Daniel P. Sheehan

[Lynne Foster]

I was seeing so much red after reading that post that I missed Tim's explanation. Whoops.

I know Tim believes that Oswald was an intelligence asset (thus cutting himself off from most of the CIA's cooked evidence of Commie links to the assassination). This takes some intellectual courage and I commend him for it. I don't buy his protestations that his assassination views aren't linked to his political ideology, though. I don't think its a coincidence that a card-carrying Buckleyite would just happen to come to the conclusion that Castro engineered the assassination.

And what are your assassination views linked to?

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

If you really believe John wishes to harm America why do you spend so much time on his forum?

Obviously Dawn did not read my Post # 36:

. . .I do not for a moment assert that John has such a secret agenda. The whole point of last post was to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to impugn someone's motives with no basis for doing so. But that happens routinely on the Forum.

Dawn's angry reaction to my original post simply demonstrates and proves my thought. Unless there is proof, no one should attempt to impugn another's motive. Heck, we know have Lynne claiming Dawn is secretly a conservative!

Edited December 9, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Dawn wrote:

If you really believe John wishes to harm America why do you spend so much time on his forum?

Obviously Dawn did not read my Post # 36:

. . .I do not for a moment assert that John has such a secret agenda. The whole point of last post was to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to impugn someone's motives with no basis for doing so. But that happens routinely on the Forum.

Dawn's angry reaction to my original post simply demonstrates and proves my thought. Unless there is proof, no one should attempt to impugn another's motive. Heck, we know have Lynne claiming Dawn is secretly a conservative!

Please remember that this thread is about Daniel P. Sheehan. In my opinion Sheehan is a patriotic American who has worked very hard to expose both the American government and the CIA’s attempts to undermine democracy (both in America and the rest of the world) by the use of illegal, covert activities. Every time someone like Sheehan is discussed, Tim is very quick to defend the CIA and attack these brave individuals as “anti-American”. The only way that we are going to get the truth about the JFK assassination, Watergate, Contra-Iran, CIA involvement in drug running, etc. is by people like Jim Garrison, Daniel Sheehan, etc., sticking their necks out. Sure they will make mistakes. Given the difficulty of bring charges against CIA agents and assets, this is bound to happen. However, the important point is that they are doing their best to keep to the ideals they developed as young people. In most cases, idealists become contaminated by the capitalist system and sell out. I know I much prefer the flawed characters of Garrison and Sheehan to those who spend their time defending the status quo. Some like Gus Russo, Edward Epstein and Gerald Posner are well paid for their efforts. What puzzles me is why someone like Tim is so keen to spend his employer’s time defending the indefensible.

[Tim Gratz]

Well, John, according to many federal judges, of both parties, Mr. Sheehan's use of the court system was indefensible. Let me make it clear I have not studied the case sufficiently to form my own independent opinion on it.

But I can report the opinion of the judges. And the fact that every single judge was of the same opinion ought to mean something. That that fact does not seem to influence you is troubling.

I can also report one other item: federal judges are normally quite reluctant to impose Rule 11 sanctions. That the sannction was imposed and unanimously upheld on appeal merely adds to my conclusion that Mr. Sheehan's conduct, as viewed by these four judges, was egregious.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Dawn Meredith]

Tim; You did say JOhn had a secret agenda. Now if this was said in jest, I did not see that. And people who make such comments in jest have an underlying serious edge too.

Dawn's angry reaction to my original post simply demonstrates and proves my thought. Unless there is proof, no one should attempt to impugn another's motive. Heck, we know have Lynne claiming Dawn is secretly a conservative!

That's funny Tim. My cousin HOward aught to see that, he thinks I'm the most left wing out there person he's ever known.

Lynne's blocked by me so she can "think" all she wants...(if you can call this "thinking")

Dawn

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn, I refered you to my Post 36. Apparently you chose not to read it.

Again, I think your reaction proves my point: don't impugn other people's motives. (When I did it, in jest, you jumped all over me.)

Ironically, Lynne did it to you, but her claim was so ridiculous it was laughable.

Regarding your cousin, just let him read this Forum and he will quickly conclude that you have a lot of company in la-la land. But it does make Lynne's claim all that more hilarious, doesn't it?

Edited December 9, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Howard]

Dawn, I refered you to my Post 36. Apparently you chose not to read it.

Again, I think your reaction proves my point: don't impugn other people's motives. (When I did it, in jest, you jumped all over me.)

Ironically, Lynne did it to you, but her claim was so ridiculous it was laughable.

Regarding your cousin, just let him read this Forum and he will quickly conclude that you have a lot of company in la-la land. But it does make Lynne's claim all that more hilarious, doesn't it?

Tim, your ability to articulate your views notwithstanding, your admonition not to 'impugn other people's motives' comes off as hypocritical at best. If there was a listing for 'thread-hijacker' in Webster's it would have a picture of you next to it. One recalls the maxim 'quality over quanity, having literally thousands of posts on this forum, and many of them articulate and well stated, it is beyond conjecture that you are less than objective in where your view on the assassination ultimately come back to the culprits as being Castro, (something the government has unsuccessfully been trying to do ever since Nov 22) and now the "Mob" albeit with enough of a dose of the CIA thrown in to keep it appealing) I will simply expound on this theme in saying "starting a thread entitled 'The Mob Did It' is such a poor exercise in intellectual thought that it borders on insulting to members of the Forum and is beneath your skills. You may wax eloquently in your posts etc., but your lack of sincerity in 'researching' the various elements of the JFK Assassination and other sordid events of the American Century are patently obvious, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Actually it is interesting, because in many way's the 'dance' that frequently takes place on the Forum is in my opinion a 'microcosm' of today's media.

The essence of today's 'intellectual debate' in America is soundbite politics ("Your either with us or with the terrorists,") mixed with a healthy dose of George Orwell while thinking people who care about fundamental concepts such as democracy are basically labeled as "not one of us."

In this case I will be proud to admit I am not one of the many American's 'whistling in the dark.'

In my opinion being labelled or called "anti-American" in the current political atmosphere, is a 'badge of honor.'

Virtue is its Own Reward

[John Simkin]

How would one go about locating a copy of the Sheehan affadavit?

ATTORNEY DANIEL SHEEHAN'S AFFIDAVIT

Now comes Attorney Daniel P. Sheehan, and having been duly sworn hereby swears

and affirms that the following facts are true:

1. I am a duly licensed attorney at law, admitted to practice before the

State and Federal Courts of the State of New York in both the Northern and

Southern Districts of New York.

2. I am duly licensed and have been admitted to practice before the

Courts of the District of Columbia, both local and Federal and I am in good

standing before both the Bar of New York and the Bar of the District of

Columbia.

3. I have practiced law before the courts of New York and numerous other

states in our nation since 1970, having served as counsel in some 60 separate

pieces of litigation in the states of New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina,

Virginia, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Ohio,

Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wyoming and Mississippi.

4. I graduated from Harvard college in 1967 as an Honors Graduate in

American Government, writing my Honors Thesis in the field of Constitutional

Law, and was the Harvard University nominee for the Rhodes Scholarship from

New York in 1967. I graduated from Harvard School of Law in 1970, having

served as an Editor of the Harvard Civil Rights)Civil Liberties Law Review and

as the Research Associate of Professor Jerome Cohen, the Chair of the

International Law Department of Harvard.

5. While at Harvard School of Law, I served as a summer associate at the

State Street law firm of Goodwin, Proctor and Hoar under the supervision of

Senior Partner, Donald J. Hurley, the President of the Boston Chamber of

Commerce and Massachusetts Senatorial Campaign Chairman for John F. Kennedy.

At this firm I participated in the case of BAIRD v EISENSTAT, under Roger

Stockey, General Counsel for the Massachusetts Planned Parenthood League

(establishing the unconstitutionality of the Massachusetts anti)birth control

law) and in the Nevada case, under Charles Goodhue, III (establishing the

constitutional right to bail in criminal extradition cases, including capital

cases). While at Harvard School of Law, I authored "The Pedestrian Sources of

Civil Liberties" in the Harvard Civil Rights)Civil Liberties Law Review and I

served under Professor Milton Katz, the President of the International Law

Association, as the Chairman of the Nigerian Biafran Relief Commission

responsible for successfully negotiating the admission of mercy flights of

food into Biafra in 1968.

6. While serving as a legal Associate at the Wall Street law firm of

Cahill, Gordon, Sonnett, Rheindle and Ohio under partner Theodore Shackley and

Thomas Clines directed the Phoenix Project in Vietnam, in 1974 and 1975, which

carried out the secret mission of assassinating members of the economic and

political bureaucracy inside Vietnam to cripple the ability of that nation to

function after the total US withdrawal from Vietnam. This Phoenix Project,

during its history, carried out the political assassination, in Vietnam, of

some 60,000 village mayors, treasurers, school teachers and other non)Viet

Cong administrators. Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines financed a highly

intensified phase of the Phoenix project, in 1974 and 1975, by causing an

intense flow of Vang Pao opium money to be secretly brought into Vietnam for

this purpose. This Vang Pao opium money was administered for Theodore

Shackley and Thomas Clines by a US Navy official based in Saigon's US office

of Naval Operations by the name of Richard Armitage. However, because

Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines and Richard Armitage knew that their secret

anti)communist extermination program was going to be shut down in Vietnam,

Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand in the very near future, they, in 1973, began a

highly secret non)CIA authorized program Thus, from late 1973 until April of

1975, Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines and Richard Armitage disbursed, from

the secret, Laotian)based, Vang Pao opium fund, vastly more money than was

required to finance even the highly intensified Phoenix Project in Vietnam.

The money in excess of that used in Vietnam was secretly smuggled out of

Vietnam in large suitcases, by Richard Secord and Thomas Clines )) and carried

into Australia, where it was deposited in a secret, personal bank account

(privately accessible to Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines and Richard Secord).

During this same period of time between 1973 and 1975, Theodore Shackley and

Thomas Clines caused thousands of tons of US weapons, ammunition, and

explosives to be secretly taken from Vietnam and stored at a secret "cache"

hidden inside Thailand.

The "liaison officer" to Shackley and Clines and the Phoenix Project in

Vietnam, during this 1973 to 1975 period, from the "40 Committee" in the Nixom

White House was one Eric Von Arbod )) an Assistant Secretary of State for Far

Eastern Affairs. Von Arbod shared his information about the Phoenix Project

directly with his supervisor Henry Kissinger.

Saigon fell to the Vietnamese in April of 1975. The Vietnam War was over.

Immediately upon the conclusion of the evacuation of U.S. personnel from

Vietnam, Richard Armitage was dispatched, by Theodore Shackley and Thomas

Clines, from Vietnam to Tehran, Iran. In Iran, Armitage (the "bursar" for the

Vang Pao opium money for Shackley and Clines' planned "Secret Team" covert

operations program), between May and August of 1975, set up a secret

"financial conduit" inside Iran, into which secret Vang Pao drug funds could

be deposited from Southeast Asia. The purpose of this conduit was to serve as

the vehicle for secret funding by Shackley's "Secret Team," of a private,

non)CIA authorized "Black" operations inside Iran )) disposed to seek out,

identify, and assassinate socialist and communist sympathizers )) who were

viewed by Shackley and his "Secret Team" members to be "potential terrorists"

against the Shah of Iran`s government in Iran. In late 1975 and early 1976,

Theodore Shackley and Thomas Clines retained Edwin Wilson to travel to Tehran,

Iran to head up the "Secret Team" covert "anti)terrorist" assassination

program in Iran. This was not a U.S. government)authorized operation. This

was a private operations supervised, directed and participated in by Shackley,

Clines, Secord and Armitage in their purely private capacities.

At the end of 1975, Richard Armitage took the post of a "Special Consultant"

to the U.S. Department of Defense regarding American military personnel

Missing In Action (MIAs) in Southeast Asia. In this capacity, Armitage was

posted in the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. There Armitage had top

responsibility for locating and retrieving American MIA's in Southeast Asia.

He worked at the Embassy with an associate, one Jerry O. Daniels. From 1975

to 1977, Armitage held this post in Thailand. However, he did not perform the

duties of this office. Instead, Armitage continued to function as the

"bursar" for Theodore Shackley's "Secret Team," seeing to it that secret Vang

Pao opium funds were conducted from Laos, through Armitage in Thailand to both

Tehran and the secret Shackley bank account in Australia at the Nugen)Hand

Bank. The monies conducted by Armitage to Tehran were to fund Edwin Wilson's

secret anti)terrorist "seek and destroy" operation on behalf of Theodore

Shackely. Armitage also devoted a portion of his time between 1975 and 1977,

in Bangkok, facilitating the escape from Laos, Cambodia and Thailand and the

re)location elsewhere in the world, of numbers of the secret Meo tribesmen

group which had carried out the covert political assassination program for

Theodore Shackley in Southeast Asia between 1966 and 1975. Assisting Richard

Armitage in this operation was Jerry O. Daniels. Indeed, Jerry O. Daniels was

a "bag)man" for Richard Armitage, assisting Armitage by physically

transporting out of Thailand millions of dollars of Vang Pao's secret opium

money )) to finance the re)location of Theodore Shackley's Meo tribesmen and

to supply funds to Theodore Shackley's "Secret Team" operations. At the U.S.

Embassy in Bangkok, Richard Armitage also supervised the removal of arms,

ammunition and explosives from the secret Shackley)Clines cache of munitions

hidden inside Thailand between 1973 and 1975 )) for use by Shackley's "Secret

Team". Assisting Armitage in this latter operations was one Daniel Arnold,

the CIA Chief of Station in Thailand )) who joined Shackley's "Secret Team" ))

in his purely private capacity.

One of the officers in the U.S. Embassy in Thailand, one Abranowitz came to

know of Armitage's involvement in the secret handling of Vang Pao opium funds

and caused to be initiated an internal State Department heroin smuggling

investigations directed against Richard Armitage. Armitage was the target of

Embassy personnel complaints to the effect that he was utterly failing to

perform his duties on behalf of American MIAs, and he reluctantly resigned as

the D.O.D. Special Consultant on MIA's at the end of 1977.

From 1977 until 1979, Armitage remained in Bangkok opening and operating a

business named The Far East Trading Company. This company had offices only in

Bangkok and in Washington, D.C. This company was, in fact, from 1977 to 1979,

merely a "front" for Armitage's secret operations conducting Vang Pao opium

money out of Southeast Asia to Tehran and the Nugen)Hand Bank in Australia to

fund the ultra right)wing, private anti)communist "anti)terrorist"

assassination program and "unconventional warfare" operation of Theodore

Shackley's and Thomas Cline's "Secret Team". During this period, between 1975

and 1979, in Bangkok, Richard Armitage lived in the home of Hynnie Aderholdt

)) the former Air Wing Commander of Shackley`s "Special Operations Group" in

Laos )) who, between 1966 and 1968, had served as the immediate superior to

Richard Secord, the Deputy Air Wing Commander of MAG)SOG. Secord, in 1975,

was transferred from Vietnam to Tehran, Iran.

In 1976, Richard Secord moved to Tehran, Iran and became the Deputy Assistant

Secretary of defense in Iran, in charge of the Middle Eastern Division of the

Defense Security Assistance Administration. In this capacity, Secord

functioned as the chief operations officer for the U.S. Defense Department in

the Middle East in charge of foreign military sales of U.S. aircraft, weapons

and military equipment to Middle Eastern nations allied to the U.S.. Secord's

immediate superior was Eric Van Marbad )) the former 40 Committee liaison

officer to Theodore Shackley's Phoenix program in Vietnam from 1973 to 1975.

From 1976 to 1979, in Iran, Richard Secord supervised the sale of U.S.

military aircraft and weapons to Middle Eastern nations. However, Richard

Secord did not authorize direct nation)to)nation sales of such equipment

directly from the U.S. government to said Middle Eastern governments.

Instead, Richard Secord conducted such sales through a "middle)man", one

Albert Hakim. By the use of middle)man Albert Hakim, Deputy Assistant

Secretary of Defense Richard Secord purchased U.S. military aircraft and

weapons from the U.S. governament at the low "manufacturer's cost" )) but sold

these U.S. aircraft and weapons to the client Middle Eastern nations at the

much higher "replacement cost". Secord then caused to be paid to the U.S.

government, out of the actual sale price obtained, only the lower amount equal

to the lower manufacturer's cost. The difference, was secreted from the U.S.

government and Secord and Albert Hakim secretly transferred these millions of

dollars into Shackley's "Secret Team" operations inside Iran )) and into

Shackley's secret Nugen)Hand bank account in Australia. Thus, by 1976,

Defendant Albert Hakim had become a partner with Thomas Clines, Richard Secord

and Richard Armitage in Theodore Shackley's "Secret Team".

Between 1976 and 1979, Shackley, Clines, Secord, Hakim, Wilson, and Armitage

set up several corporations and subsidiaries around the world through which to

conceal the operations of the "Secret Team". Many of these corporations were

set up in Switzerland. Some of these were: (1) Lake Resources, Inc.; (2) The

Stanford Technology Trading Group, Inc.; and (3) Companie de Services

Fiduciaria. Other companies were set up in Central America, such as: (4) CSF,

Investments, Ltd. and (5) Udall research Corporation. Some were set up inside

the United States by Edwin Wilson. Some of these were: (6) Orca Supply

Company in Florida and (7) Consultants International in Washington, D.C..

Through these corporations, members of Theodore Shackley's "Secret Team"

laundered hundreds of millions of dollars of secret Vang Pao opium money

pilfered Foreign Military Sales proceeds between 1976 and 1979. named in this

federal civil suit to be placed under oath and asked about their participation

in the criminal "enterprise" alleged in this Complaint is probative of the

criminal guilt of the Defendants of some of the crimes charged in this

Complaint.

Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel, The Christic Institute, possess evidence

constituting "probable cause" that each of the Defendants named in this

Complaint are guilty of the conduct charged.

If further detailed evidence is required by the Court to allow the Plaintiffs

to begin the standard process of discovery in this case, the failure to place

it in this Affidavit is the function of the short time allowed by the Court

for the preparation of this filing )) it is not because the Plaintiffs lack

such evidence.

Daniel P. Sheehan

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this day of December, 1986

[John Simkin]

Can you please post the sources for your material on Sheehan?

Sorry for the delay. I missed this post when it was first made.

David Corn, Blond Ghost, 1994 (pages 380-8, 392-9)

Joel Bainerman, The Crimes of a President, 1992 (pages (63-6, 82)

Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control, 1987 (91-103)

J. Vankin & J. Whalen, The 60 Greatest Conspiracies, 1998 (32-3, 310-4)

Christic Institute. Sheehan Affidavit (see posting above)

Corn is the most detailed but also the most biased (he writes it as if he was Shackley's lawyer). Bainerman is in many ways the most important. He points out that Gene Wheaton was a major source for his book (Bainerman is an investigative journalist from Israel). He also claims that despite his right-wing views, Wheaton was an honest man who wanted the truth to come out (he never asked for money even though he appeared to be fairly poor at the time). He also explains the role that Robert Owen and Vaughn Forrest played in the scandal (both named by Wheaton in the statements he made to ARRB). Owen was Dan Quayle's legislative assistant. Forrest worked for Bill McCollum (Republican, Florida). According to Bainerman, Wheaton told him that Dan Quayle was a member of Shackley's Secret Team and played an important role in the Iran-Contra deal. This helps to explain why Quayle was made Bush's running-mate in 1988.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

According to Bainerman, Wheaton told him that Dan Quayle was a member of Shackley's Secret Team and played an important role in the Iran-Contra deal. This helps to explain why Quayle was made Bush's running-mate in 1988.

John, it was Dan Quayle who introduced Oliver North to John Hull, thereby facilitating the arms-drugs trade in aid of the Contras. Perhaps the Veep gig was the payoff for this. If not, one wonders just what compelled Bush The Elder to nominate as his running mate a man of no other discernible attributes.

[Pat Speer]

According to Bainerman, Wheaton told him that Dan Quayle was a member of Shackley's Secret Team and played an important role in the Iran-Contra deal. This helps to explain why Quayle was made Bush's running-mate in 1988.

John, it was Dan Quayle who introduced Oliver North to John Hull, thereby facilitating the arms-drugs trade in aid of the Contras. Perhaps the Veep gig was the payoff for this. If not, one wonders just what compelled Bush The Elder to nominate as his running mate a man of no other discernible attributes.

Quayle was considered to be an asset because he was young, from the midwest, and had tremendous appeal to the far right. Bush, as incredible as it may seem, was not popular with the far right. There were the Pats--Robertson and Buchanan--out there with their concerns about Bush's pro-choice slant and his "voodoo economics" comments. Quayle was Bush's concession to the corn and Bible belt. His role as veep was to kiss up to the moral majority and constantly assault the left for their secular humanism. He fulfilled that role, but was so stupid and abrasive he hurt more than he helped. He was Bush I's Spiro Agnew.

[John Simkin]

First, Wheaton's story has Jenkins and several Cubans confessing to him their involvement in the JFK asssassination. Must of been like a big confessional. According to Wheaton, Jenkins was fairly high-up the food chain. Why on God's green earth would this guy confess to Wheaton? Let us assume you and I are friends. Do you think I'm going to confess to you that ten years earlier I murdered a man and got away with it? Even if you were my very best friend and I was sure you would not "rat on me", don't you think it reasonable that I would be concerned that the revelation that I was a murderer might strain our friendship?

You have constantly misrepresented the way Wheaton has provided information on the assassination of JFK. This is either because you have not read my postings on the subject or that you have read them but not understood them (from past history both of these theories are possible). Another possibility is that you have read and understood the postings but because they do not fit into your theory that “Castro” ordered the assassination of JFK you are pretending you are “intellectually challenged”.

I will briefly state the order of events so that you cannot claim ignorance.

(1) In 1986 Gene Wheaton gave information about CIA illegal activities to Daniel Sheehan. At this stage Wheaton gave no information on Carl Jenkins. In fact, at this time, Jenkins was also providing information to Sheehan. The main concern of Wheaton and Jenkins was to provide information about the illegal activities of Ted Shackley, Tom Clines, Richard Secord and Edwin Wilson.

(2) In 1986 Wheaton also provided information on Shackley and company to investigative journalists like Joel Bainerman. These journalists have made it clear that Wheaton did not seek money for this information. However, at this time he was unwilling to be named as a source.

(3) In 1988 Daniel Sheehan was in serious trouble. The courts were demanding that he named his sources. Eventually, Wheaton agreed to give evidence in court against the CIA. This took place in Florida in March, 1988. However, he did not make any accusations against Jenkins. Wheaton had not been employed directly by the CIA and so his evidence was dismissed as “hearsay”. Sheehan, or one of his friends, then leaked the name of Jenkins as being one of his major sources. This information appeared in the press. Jenkins then gave interviews claiming that he had met with Sheehan but he must have misunderstood his comments and had not accused CIA officials as being involved with illegal activities. As a result, Sheehan’s case was chucked out and he had to pay considerable damages to Shackley and his friends.

(4) In 1995 Wheaton contacted the Assassination Records Review Board claiming he had information about the involvement of the CIA in the assassination of JFK. The ARRB eventually arranged for its chief investigator, Anne Buttimer, to meet Wheaton. During their meeting Wheaton named Carl Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero as being involved in the assassination. However, he was very reluctant to go on record as the man who named these CIA operatives. This is why Buttimer does not name Jenkins and Quintero in the report dated on 12th July, 1995. Jenkins can only be identified by his CV that Wheaton sent to the ARRB.

(5) Despite follow up letters by Wheaton, the ARRB failed to investigate if Jenkins was involved in the assassination of JFK. It seems that Wheaton now decided to drop the matter.

(6) In 2005 a researcher discovered Wheaton’s documents at the ARRB. These documents were brought to the attention of Larry Hancock. He arranged for William Law and Mark Sobel to interview Wheaton. It was during this filmed interview that Wheaton named Jenkins and Quintero. Further research of recently released documents indicated that Jenkins and Quintero might well have been involved in the assassination.

(7) Although Wheaton mentioned these names in this interview it is far from clear that he wanted to be seen as the man who named CIA operatives as being involved in the assassination of JFK. This has only become public knowledge because of the postings that have taken place on this Forum and on my website pages on Wheaton, Jenkins and Quintero. Jenkins and Quintero are now both aware of these accusations. So also are the CIA aware of this development. At the moment Jenkins or Quintero have not denied Wheaton’s claims. It will indeed be interesting to see what action these two men decide to take.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Wheaton had not been employed directly by the CIA and so his evidence was dismissed as “hearsay”.

John, it is no wonder you do not understand why the court imposed sanctions against Sheehan. This sentence demonstrates complete ignorance of the hearsay rule. Unless Sheehan submitted an affidavit from Wheaton, what Wheaton told Sheehan would be hearsay. Whether what Wheaton alleged about CIA illegal activities was inadmissible hearsay has absolutely nothing--nada--zip--zilch to do with whether he was ever a CIA employee. Surely you must understand that?

*************************

John also wrote:

Further research of recently released documents indicated that Jenkins and Quintero might well have been involved in the assassination.

John, if you are reading what I am writing you should know I am not blithely dismissing Wheaton's claims even though I am skeptical of them. I have even pledged to help re-open a proceeding to investigate these claims (which should have been done, of course, when they first surfaced). Therefore, I would be most interested in any documents that support Wheaton's claim. I would think any prosecutor would look for some additional support for it.

Your chronology, however, only adds to my skepticism.

In 1986 Wheaton reports on alleged CIA "illegal activities" to Sheehan but he does not tell Sheehan that a highy mucky-muck in the CIA killed Kennedy. So it is like someone who is aware of the CIA illegally opening citizens' mail (I'll call this a "derringer") as well as its involvement in the assassination of JFK (I'll call this a "bazooka") but when the person comes forward to blast the CIA he only fires his derringer!

If the CIA wanted to retaliate against him, it would do so for the derringer attack. But by using the bazooka in his possession, Wheaton might have been able to permanently criple the CIA.

Believe me, if I get in a "deadly" legal fight with someone, I ain't going to be pulling any punches! I'm going to use all the ammunition I have!

My point should be obvious but there is an easy example in the JFK case. Many people disbelieve many of Judith Exner's later, more sensational claims about Kennedy precisely because she did not make them when she first started talking about her relationship with JFK.

**********************

But as I said in another thread, if Wheaton's charges should prove to be correct, I'll send my buddy Fidel a big apology (before he croaks); glady accept 1,000 "I told you so" e-mails; AND pay substantial money to assist in Jenkins' execution (provided he is convicted, of course).

Edited December 12, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Thomas Graves]

Believe me, if I get in a "deadly" legal fight with someone, I ain't going to be pulling any punches! I'm going to use all the ammunition I have!

________________________________________

Problem is, Mr. Gratz, you seem to think that you're involved in so many deadly legal fights here on this forum.

________________________________________

Edited December 12, 2005 by Thomas Graves

[Tim Gratz]

Thomas, I was not refering to "fights" here.

Nor did I mean "deadly" literally, of course.

But my point is when I (on behalf of a client) got involved in a substantial legal fight where I knew the other side was going to "pull no punches" I would not withhold my best evidence against it (obviously).

Is that that hard to understand?

Another example: many people are dubious of Russo's claims against Shaw because when he was first interviewed about his knowledge about Shaw, he never mentioned the most damning thing he later claimed to know: that he had heard Shaw and Ferrie discussing plans to kill JFK.

When someone's story gets more sensationak over time, it is not unreasonable to bring some heavy skepticism to the newest revelations.

Is there anything about this point you do not understand?