Best book about the JFK assassination

[Owen Parsons]

As for my earlier questions about the evidence that General Walker was a visitor to Banister's office, there is no cited evidence whatsoever.

Tim, Mellen goes over the Walker-Banister connection in a paragraph in the "Unsung Hero" chapter.

The segment mentioned by Owen asserts that Banister attended a speech given by Walker in Baton Rouge. Attendance at a speech isn't the same sort of connection that a meeting at Banister's office would connote. The Notes section erroneously has this as page 223 rather than 224.

Tim Carroll

This is true, of course. The source for this, police officer Joseph Cooper, also said that Banister and Walker knew each other. The gist of the connection is there, though it is not exactly as presented (in a sentence which chiefly rattles off names). This is hardly a grievous sin.

It is unfortunate that the footnotes start screwing up half-way through the book, but this does not make the information of the footnotes incorrect. This will undoubtedly be fixed in the next edition.

Edited November 19, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Tim Gratz]

Owen wrote:

I think that the evidence of the loan would be less impressive if it wasn't for all the independent confirmation of Ferrie's Dallas trip, a week before the assassination, from other witnesses. So yes, I do believe it.

Owen, first, it is high time that I complement you on the lucidity of your posts here.

Second, what is the "independent confirmation" of a Ferrie trip to Dallas?

Third, even if Ferrie traveled to Dallas, that does not prove that he went there in a plane that required Shaw to co-sign a loan for him. The supposed loan provides a Ferrie link to Shaw, which, of course, is necessary for the central premise of Professor Mellen's book. But I repeat that it makes no sense that Shaw would provide documentary evidence linking himself to a conspirator when he obviously had the ability to give Ferrie $400 in cash. I am waiting for Professor Mellen to produce a check from Shaw to one of the conspirators with the memo reading "For Kennedy Job."

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

As much as I disagree with you, at least you make coherent points, and offer some logic for same, even if it's right wing Bush- loving logic I don't consider you a xxxxx here. And you do read books, even when they don't back your Castro- did -it theory.

Thank you Dawn. I think the points I have raised about "A Farewell to Justice" are valid. But I do want to add here that it is clear that Professor Mellen spent years of work on the book and conducted close to 1,000 interviews. I certainly think the book deserves very careful consideration and evaluation. There is, for instance, a lot of interesting information about the Clinton witnesses. The problem as I see it is that the impact of the book is lessened by the inclusion of several stories that are dubious on their face.

It should also be noted that there is an anti-RFK tone that is evident in several passages in the book. For instance, she claims that RFK "railroaded" Jimmy Hoffa. How many of us would agree with that?

And of course the book is contrary to John's premise that the Kennedys were seeking conciliation with Castro. Professor Mellen claims that Robert F. Kennedy was organizing his own plans to assassinate Castro, independent of the CIA plans! Is anyone aware of any support for that premise?

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

So now it's Marcello eh? Not Castro:) And I totally disagree (what's new?); that is NOT what she is saying. It's just your take on it.

Dawn, I have always asserted there was Mafia involvement in the assassination. (Remember a fellow named Jack Ruby?) The connection to Castro (and I should add an "if any") came through Trafficante. (In this regard, I consider the connection between Cubela and Trafficante significant, and I do not consider it merely coincidental that the Cubela affair was unfolding just as Kennedy was shot. (Cubela had worked with Trafficante’s atttorney, Rafael Garcia-Bango Dirube, to secure Trafficante’s release from prison in Cuba.))

My point about Mellen's book is that she relates incidents involving Marcello's lawyer in the events leading to the assassination. Now, neither Mellen nor Garrison may have thoughht Marcello had anything to do with the assassination, but if the incidents Mellen relates are true, Marcello's lawyer was in the thick of things. For instance, Beckham, whose story she credits, says Gill gave him the money to transmit the assassination plans to Dallas.

Regardless of Mellen's take on it, if Beckham is a truth-teller, his story links Marcello to the assassination, not Shaw!

It's not what Mellen is saying that counts; it is what the story she apparently credits says.

Edited November 19, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Dawn Meredith]

It should also be noted that there is an anti-RFK tone that is evident in several passages in the book. For instance, she claims that RFK "railroaded" Jimmy Hoffa. How many of us would agree with that?

And of course the book is contrary to John's premise that the Kennedys were seeking conciliation with Castro. Professor Mellen claims that Robert F. Kennedy was organizing his own plans to assassinate Castro, independent of the CIA plans! Is anyone aware of any support for that premise?

I am troubled by this tone as well. Of course he did not "railroad" Hoffa.

And I DO NOT BELIEVE that RFK was secretly trying to kill Castro. I think she got suckered into this one and needs to do her homework here. More on this when I have finished the book.

It has been PROVEN that JFK and Castro were about to have detente. This is now history!! I really do not believe that the Attorney General was going behind the president's back and doing the very opposite. Mellen needs to read the IG report.

Dawn

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn, I suspect you may come to the conclusion that you disagree with some fundamental premises in her book.

Always good to finish a book before rushing to praise it!

There is also a quote in the book that Robert F. Kennedy was "always ready to praise brutal men".

[Owen Parsons]

Beckham's story has Marcello's lawyer, Gill, Shaw, Ferrie, Banister, and many others involved. Though Beckham does not really have direct knowledge of Shaw's involvement, Shaw is part of this circle. Hello?

When does Mellen ever say that Marcello wasn't involved?

Edited November 19, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Tim Carroll]

Professor Mellen claims that Robert F. Kennedy was organizing his own plans to assassinate Castro, independent of the CIA plans! Is anyone aware of any support for that premise?

Angelo Murgado says, repeat says, that Oswald was there when he arrived. This is attributed to him, not to me. He is on the record as saying Oswald was already there. So I must say he says that is what happened....HE SAYS.....Fairness decreed that I give his side of the story. So I added the attribution: HE CLAIMS. HE SAYS.

Joan Mellen's concept of fairness and accuracy is eluding me. Historical writing has no room for generating antecdotes the author doesn't establish as being at least minimally credible. Fairness does not decree that any particular side of a story be told, regardless of how bona fide or unsupported. And if the enabling qualifier is to include with the attributions such phrases as "he claims" or "he says," what is a reader to make of the degree of such qualifications applied to our own Gerry Hemming? Words like "Hemming spins," "Hemming imagines," "Hemming postulates" and "Hemming colors" do not engender the confidence of the reader. From pages 201-202:

"Gerald Patrick Hemming tells a tale that might serve as a metaphor to explain Bobby's conundrum. Without corroboration, offering none, Hemming spins a story of Bobby choppering from Palm Beach to a training facility near Homestead Air Force base. There, Hemming imagines, Bobby met with Cubans, many of them Bay of Pigs veterans, who were part of his Special Group. According to Hemming, among the Cubans that day stood one Lee Harvey Oswald.... Hemming postulates that Bobby greeted these Cuban men who considered themselves patriots so that they would know that this time, unlike the Bay of Pigs, the highest authority was backing them....[shades of the Cubela request for a meeting with RFK] The scene may or may not have taken place as Hemming colors it."

Professor Mellen is pretty rough on Gerry. Regarding the Odio visit, the notes show Gerry being interviewed on the matter on April 19, 2002, yet not coming up with the assertion that "Czukas arranged for the Odio visit" until more than two years later, on May 31, 2004. How can anyone read this and come away with any confidence about what is believable and what is not?

Tim Carroll

[Owen Parsons]

Owen wrote:

I think that the evidence of the loan would be less impressive if it wasn't for all the independent confirmation of Ferrie's Dallas trip, a week before the assassination, from other witnesses. So yes, I do believe it.

Owen, first, it is high time that I complement you on the lucidity of your posts here.

Second, what is the "independent confirmation" of a Ferrie trip to Dallas?

Third, even if Ferrie traveled to Dallas, that does not prove that he went there in a plane that required Shaw to co-sign a loan for him. The supposed loan provides a Ferrie link to Shaw, which, of course, is necessary for the central premise of Professor Mellen's book. But I repeat that it makes no sense that Shaw would provide documentary evidence linking himself to a conspirator when he obviously had the ability to give Ferrie $400 in cash. I am waiting for Professor Mellen to produce a check from Shaw to one of the conspirators with the memo reading "For Kennedy Job."

The independent confirmation would be Jack Martin, Allen Campbell, Thomas Beckham, and Ben Wilson (sorta).

While the confirmation of the trip to Dallas doesn't necessarily confirm the loan's existence, it is very supportive of it, since the loan story presupposes the Dallas trip. It isn't simply a matter of Clay Shaw co-signing the loan when he could have given Ferrie the money directly. Ferrie brought the loan to Herb Wagner, Wagner thought it a bit dubious and asked Ferrie to get someone to co-sign it. Ferrie brings in Clay Shaw, a highly respected citizen of New Orleans, to sign it. This could easily be a matter of pride on Ferrie's part.

As to why Shaw would implicate himself in this manner, I would chalk this up to arrogance. It was probably assumed that the lone assassin story would stick and no serious attention would be payed to this incident, which could, after all, be merely coincidental. Shaw twice implicated himself in two other documents, the VIP book and the booking card, neither of which are "phantom documents," as Lambert terms the loan.

I would also note that there is no real reason to fabricate a story (and document) like this. Wagner did not inform Garrison of this, so the intent was obviously not to frame Shaw. The man who relates Wagner's story and viewed the document, Roger Johnston, a deputy police marshall, is obviously a credible source and has no motive to make up a story like this, that I can see. Nor is the loan "essential" for Mellen to connect Ferrie and Shaw with. This would be quite well established in the book without the loan.

Edit: Tim, I don't really understand what you are getting at. Joan Mellen makes it pretty clear, in that paragraph and elsewhere in the book, that she doesn't regard Hemming and his tales as credible. Mellen uses his RFK story primarily as a "metaphor" and not as a genuine historical account. The qualifiers for Hemming are quite a bit more severe than those for Murgado. As for Murgado, his story is certainly of interest and Mellen certainly has a right to included it, whatever is to be said of it. Mellen makes the discrepancies between his story and Odio's clear in the book. If Mellen didn't tell all of his story, this would open her up to charges by the likes of Hemming and Gratz that she is distorting and covering-up the evidence. Which way would you have it?

Edited November 19, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Tim Carroll]

Professor Mellen spent years working on the book and interviewing witnesses. It is unfortunate she cheapened and discredited her own work by including such peposterous tales. Even more unfortunate, some gullible readers will "suspend disbelief" and taken them at face value.

The gist of the connection is there, though it is not exactly as presented (in a sentence which chiefly rattles off names). This is hardly a grievous sin. It is unfortunate that the footnotes start screwing up half-way through the book, but this does not make the information of the footnotes incorrect. This will undoubtedly be fixed in the next edition.

I would also note that there is no real reason to fabricate a story (and document) like this. Wagner did not inform Garrison of this, so the intent was obviously not to frame Shaw. The man who relates Wagner's story and viewed the document, Roger Johnston, a deputy police marshall, is obviously a credible source and has no motive to make up a story like this, that I can see. Nor is the loan "essential" for Mellen to connect Ferrie and Shaw with. This would be quite well established in the book without the loan.

Edit: Tim, I don't really understand what you are getting at. Joan Mellen makes it pretty clear, in that paragraph and elsewhere in the book, that she doesn't regard Hemming and his tales as credible. Mellen uses his RFK story primarily as a "metaphor" and not as a genuine historical account. As for Murgado, his story is certainly of interest and Mellen certainly has a right to included it, whatever is to be said of it. Mellen makes the discrepancies between his story and Odio's clear in the book. If Mellen didn't tell all of his story, this would open her up to charges by the likes of Hemming and Gratz that she is distorting and covering-up the evidence. Which way would you have it?

Which way would I have it? I would have it that any chronicler of fact, journalist or historian, separate the wheat from the chaff. There will always be good reason to have some tentativeness about any sourcing, which is why cross-referencing and appropriate attribution are so important. And without an author's ability to leave out intriguing but unsubstantiated material, a reader is left with a jumble of questionable assertions.

This is not an attack on Ms. Mellen, a member of this forum. So why can't anything be said about this book without Owen getting defensive?

Tim Carroll

[Owen Parsons]

Which way would I have it? I would have it that any chronicler of fact, journalist or historian, separate the wheat from the chaff. There will always be good reason to have some tentativeness about any sourcing, which is why cross-referencing and appropriate attribution are so important. And without an author's ability to leave out intriguing but unsubstantiated material, a reader is left with a jumble of questionable assertions.

This is not an attack on Ms. Mellen, a member of this forum. So why can't anything be said about this book without Owen getting defensive?

Tim Carroll

I have never said that you are attacking Mellen, and I think I have a right to defend the book if I believe the occasion warrants it. I am undecided about the Murgado material (leaning slightly towards it being untrue), but just about every nonfiction book I have read (and JFK assassination books especially) has at least a small amount of material I would consider untrue or dubious. It comes with the territory. There is no reason to single out Mellen's work over this.

Mellen does not treat Hemming's story seriously, and this should be clear to the reader. I still fail to see your point about this.

Edited November 20, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Tim Carroll]

This is not an attack on Ms. Mellen, a member of this forum. So why can't anything be said about this book without Owen getting defensive?

I have never said that you are attacking Mellen, and I think I have a right to defend the book if I believe the occasion warrants it. I am undecided about the Murgado material (leaning slightly towards it being untrue), but just about every nonfiction book I have read (and JFK assassination books especially) has at least a small amount of material I would consider untrue or dubious. It comes with the territory. There is no reason to single out Mellen's work over this.

Of course anyone has a right to defend the book, what matters is that they have a good reason. Knee-jerk defensiveness isn't the best approach to a critical examination of historical writing. I agree with Owen that a "small amount of material" that seems "untrue or dubious" can creep into the best of JFK assassination books, but some are more accurate and hold to a higher historical standard than others. Assessing the degree of credibility of such assertions is one of the best purposes served by a forum such as this.

Mellen does not treat Hemming's story seriously, and this should be clear to the reader. I still fail to see your point about this.

While I believe that Professor Mellen subtly trashes Gerry Hemming's credibility, she still used his claims about Bobby Kennedy to develop an impression that isn't supported without the inclusion of those claims. If she thought his story not worthy of being taken "seriously," she should have just left it out. She shouldn't both use and abuse it. Otherwise, she needed to include James Files and Judyth Baker in the book.

Tim Carroll

[Owen Parsons]

This is not an attack on Ms. Mellen, a member of this forum. So why can't anything be said about this book without Owen getting defensive?

I have never said that you are attacking Mellen, and I think I have a right to defend the book if I believe the occasion warrants it. I am undecided about the Murgado material (leaning slightly towards it being untrue), but just about every nonfiction book I have read (and JFK assassination books especially) has at least a small amount of material I would consider untrue or dubious. It comes with the territory. There is no reason to single out Mellen's work over this.

Of course anyone has a right to defend the book, what matters is that they have a good reason. Knee-jerk defensiveness isn't the best approach to a critical examination of historical writing. I agree with Owen that a "small amount of material" that seems "untrue or dubious" can creep into the best of JFK assassination books, but some are more accurate and hold to a higher historical standard than others. Assessing the degree of credibility of such assertions is one of the best purposes served by a forum such as this.

Its not knee-jerk defensiveness. If Tim Gratz asserts that a certain narrative that Mellen includes in her book is "preposterous," and I don't consider this judgement warranted, I will respond and attempt to back up my opinion. This is called "debate," which I think is an essential part of "assessing the degree of credibility of such assertions." Allow me the priviledge. I have already said that I don't regard everything in the book as true (i.e. Murgado).

Mellen does not treat Hemming's story seriously, and this should be clear to the reader. I still fail to see your point about this.

While I believe that Professor Mellen subtly trashes Gerry Hemming's credibility, she still used his claims about Bobby Kennedy to develop an impression that isn't supported without the inclusion of those claims. If she thought his story not worthy of being taken "seriously," she should have just left it out. She shouldn't both use and abuse it. Otherwise, she needed to include James Files and Judyth Baker in the book.

Tim Carroll

The difference between Hemming and Files and Baker is that Hemming deserves at least a footnote in history. The qualifiers she uses for Hemming's story are not "subtle" ("imagines," "spins," "postulates," "metaphor") and indeed quite blatant. I think the use she puts it to is fine, since is not treated as literally true. Nor is it even the primary source of information for her thesis about Bobby's anti-Castro activities.

Edited November 20, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Tim Carroll]

The qualifiers she uses for Hemming's story are not "subtle" ("imagines," "spins," "postulates," "metaphor") and indeed quite blatant. I think the use she puts it to is fine, since is not treated as literally true. Nor is it even the primary source of information for her thesis about Bobby's anti-Castro activities.

What is the primary source for "Bobby's anti-Castro activities?" What is the source for the declarative assertion that Oswald was in Florida in the summer of 1963?

Tim Carroll

[Owen Parsons]

The qualifiers she uses for Hemming's story are not "subtle" ("imagines," "spins," "postulates," "metaphor") and indeed quite blatant. I think the use she puts it to is fine, since is not treated as literally true. Nor is it even the primary source of information for her thesis about Bobby's anti-Castro activities.

What is the primary source for "Bobby's anti-Castro activities?" What is the source for the declarative assertion that Oswald was in Florida in the summer of 1963?

Tim Carroll

I'm not going to bother picking up the book for this, but the primary sources would be the accounts of Angel Murgado and various CIA personages like Helms (neither of which I regard as credible [again, I am undecided about Murgado], but there is not really any dishonesty in using them). William Turner has an entire chapter in Deadly Secrets about Bobby's post Bay of Pigs anti-Castro activity, but no one attacks him for it.

I assume you are refering to Hemming's tale for Oswald being in Florida. Again, this is not treated as true and is not supposed to be taken that way by the reader. If I'm wrong about the source, give me a citation.

Edited November 20, 2005 by Owen Parsons