Lynne Foster Posted November 27, 2005 Share Posted November 27, 2005 I think it is quite clear that the resources that were responsible for both the assassination and the coverup implicated a diverse range of public and private resources. Was the 'Special Group' ultimately the culprit? Is there anything in the above link that can be validated or debunked? I think it is quite clear that the resources that were responsible for both the assassination and the coverup implicated a diverse range of public and private resources. Was the 'Special Group' ultimately the culprit?Is there anything in the above link that can be validated or debunked? I find this passage particularly interesting: "The Special Group was supposed to be fluid, operational and practical. Mired in excessive secrecy and dangerously bizarre operations like "Operation Mongoose", rogue CIA operatives like Bill Harvey, a gun-toting drunkard who played a leading role in cloak-and-dagger, anti-Castro operations, reflect the loose-canon mentality that the Special Group promoted. Indeed, Harvey had established a closer working relationship with Mafia allies like Johnny Roselli than he had with his own boss, John McCone, the Director of the CIA. Is it any wonder that Roselli, who diverted attention away from the real assassins by claiming that 'Castro did it', bragged about all of his "friends in high places"? Is Bill Harvey still alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 27, 2005 Share Posted November 27, 2005 Lynne wrote: Is Bill Harvey still alive? Lynne, all you need to do is to look at John Simkin's biography of William Harvey to determine that he died in June of 1976. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKharvey.htm It would be a good idea to read all the material that is on this web-site about the assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 27, 2005 Author Share Posted November 27, 2005 Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 27, 2005 Author Share Posted November 27, 2005 (edited) On 12th March, 1961, Harvey arranged for CIA operative, Jim O'Connell, to meet Sam Giancana, Santo Trafficante, Johnny Roselli and Robert Maheu at the Fontainebleau Hotel. Aren't they all KA suspects? Edited November 27, 2005 by Lynne Foster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Lynne, what is your source for that information? I believe that Harvey took over from O'Connell as Rosselli's CIA "case officer" sometime in 1962. I believe there was a meeting between Maheu and Rosselliat the Fountainbleu in March of 1961 at which meeting Maheu delivered to Rosselli a briefcase full of US taxpayer dollars (courtesy of the CIA, of course) and poison. Later, Maheu watched Rosselli deliver those items to a Cuban in front of the Boom Boom Room on the lower level of the Fountainbleu. I do not believe O'Connell was present and I do not recall whether Trafficante was present. Of course, the mere fact that CIA officers (O'Connell and Harvey) and the CIA "cut-out" (Maheu) were involved with the hoodlums who may have murdered JFK does not implicate those gentlemen (using the term advisedly) in the JFK assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 (edited) My source is John Smirkin's site, the url you provided. I think these gentlemen suspects were anxious, ready and willing patriots, and I think the proof is largely circumstantial. At the same time, I think it is so convincing, that it is good enough to implicate these gentlemen. Let's give Judge Garrison a final word here: Judge Garrison -1986 And there's a new C.I.A. book, REASONABLE DOUBT and Henry Hurt has about thirty pages working me over and attacking....I don't know why anyone would be attacked at all for being the only public official in the country who tried to do something about it to begin with. But that doesn't matter. Their point is discreditation. They wanted to get the message across -- don't believe what Garrison's been telling you about the C.I.A. We're telling you he's wrong. He's involved with the mob. And this one also by Summers said that I was involved with the mob and I had a secret meeting with Joe Tosselli at a Las Vegas hotel that he had. Can you imagine me meeting with Joe Rosselli - your remember the guy that was killed with a bullet in his stomach and his legs cut off - and put in a barrel and dropped in the Bay off Florida? It looks like loose lips sunk Roselli's barrel, but Garrison knew when to shut up and when to blame the CIA -to deflect blame away from where it belonged. No wonder he survived... Edited November 28, 2005 by Lynne Foster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Lynne, John does not always get his facts correct. I am quite certain that Harvey did not take over the Rosselli operation until 1962. I have read a lot of the original documents about this. Try reading the 1967 report of the CIA Inspector General. It discuuses a meeting in which Rosselli was handed over to Harvey by O'Connell. For a real laugh, read Norman Mailer's fictional account of the first meeting between Harvey and Rosselli in Mailer's "Harlot's Ghost". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 Norman Mailer writes fiction. I really think that John has doen a better job documenting facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Ya gotta read "Harlot's Ghost!" (Fiction based on fact.) I think you'd like it (goes for everyone!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 28, 2005 Author Share Posted November 28, 2005 Ya gotta read "Harlot's Ghost!" (Fiction based on fact.) I think you'd like it (goes for everyone!) Don't you think Garrison's 'Heritage of Stone' is more appropriate, to decode the truth about the Kennedy assassination? Norman Mailer is more imaginative than factual, it's like using a gossip colunmnist to determine truth. At any rate, I am surprised by the lack of discussion regarding the 'Special Group' and the Kennedy assassination. Is it all denial, like refusing to cover American funerals, to pretend that the war in Iraq is going well? Michael Kelly was one of the first journalists to die in Iraq, why did I just hear about that? I wonder how many journalists have died in Iraq so far? Anybody know how many died in Vietnam? And by the way, anybody have any more information about the 'Special Group'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 29, 2005 Author Share Posted November 29, 2005 Doesn't this thread add to the case Pat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted November 30, 2005 Author Share Posted November 30, 2005 I cannot believe this 'conspiracy of silence'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted November 30, 2005 Share Posted November 30, 2005 "Did the 'Special Group' Really Assassinate JFK?" No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynne Foster Posted December 1, 2005 Author Share Posted December 1, 2005 "Did the 'Special Group' Really Assassinate JFK?"No. Who did then Tim, why don't you enlighten us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted December 2, 2005 Share Posted December 2, 2005 Well, Lynne, why don't you read something other than Matt Whatever-His-Name Is? Suggest, for instance, "Ultimate Sacrifice". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now