Jump to content
The Education Forum

Fake Assassination Attempt


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

The main witness in the jury tampering case for which Hoffa was convicted was a man named Ed Partin.

For many years pressure was put on Partin to "recant" his testimony.

In Dan Moldea's "The Hoffa Wars" it states that Audie Murphy was involved in two such attempts, in 1971. In one attempt he actually obtained a 31 page deposition from Partin in which Partin allegedy recanted his testimony.

Why was Murphy involved?

According to "The Hoffa Wars", Murphy's employer was a prominent businessman named D'Alton Smith.

Smith's wife was the daughter of a man whose name you all will recognize: Carlos Marcello.

Murphy died in a private plane accident on May 28, 1971.

In no way do I mean to imply that Murphy was involved in the assassination, but if these reports are correct Murphy was a friend of Bill Decker and his boss was related by marriage to Carlos Marcello.

Does the Marcello relationship make the story told in "The Fish Is In The Courthouse" more believable, or less? (Unfortunately, "The Hoffa Wars" does not state the business in which Smith and Murphy were involved.)

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

At http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/11-17-03/...ion.cgi.10.html

there appears this passage [Please read my comments to follow re who was the father-in-law of Audie Murphy's employer]:

Murphy, Gary and his partner went back to California. They knew that the situation was too big and dangerous for them to pursue. John said that if he went public with his story, he would quickly disappear, never to be heard from again. A few days after that meeting, Decker called Murphy. As John was telling his story, the CIA and intelligence community was in shock. They did not know what to do, paralyzed with fear. As they recovered from their shock, they saw themselves facing the firing squad if their involvement in the assassination intrigue became known. The intelligence community decided they would do everything they could to cover their tracks, invoking “national security.” Decker told Murphy that John had given him the envelope of documents in a moment of panic, and that if Murphy did not give the envelope back, he would be “destroyed.” Murphy did some fast thinking and told Decker that they had torn the envelope into pieces and threw them out of the airplane as they were flying back to California.

Interesting post Tim but there’s one part that confuses me a bit. To whom was John telling his story except the mentioned persons? Or does it mean while John talked to his friends the CIA and the intelligence community was in shock, caused by the assassination? The other thing is that I understand that the envelope was given to Decker by John. So how could Murphy give it back? Maybe it's to early in the morning to get this right.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George of course I am not necessarily advocating the truth of the story and it certainly raises a lot of questions such as the ones you suggest.

I wonder whether the "relationship" between Murphy and Marcello, tenuous though it may be, makes the story more or perhaps it makes it less believable.

Amazed that after the story first appeared no assassination researcher contacted Tower for his comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another strange little coincidence.

At Arlington National Cemetery the most visited gravesite is that of JFK (of course).

The second most frequently visited is the gravesite of Audie Murphy.

Both were Irish, of course.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, Smith was clearly an associate of Marcello but "The Hoffa Wars" states he was Marcello's son-in-law.

I have been searching the web for several hours trying to find more information. The only thing I found so far was that Murphy owned racehorses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, Smith was clearly an associate of Marcello but "The Hoffa Wars" states he was Marcello's son-in-law.

I have been searching the web for several hours trying to find more information. The only thing I found so far was that Murphy owned racehorses.

Here is another bit of info, not really a great source but that's what I dug up in several minutes ;)

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/viewar...=369&sort=topic

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re my post #33, in rereading the story I noticed that Wean only published who John was (who gave them the story and the documents) after Sen. John Tower had died (in a plane accident, as had Murphy died in a plane accident years earlier).

So either this incident happened (it does sound incredible) or this Mr. Wean made the whole thing up. I am beginning to think the latter, although the scenario described by Wean (a fake assassination plot to be blamed on Castro) does seem to pull a lot of things together.

(I am assuming that Sheriff Decker had died before Wean first published the story.)

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re my post #33, in rereading the story I noticed that Wean only published who John was (who gave them the story and the documents) after Sen. John Tower had died (in a plane accident, as had Murphy died in a plane accident years earlier).

So either this incident happened (it does sound incredible) or this Mr. Wean made the whole thing up. I am beginning to think the latter, although the scenario described by Wean (a fake assassination plot to be blamed on Castro) does seem to pull a lot of things together.

(I am assuming that Sheriff Decker had died before Wean first published the story.)

After having reread this I’d agree with you Tim that Wean boosted up the story maybe in order to push his books. But at least it answers the question why none of the researchers tried to contact Towers, there are easier ways to embarrass yourself.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Critical_Summ...an_Chap_44.html

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested in finding out what business Mr. Smith did and when Mr. Murphy first associated with Mr. Smith.

Although it may not be relevant to the JFK assassination, the efforts of Mr. Murphy to persuade Mr. Partin to change his testimony are curious.

Re the scenario of a fake assassination plot, I still think (as I posted earlier) it would be helpful to track down who first suggested this scenario. In a way, it seems as outrageous as the idea of piloting jet planes into skyscrapers. The very outrageousness of the scenario MAY suggest there is reality behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the scenario of a fake assassination plot, I still think (as I posted earlier) it would be helpful to track down who first suggested this scenario. In a way, it seems as outrageous as the idea of piloting jet planes into skyscrapers. The very outrageousness of the scenario MAY suggest there is reality behind it.

The concept of a fake attempt may only apply to what Oswald thought himself a part of. The actual firing of a rifle from the window would be classic misdirection, drawing attention to Oswald (Alek Hidell) as owner of the rifle and missing employee.

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it has been discussed in various threads I'd like to focus on the so called “faked assassination attempt” prior to the JFK assassination. I was trying to find some information as to wherever such attempts do have a history, meaning if it was something that was done before as a kind of routine to improve security, or was it something that just occurred prior to the assassination of JFK.

Below there are 3 examples of so called faked or staged assassination attempts. All three are supposed to be created by the victims themselves and therefore do not match the attempt concerning JFK.

When was the term "fake assassination attempt" first brought up and by whom? There are some saying that somebody maybe turned the fake one into the real thing. Does this really sound credible that at a certain stage it turned form a manouvre into war without beeing noticed by the initial planners? How difficult would it it be to fake one and why should there be much preparation for it? Would it not be enough just to take a camera (with across hair lense) and take some film footage from an unknown position aiming at the POTUS, later the whole sequence could be analysed and discussed. I know it wouldn't be that simple but on the other hand what do I have to understand under such a term? To find some way out of the dark may I throw some questions

1) What evidence of a (or more) faked attempt do we have and what proves that it actually was only a fake attempt and not a real one?

2) If there was such a fake attempt, who was entiteled to order it and what happend to this fake scenario?

3) Would a staged assassination attempt actually include the real President with or without knowing?

Examples:

July 13, 2005

BOGOTA -- Authorities ordered the arrest of a former Colombian secret police commander, accusing him of concocting assassination attempts against President Alvaro Uribe so he could ''foil'' them and impress his superiors, officials said Tuesday.

Emilio Vence, who was fired Friday as chief of the secret police in Barranquilla, is suspected of staging at least three phony assassination attempts on Uribe, using fireworks to simulate bombs, said a spokesman for the attorney general's office. Uribe has survived a handful of assassination attempts that have been blamed on Colombia's main rebel group, the FARC.

March 19, 2004

Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu were both wounded, allegedly by a hail of pistol rounds fired amidst the swirling smoke and deafening cacaphony of noisy firecrackers, blaring loudspeakers, and cheering supporters. Yet neither candidate was killed. Neither candidate was permanently disabled. Neither candidate was seriously wounded. Neither candidate required hospitalization. Neither candidate ever lost consciousness. Neither candidate required more than emergency room outpatient treatment. Both were patched up and released from hospital custody in just one hour. The day of the "assassination attempt" the Secret Service contingent guarding Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu was reduced [ ! ]. Several agents were sent back to Taipei, along with their weapons and ammunition. Every day preceding the "assassination attempt" Chen and Lu wore Kevlar vests whenever they appeared in public. Every day following the "assassination attempt" Chen and Lu wore Kevlar vests whenever they appeared in public. Only on the day of the "assassination attempt" did Chen and Lu not wear Kevlar vests when they appeared in public

October 26, 1954

Disagreements within the Society over Hudaybi's criticisms of the government then came to the fore, and Nasser personally made strenuous efforts to persuade the Brotherhood's leaders to have Hudaybi removed from his position. This conflict had the effect of discrediting not only Hudaybi but the rest of the leadership as well. The treaty with Britain was signed on 19 October 1954. Hudaybi and other Brotherhood leaders felt it was much better than the previously announced terms, but according to one version of events, the secret apparatus, now invisible and unaccountable to those not involved in it, saw the treaty it as a betrayal of Egypt and decided to act on its own. On 26 October, a member of the secret apparatus fired shots at Nasser while the latter was making a speech; unharmed, Nasser stood firm and finished his speech, declaring that he was ready to die for his country. There are, however, some indications that Nasser and his close associates may have staged the assassination attempt; what is certain is that they had been considering doing so.

George

Edited by George Bollschweiler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...