RFK assassination program on BBC2, Nov. 20

[Thomas Graves]

Shane’s article also claims that George Joannides was with David Morales, and Gordon Campbell in the Ambassador Hotel on the night of the assassination. The article includes a still that shows Joannides and Campbell. Can anyone ID these photographs?

__________________________________

John, James, Robin, Lee, etc...

Any idea who took the photograph of "Campbell and Joannides" (in John's post #8 this thread) and why? It's very interesting to me that these two guys just happened to be the subject of a still photograph taken that night. Was it because they looked particularly distinguished? Did the photographer recognize one or both of these men in the ballroom and think it strange that he/they were even at such a function?

FWIW, Thomas

__________________________________

Edited November 21, 2006 by Thomas Graves

[Myra Bronstein]

...

"Shane O’Sullivan: Well, we know that Morales died in 1978 just weeks before he was due to be called before the House Select Committee on Assassinations."

...

Wouldn't it be interesting to have a list of HSCA witnesses who died shortly before their scheduled testimony?

Edited November 21, 2006 by Myra Bronstein

[Thomas Graves]

Shane’s article also claims that George Joannides was with David Morales, and Gordon Campbell in the Ambassador Hotel on the night of the assassination. The article includes a still that shows Joannides and Campbell. Can anyone ID these photographs?

__________________________________

John, James, Robin, Lee, etc...

Any idea who took the photograph of "Campbell and Joannides" (in John's post #8 this thread) and why? It's very interesting to me that these two guys just happened to be the subject of a still photograph taken that night. Was it because they looked particularly distinguished? Did the photographer recognize one or both of these men in the ballroom and think it strange that he/they were even at such a function?

FWIW, Thomas

__________________________________

__________________________________________

Comments, anyone?

__________________________________________

[John Simkin]

Wouldn't it be interesting to have a list of HSCA witnesses who died shortly before their scheduled testimony?

You will find details on this thread: Deaths of Key Witnesses

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=603

Also, take a look at my page on the subject:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdeaths.htm

[Anthony Summers]

I've been travelling, and was unable to catch the programme. I've seen the Guardian, though. This seems on its face to be an extremely thin story. Photographs and photograph recognition are infamously unreliable, especially coming from witnesses so long after an event. That does not mean these fellows were not in the Ambassador on the night - though I would have thought that's the last place such officers would have allowed themselves to be seen and photographed - but I'm surprised (at least on the basis of what I read in the Guardian) that the BBC would have judged the story worth running.

[John Simkin]

I have just posted the following on the Newsnight website. Hopefully, they will eventually let it through:

Simon May’s post deserves serious consideration.

“It's an interesting point in psychology when it comes to what we accept and reject in that area known as "conspiracy". Jeremy Paxman sensibly introduced tonight's RFK piece with: "the violent deaths of prominent people...routinely attract conspiracy theories." They do. It is also true that there is a tendency to do the reverse - routinely dismiss them. I confess to be among those who - perhaps like Jeremy - cringe at the very word "conspiracy", yet recognise that sometimes they happen. Today we appear to be caught between these two competing mindsets: gravitating to conspiracy theories and avoiding them. Not surprisingly, in the world of journalism, the last thing you want is to be caught on the wrong side of a conspiracy argument, however much you mistrust your government.”

The media is aware that a large percentage of the population is interested in political conspiracies. They rightly believe that the people in power are willing to withhold information that suggests that we do not live in a free and open democracy. The media goes along with this conspiracy that dates back to the emergence of democracy in the 19th century. This is usually justified on the grounds of “national security” but in reality it is a much more complex issue than that. For example, see details of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird that has been running since the late 1940s:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

The media in the UK and the US has always been willing to run stories of conspiracies based in foreign countries that don’t involve their own agents, for example the current Alexander Litvinenko case. That is not to say he was not poisoned but it does raise the question why the media has been less interested in exploring the deaths of those who were investigating the JFK assassination. See the following:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdeaths.htm

The same could be asked about the death of David Kelly. The available evidence suggests that it was highly unlikely he committed suicide but the media has largely ignored this story. Despite the media cover-up of these suspicious deaths, the public are not fooled. Public opinion polls since 1963 suggest that over 80% of the American people believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy. They also know that their government has consistently lied about the assassination and despite the passing of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act, the CIA is still refusing to allow over a million relevant documents to enter the public domain. The justification of “national security” is hardly relevant when we are talking about an event that took place over 40 years ago.

BBC Newsnight is to be congratulated for running the Shane O’Sullivan’s piece. However, it is important to recognize that there were serious problems with this report. The identification of Gordon Campbell is highly dubious. Although the CIA does have photographs of Campbell, they have not entered the public domain. My sources, who have seen photographs of Campbell, say that the man in the picture shown on Newsnight looks like him, but they cannot be certain.

In the film Bradley Ayers and David Rabern suggest it is Campbell. Rabern is a new name to me and I found his testimony unconvincing. Ayers was definitely at JM-WAVE in 1963. His books, The War That Never Was (1976) and The Zenith Secret: A CIA Insider Exposes the Secret War Against Cuba and the Plot that Killed the Kennedy Brothers (2006) recount the rumours that were circulating about David Sanchez Morales in 1963. However, he is unable to provide any evidence that Morales was behind the assassination of either JFK or RFK.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKayers.htm

But Campbell is a red herring. As a close colleague of Morales his presence in the Ambassador Hotel would have been interesting but not conclusive.

What is important is the testimony of two very respectable witnesses: Wayne Smith and Ed Lopez. They are convinced that the pictures show that David Sanchez Morales and George Joannides were both in the hotel on the day RFK was assassinated.

The CIA has managed to keep all photographs out of the public domain. However, thanks to the great work of James Richards, we do have several pictures of Morales.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CIAmorales.htm

In fact, the photograph and caption of the picture of Morales that appeared in the Phoenix newspaper in 1977 was the main reason he was murdered in 1978. It was also necessary because Gaeton Fonzi, chief investigator of the House Select Committee on Assassinations had discovered evidence of Morales’ role in the death of JFK and he had been ordered to appear before the HSCA.

Most people would find it difficult to believe that the men involved in the planning the assassinations of JFK and RFK would have wanted to be at the scene of the crime. However, you have to understand the arrogance of these men. They were working for the CIA and knew that they would be completely protected if any information came out about their involvement. Here for example here is a photograph of another CIA operative who worked closely with Morales at JMWAVE in 1963, Rip Robertson, at Dealey Plaza:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrobertsonW.htm

David Sanchez Morales was definitely involved in the assassination. According to a filmed interview with Gene Wheaton last year, Carl E. Jenkins and Rafael Quintero, two other CIA operatives at JMWAVE, were also involved in the killing of JFK. Jenkins and Quintero refused to answer my questions (via Don Bohning) about their involvement in the assassination. Quintero died last month but Jenkins is still alive and needs to be interviewed on camera.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjenkinsC.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKquintero.htm

Hopefully, the BBC will commission a follow-up documentary on Morales, Jenkins, Quintero and other members of Ted Shackley’s Secret Team (Tom Clines and Edwin Wilson who both refused to identify Morales in the Newsnight documentary were both members of Shackley’s team and were later sent to prison for their involvement in illegal contract work).

For more information on these characters who were not only involved in the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, also brought down Jimmy Carter and helped to make sure that Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush (Shakley even wrote some of his speeches) were elected, see:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm

If you want to provide me with information on this or any other political scandal, send me an email at: johnsimkin1945@hotmail.com

[John Simkin]

Any idea who took the photograph of "Campbell and Joannides" (in John's post #8 this thread) and why? It's very interesting to me that these two guys just happened to be the subject of a still photograph taken that night. Was it because they looked particularly distinguished? Did the photographer recognize one or both of these men in the ballroom and think it strange that he/they were even at such a function?

According to Shane O'Sullivan he went through all the pictures he could find that were taken in the Ambassador Hotel on the day of the assassination. I know that he had already seen the photographs of Morales on my site that had been collected by James Richards. He thought he recognized Morales and therefore showed these photographs to Ayers, Smith, Lopez, etc.

Some better quality photographs of the CIA in the Ambassador Hotel can be found on Shane O'Sullivan's website.

http://www.rfkmustdie.com/

[James Richards]

Yes I agree John it was a very interesting piece and very convincing. I'm just surprised that no one has picked Morales and co. out before from the photos and footage.

I would be interested if someone could identify the latin looking man with a moustache who is seen after the shooting on the footage who I think was waving the other man towards the exit.

I was thinking maybe someone like Larry Hancock or James Richards might know who it is?

Hi Francesca,

The quality of the image makes it a little difficult to be sure but he looks like Julio Gran. Mmm.

James

[John Simkin]

I have just posted the following on the Newsnight website. Hopefully, they will eventually let it through:

Simon May’s post deserves serious consideration.

“It's an interesting point in psychology when it comes to what we accept and reject in that area known as "conspiracy". Jeremy Paxman sensibly introduced tonight's RFK piece with: "the violent deaths of prominent people...routinely attract conspiracy theories." They do. It is also true that there is a tendency to do the reverse - routinely dismiss them. I confess to be among those who - perhaps like Jeremy - cringe at the very word "conspiracy", yet recognise that sometimes they happen. Today we appear to be caught between these two competing mindsets: gravitating to conspiracy theories and avoiding them. Not surprisingly, in the world of journalism, the last thing you want is to be caught on the wrong side of a conspiracy argument, however much you mistrust your government.”

The media is aware that a large percentage of the population is interested in political conspiracies. They rightly believe that the people in power are willing to withhold information that suggests that we do not live in a free and open democracy. The media goes along with this conspiracy that dates back to the emergence of democracy in the 19th century. This is usually justified on the grounds of “national security” but in reality it is a much more complex issue than that. For example, see details of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird that has been running since the late 1940s:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

The media in the UK and the US has always been willing to run stories of conspiracies based in foreign countries that don’t involve their own agents, for example the current Alexander Litvinenko case. That is not to say he was not poisoned but it does raise the question why the media has been less interested in exploring the deaths of those who were investigating the JFK assassination. See the following:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdeaths.htm

The same could be asked about the death of David Kelly. The available evidence suggests that it was highly unlikely he committed suicide but the media has largely ignored this story. Despite the media cover-up of these suspicious deaths, the public are not fooled. Public opinion polls since 1963 suggest that over 80% of the American people believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy. They also know that their government has consistently lied about the assassination and despite the passing of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act, the CIA is still refusing to allow over a million relevant documents to enter the public domain. The justification of “national security” is hardly relevant when we are talking about an event that took place over 40 years ago.

BBC Newsnight is to be congratulated for running the Shane O’Sullivan’s piece. However, it is important to recognize that there were serious problems with this report. The identification of Gordon Campbell is highly dubious. Although the CIA does have photographs of Campbell, they have not entered the public domain. My sources, who have seen photographs of Campbell, say that the man in the picture shown on Newsnight looks like him, but they cannot be certain.

In the film Bradley Ayers and David Rabern suggest it is Campbell. Rabern is a new name to me and I found his testimony unconvincing. Ayers was definitely at JM-WAVE in 1963. His books, The War That Never Was (1976) and The Zenith Secret: A CIA Insider Exposes the Secret War Against Cuba and the Plot that Killed the Kennedy Brothers (2006) recount the rumours that were circulating about David Sanchez Morales in 1963. However, he is unable to provide any evidence that Morales was behind the assassination of either JFK or RFK.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKayers.htm

But Campbell is a red herring. As a close colleague of Morales his presence in the Ambassador Hotel would have been interesting but not conclusive.

What is important is the testimony of two very respectable witnesses: Wayne Smith and Ed Lopez. They are convinced that the pictures show that David Sanchez Morales and George Joannides were both in the hotel on the day RFK was assassinated.

The CIA has managed to keep all photographs out of the public domain. However, thanks to the great work of James Richards, we do have several pictures of Morales.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CIAmorales.htm

In fact, the photograph and caption of the picture of Morales that appeared in the Phoenix newspaper in 1977 was the main reason he was murdered in 1978. It was also necessary because Gaeton Fonzi, chief investigator of the House Select Committee on Assassinations had discovered evidence of Morales’ role in the death of JFK and he had been ordered to appear before the HSCA.

Most people would find it difficult to believe that the men involved in the planning the assassinations of JFK and RFK would have wanted to be at the scene of the crime. However, you have to understand the arrogance of these men. They were working for the CIA and knew that they would be completely protected if any information came out about their involvement. Here for example here is a photograph of another CIA operative who worked closely with Morales at JMWAVE in 1963, Rip Robertson, at Dealey Plaza:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrobertsonW.htm

David Sanchez Morales was definitely involved in the assassination. According to a filmed interview with Gene Wheaton last year, Carl E. Jenkins and Rafael Quintero, two other CIA operatives at JMWAVE, were also involved in the killing of JFK. Jenkins and Quintero refused to answer my questions (via Don Bohning) about their involvement in the assassination. Quintero died last month but Jenkins is still alive and needs to be interviewed on camera.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjenkinsC.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKquintero.htm

Hopefully, the BBC will commission a follow-up documentary on Morales, Jenkins, Quintero and other members of Ted Shackley’s Secret Team (Tom Clines and Edwin Wilson who both refused to identify Morales in the Newsnight documentary were both members of Shackley’s team and were later sent to prison for their involvement in illegal contract work).

For more information on these characters who were not only involved in the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, also brought down Jimmy Carter and helped to make sure that Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush (Shakley even wrote some of his speeches) were elected, see:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm

If you want to provide me with information on this or any other political scandal, send me an email at: johnsimkin1945@hotmail.com

They have not published this posting. What bit do you think they objected to? I have told Shane O'Sullivan what has happened and that I have posted it on the forum. Maybe they will realize that censorship on the net does not work.

Has anyone else had their postings censored?

It is important to post your comments on the Newsnight website. If a lot of interest is generated by this piece, they are likely to commission Shane to do a follow-up.

[John Simkin]

They have not published this posting. What bit do you think they objected to? I have told Shane O'Sullivan what has happened and that I have posted it on the forum. Maybe they will realize that censorship on the net does not work.

This worked and they have now allowed by posting through. Please post your own views on Morales, etc. on the website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/...ember_2006.html

Remember, it is a good way to encourage them to do a follow-up program on CIA officers like Morales.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I have just posted the following on the Newsnight website. Hopefully, they will eventually let it through:

They have not published this posting. What bit do you think they objected to?

There may have been more than one factor involved, but my guess is that referencing former U.S. President George H.W. Bush, father of the sitting President, in an article about the JFK/RFK assassinations, was deemed impolitic by the powers that be at the BBC.

[Edit] Ooops, since I wrote the above I just saw John Simkin's new post in which he reports that

"This worked and they have now allowed my posting through"

I guess the reference to Bush may have made the BBC pause, but did not stop them.

Good for the BBC.

Edited November 21, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Guest Mark Valenti]

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/

Read this from Lisa Pease.

[Francesca Akhtar]

Yes I agree John it was a very interesting piece and very convincing. I'm just surprised that no one has picked Morales and co. out before from the photos and footage.

I would be interested if someone could identify the latin looking man with a moustache who is seen after the shooting on the footage who I think was waving the other man towards the exit.

I was thinking maybe someone like Larry Hancock or James Richards might know who it is?

Hi Francesca,

The quality of the image makes it a little difficult to be sure but he looks like Julio Gran. Mmm.

James

Hi James,

good job! Thanks for that, sure looks like him to me from the photo. The hairline and ear especially.

My next question is....who is he?

Anyone who you'd expect to be associated with the CIA or operations like this?

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Senator George Mitchell was 35 years old when RFK was assassinated. He was a practicing private sector lawyer in Maine when Bobby Kennedy was killed. He is not the man in that photo.

The fact that Mitchell's job was in Maine in '68 does not preclude him from getting on a plane to fly to LA.

And some people look older at 35 than others do at 45.

However, I don't believe the guy in the photo is George Mitchell. I just mentioned the similarity to better fix him in memory.

[John Simkin]

There may have been more than one factor involved, but my guess is that referencing former U.S. President George H.W. Bush, father of the sitting President, in an article about the JFK/RFK assassinations, was deemed impolitic by the powers that be at the BBC.

[Edit] Ooops, since I wrote the above I just saw John Simkin's new post in which he reports that

"This worked and they have now allowed my posting through"

I guess the reference to Bush may have made the BBC pause, but did not stop them.

Good for the BBC.

I am sure you are right. However, I told Shane O'Sullivan that it had not appeared on the Newsnight website and that I had posted it on this site. I am sure this was the main reason they let it through.