Jump to content
The Education Forum

Eugene Dinkin.


Guest Stephen Turner

Recommended Posts

Dinkin's story is either one about a paranoid American soldier, or its a key to the hiring of at least part of the shooter team by elements of the US military.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 years later...
On 5/16/2013 at 7:02 AM, Guest Robert Morrow said:

http://www.dcdave.com/article5/130516.htm

JFK Assassination Enablers?

Guest Column by Hugh Turley

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and stories about that fateful day in November 1963 have already started appearing in the American media. It is a popular belief that if there were a conspiracy, someone would come forward and the press would tell us.

 

Then why is there still no news about Pfc. Eugene Dinkin, a cryptographic code operator for the Army? Declassified CIA and FBI documents released in the 1990s reveal a strange tale that raises the question: Could Dinkin have learned the details of an assassination plot from the classified documents he handled, or was he a paranoiac who somehow made a number of amazingly accurate prophecies?

 

On October 16, 1963, when Dinkin was stationed in Metz, France, he wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy warning that the president would be assassinated on or about November 28 and requesting an interview by the Justice Department. Dinkin sent the letter registered mail, and to prevent it from being intercepted, used the return address of an Army friend, Pfc. Dennis De Witt. He did not receive an answer.

 

Dinkin later changed the predicted assassination date to November 22 and said it would happen in Texas. He believed the military was involved in the plot and that a Communist would be blamed. The day after the murder, the Washington Evening Star reported that the alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was a “pro-Castro Marxist.”

 

On October 25, 1963, Dinkin traveled to the United States Embassy in Luxembourg to apprise a Mr. Cunningham, the Charge d’Affaires, of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy. He was turned away.

 

Dinkin was scheduled for a psychiatric examination on November 4, and fearing confinement as a psychotic, he went absent without leave from his unit. He traveled to Geneva, Switzerland, using a false Army identification and forged travel orders. There, he appeared in the press room of the United Nations office on November 6 and 7 and “told reporters he was being persecuted.” Among those who heard his story were the editor of the Geneva Diplomat and representatives of Newsweek and the Time-Life media group.

 

The AWOL Dinkin was the subject of CIA cables on November 18 and again on November 29, 1963. The latter cable advised the White House, State Department, FBI, and Secret Service of Dinkin’s assassination predictions and of his trip to Switzerland.

 

Upon returning to his unit in Metz, he was arrested by Army intelligence officers and soon transferred to Walter Reed Army hospital in Washington, D.C., where he was treated for “paranoia,” according to an FBI report. Afterwards, he was discharged from the Army.

 

The FBI interviewed him on April 1, 1964. By then, perhaps fearing prosecution for revealing classified material, Dinkin said his theory came from newspaper articles and acknowledged that it “was extremely ‘wild’ and could be construed [as] ‘crazy’.”

 

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and CIA Deputy Director Richard Helms informed the Warren Commission about Dinkin’s predictions about the assassination, but his name was never mentioned in the encyclopedic official record.

 

The journalists who heard Dinkin’s story in Switzerland may have had it within their power to prevent the assassination of President Kennedy. By writing nothing about his documented allegations, they failed to exercise that power. In addition, they knew that he had been detained after coming forward—but in the wake of the assassination with the investigation proceeding, they remained silent. How many other cases like Dinkins remain unreported?

 

Pfc. Dinkin miscalculated when he went AWOL to contact journalists whom he mistakenly believed were liberty’s guardians. The Roman poet Juvenal asked, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (“Who will guard the guards themselves?”) It’s still a good question.

________________________________________________________________________________

This article appeared originally in the May 2013 Hyattsville Life and Times with the more sweeping title of simply “Assassination Enablers?” The article is reprinted here with the permission of the Maryland newspaper, though it should be noted that, for the first time in Mr. Turley’s many years as a columnist, an editorial disclaimer has been appended.

Jason Ward - I'd appreciate any comments.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have long been stories that the assassination was known among the plotters as "The Christmas Present" ("or "Package") because it was to be scheduled for Xmas or Thanksgiving, so as to confound the public more by casting a pall over a holiday.  November 28 was Thanksgiving Day in 1963.   

Would be worth reading Stars & Stripes and the Hearst papers for 1963, to see what "psychological sets" Dinkin could have teased the Christmas/Thanksgiving date out of (especially in connection with a "godless communist" assassin).  Or was it intel cable traffic?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again I just ask for someone to show me some sort of proof that Dinkin was a crypto code operator - for the Army - and that his job in 1963 involved that sort of work,  that also means showing what unit he was in and that it was tasked with secure communications. 

Of course it could be all about reading newspapers and interpreting articles.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry - It is striking that today we still can't answer this question. Allegations were made about Dinkin making efforts to warn the US by letter and showing up in person at embassies. I've not seen proof that he either was or wasn't privy to teletypes as a crypto code operator. Mr. Ward seems to have access to information proving Dinkin was a fraud. I've asked him to comment on this post by Morrow. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Once again I just ask for someone to show me some sort of proof that Dinkin was a crypto code operator - for the Army - and that his job in 1963 involved that sort of work,  that also means showing what unit he was in and that it was tasked with secure communications. 

Of course it could be all about reading newspapers and interpreting articles.  

Exactly the correct approach, Larry.

The only evidence we have is that Dinkins was a lowly PFC who forged IDs and went AWOL in 1963.

Everything else was made up AFTER the assassination -AFAIK by journalists and/or conspiracy theorists.

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Once again I just ask for someone to show me some sort of proof that Dinkin was a crypto code operator - for the Army - and that his job in 1963 involved that sort of work,  that also means showing what unit he was in and that it was tasked with secure communications. 

Of course it could be all about reading newspapers and interpreting articles.  

Larry,

 

Thanks for bringing this up.

If you go back to the first page of this thread, Lisa Pease posted:

 

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/7078-eugene-dinkin/

 

“On April 1, 1964, Mr. Eugen B. Dinkin, ... advised Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he had been recently discharged from the United States Army...”

 

“Dinkin advised that he had been in trouble with the officers of his military group, the 599th Ordnance Group stationed in Germany, due to his refusal to purchase United States savings bonds.”

 

“As a result of his opposition to the bond purchases, according to Dinkin, he was removed from his position in the code section and transferred to an Army Depot at Metz, France.”

 

I've looked, and there ain't no animal called the "599th Ordnance Group"

I've run across references to 599th Battalions, and Companies, but no such thing as an Ordnance Group. Army Groups aren't set up that way.

 

And, as for me, I'm finding it hard to understand how somebody involved in depot and ordnance work could be involved in cryptography.

 

Steve Thomas

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Larry - It is striking that today we still can't answer this question. Allegations were made about Dinkin making efforts to warn the US by letter and showing up in person at embassies. I've not seen proof that he either was or wasn't privy to teletypes as a crypto code operator. Mr. Ward seems to have access to information proving Dinkin was a fraud. I've asked him to comment on this post by Morrow. 

Hi Paul,

I have no special access, I just read raw data.   I don't value other people's conclusions in the assassination  because we are at the point where conspiracy theorists actually cite each other as proof and believe mere accusations equal evidence. 

As far as I can see, all that happened here is a French journalist tried to cash in on the assassination by claiming after Dallas that an AWOL private predicted the murder - while running wild in Europe on forged IDs.  There is no record previous to the assassination that Dinkins made the prediction, there is only the retroactive journalist's claim made after the president's death.

 

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Larry,

 

Thanks for bringing this up.

If you go back to the first page of this thread, Lisa Pease posted:

 

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/7078-eugene-dinkin/

 

“On April 1, 1964, Mr. Eugen B. Dinkin, ... advised Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he had been recently discharged from the United States Army...”

 

“Dinkin advised that he had been in trouble with the officers of his military group, the 599th Ordnance Group stationed in Germany, due to his refusal to purchase United States savings bonds.”

 

“As a result of his opposition to the bond purchases, according to Dinkin, he was removed from his position in the code section and transferred to an Army Depot at Metz, France.”

 

I've looked, and there ain't no animal called the "599th Ordnance Group"

I've run across references to 599th Battalions, and Companies, but no such thing as an Ordnance Group. Army Groups aren't set up that way.

 

And, as for me, I'm finding it hard to understand how somebody involved in depot and ordnance work could be involved in cryptography.

 

Steve Thomas

 

Steve - what's best conclusion to draw from the non existence of the 599th Ordinance Group? That Dinkins, in his 1964 statements to the FBI, lied, if the FBI report of 1964 is to be believed. It's also fair to point out that John Scelso was John Whitten, a career CIA officer put in charge after the assassination of investigating the CIA files on Oswald. Whitten was relieved of that duty a month later by Helms, and Angleton took over. He subsequently fell off the radar. But CIA kept hidden the fact that Scelso was Whitten until 2002, two years after his death. That's pretty sensitive. Even if Scelso's first report is a week after the assassination, he is reporting what journalists repeated, which is that Dinkins made his accusations prior to the event. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

 

 

 

 

 

...

It's also fair to point out that John Scelso was John Whitten, a career CIA officer put in charge after the assassination of investigating the CIA files on Oswald. Whitten was relieved of that duty a month later by Helms, and Angleton took over. He subsequently fell off the radar.

...

...he is reporting what journalists repeated, which is that Dinkins made his accusations prior to the event. 

Paul, I hate pedantic posts, but I think in this case strict attention to detail might be important.

1 - Whitten didn't fall off the radar.   He's active in the CIA communications traffic I read for years beyond 1963.  He may have fallen off the CT radar, but he has a long and productive career after JFK.  One reason it took so long to unmask Scelso is because Whitten goes on to several other projects which remain sensitive at least until the fall of the USSR and the death or obscurity of KGB agents working for the CIA.

2. Only one journalist made the claim that has put Dinkins into a role for the conspiratorial minded.  One.  So there's no repetition of "what journalists repeated," there is a review of what one lone journalist in Switzerland claimed. This wasn't a widespread story, this was one journalist deciding after the president was killed that he MIGHT have heard Dinkins predict the assassination in early November.  

There is no evidence dated prior to 22 November 63 that Dinkins had anything to say about Kennedy.  It all appears after the fact.

 

Jason

 

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that CIA kept Whitten's cover until 2002. Why do you suppose he was taken off the most important case of his career by Helms and Angleton?

what are your bonafides as a researcher? You give no clues in your bio here. 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

My understanding is that CIA kept Whitten's cover until 2002. Why do you suppose he was taken off the most important case of his career by Helms and Angleton?

what are your bonafides as a researcher? You give no clues in your bio here. 

 Why do you call this the most important case of Whitten's career ? 

The CIA had relatively little to do with the Kennedy assassination investigation, and the only thing that they really did for the Warren Commission was provide information on past operations.  No new information gathering.  

The CIA person handling the post-assassination effort need only be a file gatherer who responds to requests and locates the appropriate paperwork. It's more of a clerk's job then a star employee's job.  

As to why Whitten got removed, my sense from the communication traffic is that he had more important operational duties to perform.  Whitten was far more valuable as an operations manager, not as a bureaucrat gatekeeper shuffling papers around.

After Hoover/LBJ/Warren decide LHO is the lone nut assassin regardless of what evidence suggests, the role of liaison to Hoover and the Warren commission required someone of national standing, no doubt in part to politically massage the evidence into the desired narrative. If anything Whitten was removed probably because he could be expected only to deliver 100% of the truth and not twist and tilt the truth to the lone assassin narrative.  

Giving Hoover and Warren what they need from the CIA to justify their desired conclusion required much more authority than the kind of middle management field operations guy like Whitten.  The CIA liaison role in a lone nut patsy effort requires a politically aware high-ranking official able to give orders without question , this was not Whitten.

 As to your question about my "bona fides," I'm not sure what or why you're asking, but I prefer to keep our discussion to the Kennedy assassination.

Jason

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So then why start with Whitten?

I do think your bonafides matter since you seem to be an expert on communications within the intelligence community, radio traffic and the like, but you are not a published author and as far as I can tell have no prior standing in the JFK assassination community. At least google doesn't come up with anything. You have only posted here on Trejo's thread and offshoots. It may be that other posters here, recently joined or old timers, likewise say nothing about who they are. But you act the part of an expert. If you are one, I encourage you to be a bit more forthcoming about how you got here. How else am I supposed to weigh your statements? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...