far) is anyone who pursues the QJ/WIN programme objectively is compelled to consider Otto, and by extension his wife, far more carefully than is evidenced in this work, especially if one is writing a bombshell K. assassination book. 

Since Mary H. was not a lifelong assassination researcher (she has certainly earned her stripes now), it's obvious she would rely on seasoned experts, but did any have a particulay heavy finger on the scales?

In your view, had Hank (or Ralph) weighed in, might her pursuit of the Skorzenys been more aggresive?  She skirts on some significant events and had she read Ganis or Albarelli, I think she might better or further recognize their importance.

If Jerrie Cobb lived intermittently in Dallas during the early '60s, all the more intriguing.

 

Just before I read this I reread the small section on Otto and Ilse. Possibly she dismissed them too soon. Silver may have been purposeful in his negation. I think the most useful thing would be to start a dialog with the author. She might not have seen Hank’s work, though I agree that seems unlikely. 
have you ever wondered what was going on professionally between June Cobb and Hank? I gather it’s clear from your end that he never met Jerrie. Did he ever wonder aloud about the similarities? The author quotes David Phillips as saying June had a twin! She also says that Jerrie had scars attributed to June. What this all boils down to is this: what did Hank dig up that hasn't yet been revealed? 
The author credits Newman for showing her how to read intelligence files. She also credits Linda Pease, though less specifically. I’d be interested in what Pease has to say. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna Your purported keen interest in Hank's other work is confusing and dare I say suspect, Greg. Considering the unprofessionalism you exhibited on this forum and on Amazon when the book based on his last active investigation first hit the stands, surely you understand why I recoil at faux interest.

I am not the issue here. The issue is you have personal possession and exclusive control over that June Cobb manuscript, unpublished years of work of one of the major JFK assassination researchers, Albarelli, on one of the most important persons and sources in the whole JFK/Oswald/CIA saga, June Cobb--two years of twice-weekly meetings with her according to Albarelli--and you sit on it like a dog in the manger not allowing any open access to researchers (leave me out of it), as if you have the rights of God over that information which you did not produce, to dribble out in soundbites years from now down the road as you deign to see fit, instead of finding a university archive or other means of genuine public access or access to legitimate researchers, for that manuscript on this utterly important topic in your custody and control.  

This in the midst of all the efforts by this community to pry free the remaining withheld JFK assassination records from the agencies which seek to obstruct and prevent disclosure and access.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Leslie Sharp]

@Greg Doudna i stopped reading after your opening sentence which is completely void of fact. 
 

You know nothing about the status of Hank’s projects other than what I’ve shared. Reread my remarks, carefully, before hurling accusations.

The shame is on you, and has been since your first insults to Hank’s professional integrity.

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

@Paul Brancato

1) meaning, was Hank in the CIA?

2) Hank was concentrated on the Lafitte records: neither June nor Jerrie are apparent in that material. Had they been, he/we would have factored them into the analysis. 
 

3) Hank never discussed twins except in context of my husband’s experience and the esoteric nature of twinning. He never described Jerrie Cobb to me. Scars are easy to create; the human voice, diction, pattern and body type are more complicated.

DAP said a lot, and revealed little. 

4) Hank had intended to tell June’s personal story with a human interest approach.  Assuming he would reveal a smoking gun — based on June — in the investigation is a huge leap.

Ironic, Hank gains access to Lafitte’s datebook — the closest thing to a smoking gun in decades — and writes a book based on it that many on this forum refuse to consider. Yet here we are, chasing JUNE COBB?  @Greg Doudna

Edited November 27, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Paul Brancato]

29 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Paul Brancato

1) meaning, was Hank in the CIA?

2) Hank was concentrated on the Lafitte records: neither June nor Jerrie are apparent in that material. Had they been, he/we would have factored them into the analysis. 
 

3) Hank never discussed twins except in context of my husband’s experience and the esoteric nature of twinning. He never described Jerrie Cobb to me. Scars are easy to create; the human voice, diction, pattern and body type are more complicated.

DAP said a lot, and revealed little. 

4) Hank had intended to tell June’s personal story with a human interest approach.  Assuming he would reveal a smoking gun — based on June — in the investigation is a huge leap.

Ironic, Hank gains access to Lafitte’s datebook — the closest thing to a smoking gun in decades — and writes a book based on it that many on this forum refuse to consider. Yet here we are, chasing JUNE COBB?  @Greg Doudna

I used the word professionally to distinguish it from personally, not to imply Hank was CIA. 
What will be done with Hank’s notes on June Cobb? How many times did he meet with her? Lots. I don’t know the answer but I think you do. My conclusion from reading the book we are discussing is that Jerrie/June Cobb was an important agent, period. Do you really think there is something nefarious about wanting to know what he found out? Is our interest in Cobb somehow inappropriate because Hank wrote a book about Lafitte? 

[Leslie Sharp]

On 11/20/2023 at 1:35 AM, Pete Mellor said:

Certainly June/Jerrie Cobb remains somewhat mysterious.  Covered by Newman's 'Countdown to Darkness' & files still being kept out of the public domain.

Her reports on Oswald in MC are weird.  As for the purpose and function of the Redbird aircraft, that remains unknown.

This report is incorrect concerning Babushka's camera as per Bev Oliver's explanation.   But who knows?

Anything on Cobb, IMO, shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater.

Pete, is there a specific reason you think "anything on Cobb . . . "?

 

I hear and read that a lot, but I've yet to track the original source of said skepticism. I assume someone tilled the soil of doubt; seems to me it would be useful to follow the breadcrumbs. Who knows what might have motivated someone to exclude her knowledge of characters and events from that period.   Why did Win Scott jump to mind? 

[Nick Bartetzko]

One has to be quite a unique/special individual to really pursue the JFKA. Many have done very intriguing and sometimes very good investigative work,  yet hold onto their findings like a hungry dog that is guarding it’s very last bone. I understand that countless hours and lots and lots of money have been spent and there is a rightful desire to try and recoup as many of those expenses as possible by selling a book or rights to a movie or whatever…. But there is, I believe, also an obligation to the serious JFKA body of researchers to share at least some of this alleged new information to try and vet it. 

We have David Lifton, for example, who claimed to have incredible new revelations backed by documents and interviews. And then Mr Lifton has suddenly passed on and we’re all left to wonder whether any of these materials will ever see the light of day now so that they can be properly examined and evaluated. So that’s the problem with gatekeepers…they hold all the keys and parcel out breadcrumbs as they see fit. One moment they’re here, the next, they’re not. 

Over the years, I also recall Richard Case Nagel and his trunk of secret recordings and documents. The materials were very secure as only he had the key to the safe deposit box. And then he passed away and the mysterious trunk and materials had vanished. 

Then there are those who’d seen the real Z film that was in a secure vault somewhere in France. It was safely stored, but still too dangerous to be released after all these years, but apparently safe enough to sit in a location where it could likely quite easily be stolen. 

Then there’s the story of the sharpshooter who served in Vietnam, who confided to a poster here that he’d been asked to participate in Dallas, but who’s now dead. But his secrets are being held in confidence because, well, that’s much more important than trying to gather evidence to try and solve the Crime of the Century. 

There are other examples, but these so readily came to mind. I can only wonder what’s next………… 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

@Paul Brancato I don't know what could have been 'going on between Hank and June "professionally"' other than maybe the agency which is why I asked.  Did you have something else in mind?  I believe June had a level of experience as a journalist, but he never said they were collaborating in any formal sense.  

I'm sharing what I'm comfortable sharing.

Hank's June Cobb/MC project was under contract with a well-regarded university press. Had Ralph Ganis not come along when he did, I believe other projects would have progressed and probably would have been published long before Hank passed. Coup took precedent.  I've done my bit in attempts to persuade his estate of the importance of submitting the preliminary manuscript to the former editor who could then see to it (hopefully) a completed work makes it onto the public domain, soon. The decision is the prerogative of Hank's executrix. 

 

I'm trying to explain, poorly apparently, that it is my relatively informed opinion if June represented a "smoking gun" in the Kennedy investigation, there is no reason Hank wouldn't have at least alluded to the gun in Coup. Think of the promotional opportunity for the forthcoming  "June" story. 

[Paul Brancato]

4 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Paul Brancato I don't know what could have been 'going on between Hank and June "professionally"' other than maybe the agency which is why I asked.  Did you have something else in mind?  I believe June had a level of experience as a journalist, but he never said they were collaborating in any formal sense.  

I'm sharing what I'm comfortable sharing.

Hank's June Cobb/MC project was under contract with a well-regarded university press. Had Ralph Ganis not come along when he did, I believe other projects would have progressed and probably would have been published long before Hank passed. Coup took precedent.  I've done my bit in attempts to persuade his estate of the importance of submitting the preliminary manuscript to the former editor who could then see to it (hopefully) a completed work makes it onto the public domain, soon. The decision is the prerogative of Hank's executrix. 

 

I'm trying to explain, poorly apparently, that it is my relatively informed opinion if June represented a "smoking gun" in the Kennedy investigation, there is no reason Hank wouldn't have at least alluded to the gun in Coup. Think of the promotional opportunity for the forthcoming  "June" story. 

The question is was he talking to the wrong Cobb.

[Leslie Sharp]

21 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

The question is was he talking to the wrong Cobb.

What constitutes the “wrong Cobb”?

I think Greg Doudna posited similar. You must not have seen my response. 
 

Have you a copy of “A Secret Order”?  On pg. 377, opposite a photo of his friend June Cobb - a woman he described to me as elegant and exceptionally feminine - he quotes her as saying, “I feel a basic distrust for everything mechanical and mathematical, you know.” — June Cobb, 1960

When is she - Viola June Cobb - alleged to have earned her pilot’s license?

Does anyone else realize how silly this is?

Edited November 27, 2023 by Leslie Sharp