Dick Russell: The Man Who Knew Too Much

[Dick Russell]

Absolutely thoroughly enjoyed TMWKTM. Only read it once, but referred back to it frequently - and it's now on loan. I once had a multitude of questions I had wanted to ask - forgotten now - save one or two.

Near the end of the book - after Nagell's effect have been handed over to his niece - who discovers that the purple trunk is now among the others at the storage facility [going by memory here] - she relayed to you that in one of the trunks which remained there were photographs of a man she did not know - he was in a variety of poses, and if I recall, these were both photos and newspaper clippings. Any update on that? Any chance of acquiring them?

I was exchanging emails with some members on this forum who believed that these trunks had been passed on to Mitsuko. I wrote 3 letters to Robert - all with no reply - enquiring after these photos. Is there any chance of getting them now do you suppose?

Perhaps nothing - however, from the excellent view of Nagell that you have provided us - he doesn't seem the type to save something without reason - and one could theorize that he had stowed something apart from his other caches so as not to leave all the eggs in 5 baskets?

Sorry - do you suppose that part of what went on in Berlin was the exchange of one of these caches in return for his children?

Thanks for your kind words about TMWKTM. I'm afraid that I no longer have contact with Nagell's son. I had hoped to gain access to the trunks while putting together the revised edition of the book a couple of years ago, but unfortunately the children (for unknown reasons) suddenly stopped communicating with me. And I have never been able to meet Mitsuko, who may indeed have the trunks. So I am afraid I can't shed light on the photographs of the new "mystery man."

As to your speculation about Berlin, I would imagine SOME kind of deal was made in return for Nagell learning the whereabouts of his then-missing children, who did end up living with him in Manhattan Beach for at least part of their teenaged years.

[Dick Russell]

As you probably know, Weissman testified that Jones had left Dallas prior to his own arrival.

Mr. JENNER. He is mentioned in some of these interviews. Did you meet Larry Jones?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I didn't meet him in Dallas; no. He was gone before I got there.

CE 1813 however, places Jones in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Moreover, it shows Weissman as being startled and so worried about this news, he apparently denied to his boss even knowing him.

Thanks, and sorry if this is covered in the 1st edition. Only have the 2nd.

Afraid I can't shed any light on CE 1813, re: Weissman and Larry Jones.

[David Boylan]

One of the names in Nagell's address book was Dr. John Lechner, followed by "Americanism Educational League."

Do you know why Nagell was investigating him? Was it his activities regarding Paulino Sierra?

I'm not aware of any connection between Dr. John Lechner and Paulino Sierra, but that sounds intriguing.

Dick,

Here's what little I have on Lechner:

Lechner, Executive Director of the Americanism Educational League, a political arm of the California American Legion.

Lechner and Burt Mold met with Cuban exiles Cesar Blanco and Paulino Sierra in Chicago during the month of February 1963 to discuss writing a document on uniting the different Cuban exile factions. Mold and Lechner were the founders of a subcommittee of the Americanism Educational League called Americans for Cuban Freedom formed in 1961 after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Noted members were Guy Gabaldon, , Dr. Tirse Del Junco and W. Cleon Skousen.

Dave

[Greg Parker]

As you probably know, Weissman testified that Jones had left Dallas prior to his own arrival.

Mr. JENNER. He is mentioned in some of these interviews. Did you meet Larry Jones?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I didn't meet him in Dallas; no. He was gone before I got there.

CE 1813 however, places Jones in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Moreover, it shows Weissman as being startled and so worried about this news, he apparently denied to his boss even knowing him.

Thanks, and sorry if this is covered in the 1st edition. Only have the 2nd.

Afraid I can't shed any light on CE 1813, re: Weissman and Larry Jones.

Thanks anyway, Dick. If you ever get around to reading it, I'd appreciate any thoughts you habe.

[Duke Lane]

If there is space on your shelf for only one JFK assassination book, make it this one.

...

I much appreciate your praise for my book, thank you. And I agree it "raises as many [or more] questions than it answers." If there's anyone alive who could retrace the items that once existed in Nagell's Zurich swiss deposit box, that'd be fantastic, but I'm afraid I don't know of any such person.

Dick,

I've always most enjoyed your description of TMWKTM (COPA, DC, 1995?) as "the book that grew too much!" I'm the guy scheduled to speak behind you that time that you didn't realize was there because I'd gotten lost on the DC subways!

[Lee Forman]

Dick,

Is the 'Arturo' of Nagell's correspondence Arthur Greenstein do you know? If so, were you / are you still in contact with him?

Regards,

Lee

[John Simkin]

Bill Kelly has posted an article on the Forum about the possibility of obtaining a grand jury in order to investigate the assassination of JFK.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5634

I have started a thread where I have asked researchers to put forward evidence that would justify the case being reopened.

As a result of your own research, what evidence is currently available that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the only one responsible for killing JFK?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5659

[John Simkin]

I have been doing some research on Homer Thornberry, the man who sentenced Richard Case Nagell to ten years in prison. In your book you mention that Johnson was fairly close to Thornberry. Did you know that they were both members of the Suite 8F Group?

The two men had been close friends since 1921. They had met in Austin when Thornberry was a page at the Texas House of Representatives.

When John F. Kennedy offered Lyndon Johnson the post of Vice President, one of the first people he contacted was Homer Thornberry. He replied: "I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Tell Jack (Kennedy) anything you want, but don't take it." However, soon afterwards he phoned Johnson back to say he changed his mind and that he should accept the post.

Thornberry was also with Johnson when Kennedy was assassinated. Johnson turned to Thornberry and said, "This is a time for prayer if there ever was one, Homer". I suppose he meant that they needed to pray that they would never get caught.

Interestingly, despite their close friendship, Thornberry is only mentioned once in Robert Caro's three volume biography of LBJ. The one reference is to Thornberry replacing Johnson in the House of Representatives in 1948. Nothing is said about the two men knowing each other.

In June 1968, Earl Warren retired as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Johnson had no hesitation in appointing Fortas as his replacement. Johnson also suggested Thornberry should replace Fortas. The Senate had doubts about the wisdom of Fortas becoming Chief Justice. It was later discovered that Fortas had lied when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In October, Fortas asked for his nomination to be withdrawn. Johnson was also forced to withdraw the name of Thornberry.

Have you found out anymore information on Thornberry since you published your book?

Johnson had a record of persuading judges to cover up his corrupt activities. For example, when the jury found Mac Wallace guilty of "murder with malice afore-thought" in the case of John Douglas Kinser. Judge Charles O. Betts announced a sentence of five years imprisonment. He suspended the sentence and Wallace was immediately freed.

The same was true in the case of Henry Marshall. When he was murdered by Mac Wallace in 1961 he persuaded County Sheriff Howard Stegall to decree that Marshall had committed suicide. No pictures were taken of the crime scene, no blood samples were taken of the stains on the truck (the truck was washed and waxed the following day), no check for fingerprints were made on the rifle or pickup.

Marshall's wife (Sybil Marshall) and brother (Robert Marshall) refused to believe he had committed suicide and posted a $2,000 reward for information leading to a murder conviction. The undertaker, Manley Jones, also reported: "To me it looked like murder. I just do not believe a man could shoot himself like that." The undertaker's son, Raymond Jones, later told the journalist, Bill Adler in 1986: "Daddy said he told Judge Farmer there was no way Mr. Marshall could have killed himself. Daddy had seen suicides before. JPs depend on us and our judgments about such things. we see a lot more deaths than they do. But in this case, Daddy said, Judge Farmer told him he was going to put suicide on the death certificate because the sheriff told him to." As a result, Lee Farmer returned a suicide verdict: "death by gunshot, self-inflicted."

Then there was the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer in 1964. The trial judge was Howard Corcoran. He was the brother of Tommy Corcoran, a close friend of Johnson. Corcoran had been appointed by Johnson soon after he became president. It is generally acknowledged that Corcoran was under Johnson’s control. His decision to insist that Mary’s private life should not be mentioned in court was very important in disguising the possible motive for the murder. This information was also kept from Crump’s lawyer, Dovey Roundtree. Although she attempted to investigate Mary's background she found little information about her: "It was as if she existed only on the towpath on the day she was murdered."

[John Simkin]

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an investigative journalist and historian?

(2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian?

(3) How do you decide about what to write about?

(4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence?

(5) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone?

(6) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies?

(7) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

8) Why is it that most books written about political conspiracies; assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. are written by journalists rather than historians? Is it because of fear or is it something to do with the nature of being a historian?

[Dick Russell]

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an investigative journalist and historian?

I was drawn into investigating the Kennedy assassination in 1975, when the Village Voice sent me to do a story on what Professor Richard Popkin had recently uncovered. At the time, I had no intention that this would occupy the next couple years of my life. The more I learned, the more I realized that a "secret history" underlay what we'd been taught in school, certainly of the post-WW II years and since the creation of the CIA in 1947.

(2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian?

Sure, there's a difference between an investigative journalist and a historian - because the journalist often goes to "primary sources" for interviews, while a historian (generally speaking) relies more on written sources and existing documentation.

[Dick Russell]

(3) How do you decide about what to write about?

I write about what intrigues me, but above all about what I consider it important for people to know about. This has certainly been the case with my four books, which cover an eclectic range of topics, ranging from the assassination to the unsung geniuses in African-American culture, to my recent natural history subjects: the gray whales and the Atlantic striped bass.

(4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence?

I do consider the possibility that my research could "land me in trouble" with the powers-that-be. But I can't let that stop me. It's more important that the truth be told. I like people who are willing to go out on a limb for the sake of truth, and our country. For example, Robert Kennedy Jr. in his recent expose of how the Republicans stole the 2004 election in Ohio.

(5) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone?

I've never cared overly much about "career advancement." But yes, there has occasionally been pressure to leave a controversial subject alone, although I wouldn't say it's necessarily been overt. I was told, some time ago, that I was being followed occasionally - and I'm sure my phone has been tapped periodically.

[Michael Hogan]

Mr. Russell,

In your landmark book, you write that "Popkin first heard about him (Nagell) via a letter Nagell wrote that there was something to his theory about an Oswald look-alike used by the conspirators to spread confusion."

Of course in 1966 Popkin wrote The Second Oswald.

My question is: Do you have any thoughts or opinions on John Armstrong's research?

I have always considered The Man Who Knew Too Much to be a classic. Well written and well researched, your efforts have added a lot to understanding the mystery of the murder of John Kennedy. It was/is an amazing book.

Mike Hogan

[Dick Russell]

(6) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies?

In the case of major media, I think the reluctance to investigate political conspiracies stems from several factors. First, they don't want "egg on their face," in other words they didn't choose to examine what happened to JFK and his brother, and others, from the get-go - and it would prove embarrassing to do so at a later time. Also, I'm sure there has been pressure "from the top" not to look too deeply. And also, I think a lot of people just don't want to believe that these kinds of things can happen in America. It's a false sense of innocence, one could say.

(7) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

My basic approach to writing about "secret history" is, at first, to believe just about everybody. By that, I mean I don't prejudge someone I'm interviewing or dismiss even a "fantastic" story out-of-hand. It's only as I came to know a great deal about the Kennedy assassination, for example, that I was able to realize that quite a few - indeed, the majority - of the strange folks I'd interviewed were probably not telling the truth. Some may have been intentionally planting disinformation. Ultimately, I came to believe Richard Nagell - and Antonio Veciana, for example - because I gained a strong sense of their personal integrity. And, I guess, because there were things they WOULDN'T say, to my frustration. After awhile, an investigative journalist starts to draw conclusions by finding as many sources for verification as possible. It's time-consuming. As for getting ahold of documents, it used to be a lot easier to use the FOIA, before the Bush Administration set about trying to "cancel it out" - and thereby keep the "secret history" secret.