Jump to content
The Education Forum

Peter Dale Scott: Deep Politics and the Death of JFK


Recommended Posts

(1) You point out that one of the Warren Commission’s senior counsels, “Albert Jenner, was a Chicago attorney with a history of representing figures, such as Allen Dorfman, from Ruby’s milieu… Jenner in 1963 was counsel for General Dynamics” (page 20). This is very interesting. I am convinced that there is a link between the JFK assassination and the General Dynamics TFX contract. Fred Korth had been forced to resign over this scandal at the beginning of November, 1963. According to author Seth Kantor, Korth only got the job as Navy Secretary after strong lobbying from LBJ. As well as the $7 billion contract the TFX to General Dynamics, Korth was also responsible for dealing out lucrative contracts to the Texas oil industry.

As you know, on the day that JFK was assassinated, Don B. Reynolds told the Senate Rules Committee that he saw a suitcase full of money which Bobby Baker described as a "$100,000 payoff to Johnson for his role in securing the Fort Worth TFX contract".

Do you know what happened to Don B. Reynolds after LBJ recruited Jack Anderson to mount a smear campaign against him?

What happened to the Senate investigation into the TFX contract? Did anybody ever follow-up the information provided by Reynolds?

(2) You rightly point out that Silvia Odio’s “whose story of meeting Oswald in Dallas is one of the most provocative and revealing stories about Oswald” (page 118). Have you heard about the recent testimony of Angel Murgado who claims he was Angelo and that Leopoldo was Bernardo De Torres (Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, 2005).

Have you come across the names of Angel Murgado and Bernardo De Torres during your research into the assassination?

(3) In your book you link Irving Davidson with Carlos Marcello, Clint Murchison, J. Edgar Hoover, Bobby Baker and Lyndon Johnson (pages 217-222). You also quote John H. Davis as saying that Davidson was “the representative of all that Jack and Bobby fought against – Trujillo, Hoffa’s Teamsters, the Somozas’ Nicaragua, the Texas rich, the CIA, Castro, Nixon, the mob”.

Are you aware that according to a report by Anne Buttimer, Chief Investigator for the Assassination Records Review Board (12th July, 1995), Gene Wheaton claimed that Davison was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. He also named Carl Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero as being involved in the plot. Have you come across the names of Wheaton, Jenkins and Quintero during your research into the assassination?

(4) In your book you point out that JFK’s secretary, Evelyn Lincoln, claimed that RFK was investigating Bobby Baker for tax evasion (page 220). Did you know that according to Senator Carl Curtis (Forty Years Against the Tide) RFK was leaking information about LBJ and Baker to Republican members of the Senate committee investigating the scandal (Carl Curtis, John Williams and Hugh Scott)?

(5) In your book you mention Bobby Baker, Fred Black, Ed Levenson and Benny Sigelbaum and others involved in the Serve-U-Corporation. According to William Torbitt (Nonmenclature of an Assassination Cabal ), Edward Grant Stockdale was president of Serve-U-Corporation. However, this is wrong, Eugene Hancock, held this position. He was a business associate of Stockdale. Have you ever come across the name of E. Grant Stockdale. He committed suicide (or was murdered) on 2nd December, 1963. He did this after returning from a meeting with Bobby and Edward Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I hope Professor Scott would reply to the above questions by Mr. Simkins as those are interesting points to be sure.

No matter if he does soon or not, I commend both the "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" and "The Dallas Conspiracy" as FIRST RANK works attending the murder of the President.

Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation" I also rank highly as one of the few works free of agenda and attending deceptions that do stand the test of time as do Professor Scott's books.

I can't cheat Prof. Gibson's books of mention either, "Battling Wall Street" and "The Kennedy Assassination Cover Up", both also outstanding works.

In that my own interest in the Jack Kennedy murder case tends to lean deeper into the Political Science side of the setup and following cover ups - rather than the ballistics and wounds. Any hired fool can generate an autopsy report to fit predetermined conclusions as was done in Bethesda Naval Hospital IMHO.

Once the conclusion is reached that CE 139 was NEVER capable IN ANYONE's hands of doing the killing, then all the Oswald fable is meaningless other than demonstrating the machinations of the "Secret Team" to set the man up as Patsy.

I reached that conclusion by the work of Mr. John Ritchson as gunsmith, brother and friend, may he rest in peace now because he finally KNOWS the realities.

It is because I am more interested in documenting the power players and their plays, Professor Scott's works are so very good to me.

The Political Science side of the isle may never solve the case but it can tell you who is most likely to have done what and why.

From the "far east hands" and their "friends" the vile poisonous bane of this Republic was refined and made paramount to the Republic itself.

Again I would commend Professor Scott's works in the highest terms I have.... READ IT.

Y'all, Just Read it!

Sincerely

Jim Hackett II

Edited by Jim Hackett II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
(1) You point out that one of the Warren Commission’s senior counsels, “Albert Jenner, was a Chicago attorney with a history of representing figures, such as Allen Dorfman, from Ruby’s milieu… Jenner in 1963 was counsel for General Dynamics” (page 20). This is very interesting. I am convinced that there is a link between the JFK assassination and the General Dynamics TFX contract. Fred Korth had been forced to resign over this scandal at the beginning of November, 1963. According to author Seth Kantor, Korth only got the job as Navy Secretary after strong lobbying from LBJ. As well as the $7 billion contract the TFX to General Dynamics, Korth was also responsible for dealing out lucrative contracts to the Texas oil industry.

As you know, on the day that JFK was assassinated, Don B. Reynolds told the Senate Rules Committee that he saw a suitcase full of money which Bobby Baker described as a "$100,000 payoff to Johnson for his role in securing the Fort Worth TFX contract".

Do you know what happened to Don B. Reynolds after LBJ recruited Jack Anderson to mount a smear campaign against him?

What happened to the Senate investigation into the TFX contract? Did anybody ever follow-up the information provided by Reynolds?

McClellan adjouned the session of 11/20/63, saying he would "resume hearings next week." They did not meet again until 1969, after LBJ left the White House. It's in Deep Politics, p. 221, along with more stuff about Reynolds and Korth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(2) You rightly point out that Silvia Odio’s “whose story of meeting Oswald in Dallas is one of the most provocative and revealing stories about Oswald” (page 118). Have you heard about the recent testimony of Angel Murgado who claims he was Angelo and that Leopoldo was Bernardo De Torres (Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, 2005).

Have you come across the names of Angel Murgado and Bernardo De Torres during your research into the assassination?

I don't believe Murgado, and hadn't heard of him before Mellen and Waldron. de Torres is a heavy, as indeed he is described by Fonzi (using a pseudonym for him). In Cocaine Politics (p. 35) we describe his links to Miguel Nazar Haro and the DFS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(3) In your book you link Irving Davidson with Carlos Marcello, Clint Murchison, J. Edgar Hoover, Bobby Baker and Lyndon Johnson (pages 217-222). You also quote John H. Davis as saying that Davidson was “the representative of all that Jack and Bobby fought against – Trujillo, Hoffa’s Teamsters, the Somozas’ Nicaragua, the Texas rich, the CIA, Castro, Nixon, the mob”.

Are you aware that according to a report by Anne Buttimer, Chief Investigator for the Assassination Records Review Board (12th July, 1995), Gene Wheaton claimed that Davison was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. He also named Carl Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero as being involved in the plot. Have you come across the names of Wheaton, Jenkins and Quintero during your research into the assassination?

I think Wheaton was totally sincere, but not particularly credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe Murgado, and hadn't heard of him before Mellen and Waldron.

Dr Scott: Such an honor to have you on the forum. Have you or any other researcher attempted to discuss you disbelief of Murgado with Mellen? And why she might have been taken in by some timely disinformation. I know that Lisa Pease atempted to speak with her on this subject last Novemeber at the conference in Pittsburg but told me Mellen did not respond to any critical comments of AFTJ. I wonder if anyone else had any better luck. (I did not)

Thanks,

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you or any other researcher attempted to discuss you disbelief of Murgado with Mellen? And why she might have been taken in by some timely disinformation. I know that Lisa Pease atempted to speak with her on this subject last Novemeber at the conference in Pittsburg but told me Mellen did not respond to any critical comments of AFTJ. I wonder if anyone else had any better luck. (I did not)

Dawn it has to be remembered that Gerry Hemming took Murgado to Joan Mellen. I asked his son, Amaury Murgado, about this. He replied by email on 5th November, 2005:

"As to any of Gerry Hemming's comments, my father and him go way back and my father says he is the real John Wayne. My father confirmed that he saved Gerry's life once. My father will never contradict Gerry, right or wrong. My father has never come forward except when Gerry has asked him to, hence the few limited interviews he has granted. Like it or not that's the way it is. They have been through too much together."

Murgado only provided information to Joan Mellen as a favour to Gerry Hemming. I find this highly suspicious. Especially as Hemming appears to have been active as a disinformation agent. Also, my contacts in the anti-Castro Cuban community tell me that Murgado was only a minor figure in these events and never had a relationship with Robert Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='John Simkin' date='Apr 27 2006, 03:35 PM' post='61066']

Dawn it has to be remembered that Gerry Hemming took Murgado to Joan Mellen. I asked his son, Amaury Murgado, about this. He replied by email on 5th November, 2005:

"As to any of Gerry Hemming's comments, my father and him go way back and my father says he is the real John Wayne. My father confirmed that he saved Gerry's life once. My father will never contradict Gerry, right or wrong. My father has never come forward except when Gerry has asked him to, hence the few limited interviews he has granted. Like it or not that's the way it is. They have been through too much together."

Murgado only provided information to Joan Mellen as a favour to Gerry Hemming. I find this highly suspicious. Especially as Hemming appears to have been active as a disinformation agent. Also, my contacts in the anti-Castro Cuban community tell me that Murgado was only a minor figure in these events and never had a relationship with Robert Kennedy.

Thanx John.

Given that Hemming and JOan Mellen are both forum members

and that there are such disparities in what each has said- with Joan saying

she has what Hemming told her on tape- I would be interested in a side bar between

Hemming and Joan Mellen on the forum. But I see that Hemming has flown the coop,

seems to have coincided with the departure of Tim Gratz who was also quite critical of Joan

well before her book even came out and the rest of us could respond.

As for myself I remain a huge fan of her book in spite of what I consider flaws.

Anyone can be taken in by someone who is persuasive enough. Murgado clearly was

and she still considers him truthful.

Sad really because on Garrison this really is a definitive and valuable book.

She clearly did massive research and took this particular investigation to a new level, expanding on the great works by Paris Flammonde, Jim DiEugenio and Bill Davey. And for this she is to be commended.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

(3) In your book you link Irving Davidson with Carlos Marcello, Clint Murchison, J. Edgar Hoover, Bobby Baker and Lyndon Johnson (pages 217-222). You also quote John H. Davis as saying that Davidson was “the representative of all that Jack and Bobby fought against – Trujillo, Hoffa’s Teamsters, the Somozas’ Nicaragua, the Texas rich, the CIA, Castro, Nixon, the mob”.

Are you aware that according to a report by Anne Buttimer, Chief Investigator for the Assassination Records Review Board (12th July, 1995), Gene Wheaton claimed that Davison was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. He also named Carl Jenkins and Chi Chi Quintero as being involved in the plot. Have you come across the names of Wheaton, Jenkins and Quintero during your research into the assassination?

I think Wheaton was totally sincere, but not particularly credible.

I think that the areas in which Wheaton becomes "not particularly credible" are those in which he theorizes well beyond the knowledge that he could reasonably possess. The allegations he has made regarding Jenkins and Quintero are, however, of a different type. He emphatically claims that his knowledge of their involvement came directly from multiple conversations with the pair. If Wheaton is, as Peter suggests, "totally sincere," it follows that one should take his statements about Jenkins and Quintero VERY seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Scott: Thanks for making time on this forum. I wish more people knew about what John Simkin has put together here.

I am wondering about your extrapolation in Deep Politics that Oswald may have been working for a number of different intelligence agencies on jobs that were contracted out separately through Banister's Camp Street Office. I was wondering if anything new has come up re: this hypothesis.

You also use a verb "park" in an interesting way, as in someone "parking" information with a contact so that it might not go to the central office of that contact's intelligence agency. Would the use of the Camp Street office to do segmented tasks for many different agencies in any way facilitate this "parking" practice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an 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 historical 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) If you were publishing an updated edition of Deep Politics, what new material would you include?

(9) 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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

It was not a conscious decision. I just acted the part more and more in my efforts to educate Americans to the folly of fighting in Vietnam, which led into an investigation of NSAM 263, NSAM 273, and the murder of JFK.

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

There shouldn't be. In my area journalists should think historically, and historians investigatively.

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

Whatever is most in need of public criticism and exposure.

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

As one of my close colleagues (Malcolm Caldwell) was murdered, and some of my sources also, yes, I try to be mindful of how much risk I should take.

(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 was advised by friendly senior academic colleagues not to write about Vietnam, in one case almost threateningly (it ended a friendship). And for several years I could not get a merit increase. But all in all I have no complaints about my university.

(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?

Both historians and especially journalists often depend on government cooperation in the advancement of their careers.

(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?

This is a complex matter not reducible to a paragraph. I once taught a semester-long course in how to evaluate and compare sources, which is the key. Documents are very important too, but rarely "prove" something by thmselves.

(8) If you were publishing an updated edition of Deep Politics, what new material would you include?

For starters more about Mexico and the culpable role of the CIA before and after the assassination, along with the rest of the material I cover in Deep Politics Two and Three.

(9) 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?

Academic historians are housed in a bureaucratic hierarchy that is unfortunately less open than it advertises itself to be. So are most journalists. But journalists are more experienced than most historians in the possibilities of doing self-financing research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...