David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

One fault I found with the book was its treatment of the Garrison investigation. It was unconvincing, and it seemed like Talbot was trying to avoid the amount of time and detail that the question of the validity of Garrison's investigation demands. I can understand this, given Talbot's overall focus on the big picture, instituional (as opposed to personal or merely mafia) motive for the assassination. Still he is too quick to tar garrison with Marcello brush that is so conveniently there for anyone to use. He makes an attempt to be fair later, but, in my view, the book is unconvincingly superficial and judgemental when it comes to the Garrison investigation.

This is the one weak spot I found in this excellent and polished read.

Edited May 20, 2007 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[John Geraghty]

Mr. Talbot,

This may be of some iterest to you, although I have not read your book yet. I found a reference to Walter Sheridan in the book 'The Senator' by Richard Burke, Ted Kennedy's former chief of staff. In it Burke says that he (Burke) felt threatened at one point, Ted Kennedy called Walter Sheridan to help him out. This was in or around 1980/81. The reference reads as follows,

"In fact, as soon as the Senator hung up, he phoned Walter Sheridan, the ex-FBI agent who had worked as a security consultant for Robert Kennedy and, later, for the Senate Judiciary committee." p 308

This would infer that Sheridan remained an ally or 'go to man' for the Kennedys, even after Bobby's death. I thought that this may have some relevance in the discussion of Sheridan's relationship with the Kennedys.

Did you have a chance to interview any of Sheridan's family?

All the best,

John Geraghty

[David Talbot]

Thanks for your comments, Nathaniel, and for kicking off the discussion on my book. Re: the NY Times review. I agree that Alan Brinkley simplified my argument about JFK as a Cold War dove. Kennedy was obviously a man of his times, and he felt compelled to take aggressive action and to use Cold War rhetoric at times, if only to survive politically. But he was clearly, in fits and starts, leading the country in a new, more peaceful direction. And, yes, this did provoke an intense reaction from his national security bureaucracy, many of whom regarded him as an "interloper" (good word, Nathaniel). This dark, explosive tension within the admnistration simply has not been fully acknowledged or analyzed by the history establishment. And though the initial reaction to my historical revisionism about Kennedy from these academic quarters has been critical, I'm at least gratified that the debate about JFK's legacy has been reopened. All in all, I'm pleasantly surprised by the respectful tone of the Times review -- the book could have been handled much more roughly, considering the controversial nature of my book. Brinkley seems to assume we don't know the full story about Dallas yet -- another step forward for mainstream historians.

The companion review of Bugliosi's book, on the other hand, is a puzzler. The Times assigned the review to a Vanity Fair writer who obviously has no expertise in the area, and his review is full of ignorant acclaim for the book and predictable sideswipes at conspiracy theorists. BUT, and it's big BUT in my opinion, the review is such a light-weight treatment of Bugliosi's book -- devoting much of its space to snide gags about the book's impossible length -- that it actually has the effect of diminishing the book's stature. There is no serious consideration of Bugliosi's arguments. In fact, there is nothing in the review to suggest that the critic actually read the book -- at least in its entirety (who can blame him?). I've heard that Bugliosi was irritated by the choice of such a flimsy writer to review his book. After reading the review, I can understand why.

Re: my chapter on Garrison. Of course, opinions of the New Orleans investigation STILL provoke sharp debates in JFK circles. And I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable about all the arcana of the case as many of my research colleagues. But the overall impresion that I took from my research was that Garrison was a flawed hero. Yes, he might not have been immune to the corruptions of his New Orlean milieu -- but he was motivated primarily, I believe, by a heroic patriotism. Walt Sheridan was equally complex in this regard -- his hyper sensitivity to corruption and organized crime probably rendered him blind to Garrison's flawed nobility. But he too was motivated by a desire to dig out the truth about JFK. The fact that these two men inevitably clashed in New Orleans is one more tragedy of the case. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I have a complex view of the whole New Orleans story.

[David Talbot]

John, Walt Sheridan is indeed a key figure in the Kennedy story. He was RFK -- and later Ted Kennedy's -- ace investigator. And as I show in my book, he was the man whom Bobby was going to rely on primarily to reopen the investigation into JFK's murder if RFK had made it to the White House in 1968. He was the man Bobby most relied upon to dig into the darkest corners of American power.

And yes I did interview Sheridan family members (Walt himself died years ago) -- I talked to his widow Nancy a number of times over two or three years, as well as two of his sons. Nancy, in particular, was very helpful in illuminating the relationship between Bobby and Walt, and their secret pact to break the JFK case.

[John Geraghty]

John, Walt Sheridan is indeed a key figure in the Kennedy story. He was RFK -- and later Ted Kennedy's -- ace investigator. And as I show in my book, he was the man whom Bobby was going to rely on primarily to reopen the investigation into JFK's murder if RFK had made it to the White House in 1968. He was the man Bobby most relied upon to dig into the darkest corners of American power.

And yes I did interview Sheridan family members (Walt himself died years ago) -- I talked to his widow Nancy a number of times over two or three years, as well as two of his sons. Nancy, in particular, was very helpful in illuminating the relationship between Bobby and Walt, and their secret pact to break the JFK case.

Very interesting David. I would think that Walter Sheridan has discussed his findings and views with Ted Kenedy. It would be interesting to see whether Sheridan prepared anything in writing for Bobby or whether it was a reasonably unofficial investigation. In the same book that I prevously mentioned, there were several instances when the author remarked upon some of the Kennedy childrens conspiratorial mind-set with regard to the assassinations. Another anecdote recalls how Ted Kennedy, while drunk, said that 'they' were going to kill him like they had killed his brothers.

John

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I'm at least gratified that the debate about JFK's legacy has been reopened.

Fair Play to David Talbot on that one, and the book's timing, from the point of view of assassination researchers, could hardly have been better.

All in all, I'm pleasantly surprised by the respectful tone of the Times review .

They would have lost credibility in their field if they had unfairly attacked your book, given your historic status as the pioneer in online journalism.

...The companion review of Bugliosi's book, on the other hand....... is such a light-weight treatment of Bugliosi's book -- devoting much of its space to snide gags about the book's impossible length -- that it actually has the effect of diminishing the book's stature.

Maybe the Times no longer has the stomach to defend that towering edifice of bull#### known as the Warren Report. The Introduction to Bugliosi's book tells all you need to know. For example, he cites Dr. Vincent Guinn's bullet lead theory as a lynchpin of his case, seemingly unaware that, since 2003, State and Federal Courts have rejected Guinn's "methodology" as unscientific and inadmissable.

[David Talbot]

Re: the Kennedy family and the JFK case -- after Bobby's death, as I write in the book, they had no heart to pursue either of the assassinations. I believe that Teddy and some of the children, as you say, suspect a conspiracy. But they lacked RFK's investigative drive. The children, as Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (Bobby's eldest daughter) told me, were raised to look forward, not backwards. This, of course, likely produced its own emotional damage --several of Bobby's kids famously had very difficult times coming of age. But it's not really up to the family members to solve the case -- that should be the job of the judicial and political systems, as well as the media, all of which have miserably failed in their jobs.

I think the ordeal of Martin Luther King's family is instructive. When some of them tried to reopen the investigation into King's murder during the Clinton administration, they were pilloried in the press for bringing "shame" to their sainted father and called kooks. Clinton finally ordered Atty Gen. Janet Reno to look into reopening the case, but she made it clear that she thought it was foolish and quickly disposed of it. I'm sure the lesson for all here was that if the Kings or Kennedys tried to make the assassinations into a crusade, they will be punished for their pains, and nothing will come of it.

Re: Sheridan. His widow told me that Walt never wrote anything down. According to her, he feared it would put a terrible burden on his family, even put them at risk. She said he took his secrets about Dallas to the grave. But he was deeply depressed at the end of his life about his failure to close the case. I think all of these Kennedy men felt that without Bobby, there was nothing they could do.

[David Talbot]

Raymond, yes, I do think there are growing cracks in the media monolith when it comes to the Warren Report. And the coverage of my book and Bugliosi's has begun to show this. And yes, the newly released Tobin bullet analysis cannot be good news for Bugliosi.

I'm at least gratified that the debate about JFK's legacy has been reopened.

Fair Play to David Talbot on that one, and the book's timing, from the point of view of assassination researchers, could hardly have been better.

All in all, I'm pleasantly surprised by the respectful tone of the Times review .

They would have lost credibility in their field if they had unfairly attacked your book, given your historic status as the pioneer in online journalism.

...The companion review of Bugliosi's book, on the other hand....... is such a light-weight treatment of Bugliosi's book -- devoting much of its space to snide gags about the book's impossible length -- that it actually has the effect of diminishing the book's stature.

Maybe the Times no longer has the stomach to defend that towering edifice of bull#### known as the Warren Report. The Introduction to Bugliosi's book tells all you need to know. For example, he cites Dr. Vincent Guinn's bullet lead theory as a lynchpin of his case, seemingly unaware that, since 2003, State and Federal Courts have rejected Guinn's "methodology" as unscientific and inadmissable.

[Charles Drago]

Mr. Talbot,

Permit me to argue that the words of Robert Kennedy you quote on page 268 supercede, in terms of what they reveal of RFK's grasp of the truth, the exquisitely evasive, "One of your guys did it" chestnut:

"'If the American people knew the truth about Dallas,' RFK told [an old family friend], 'there would be blood in the streets.'"

You bring these words to our attention within the following context:

"As soon as RFK concluded his brother was the victim of a high-level plot -- which he communicated to family members and even the Soviet government within days of the assassination -- the very next thought that must have occurred to a passionate patriot like Bobby ... was surely enough to freeze his heart. If I move against the conspirators at this point, with a slipping grasp on the machinery of government, it could spark an American inferno." (emphasis, for clarity, in your original text)

The intriguing direct quote is, for me at least, newly encountered. You have chosen not to identify the "old family friend" in question, and you do not provide an endnote that might shed further light on this matter.

But the implication seems clear.

RFK knew the truth.

Will you be more forthcoming on this matter? And while I have your attention, would you respond to my earlier post?

Respectfully,

Charles

Edited May 20, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Brian LeCloux]

Mr. Talbot,

Would you care to comment on Professor David R. Wrone's favorable review of your book?

[Don Jeffries]

Mr. Talbot,

I look forward to reading your book very soon. I admire your hard work and research and willingness to tackle a subject that so many have consigned to the trash bin of history. Regarding Walter Sheridan, I have a hard time reconciling his efforts to smear Garrison with someone who wanted to find out the truth about the assassination. Of course, I'm still a passionate admirer of Garrison's, so perhaps I'm a bit starry-eyed on the matter. Garrison claimed to have recorded Sheridan threatening Perry Russo and offering to set him up anywhere in the country, if he turned against the prosecution. I've never been able to learn whether or not this recording actually took place, and if a tape of it exists. If such a conversation was recorded, it seems to me that Sheridan cannot claim to be anything other than an agent of those who were out to wreck the Garrison investigation. I can't believe someone would threaten a witness if they were honestly trying to determine the truth about the assassination. It certainly would be difficult to understand how RFK, Teddy and the rest of the Kennedys would trust such a man so closely. Maybe your book touches on this; if so, I apologize for not having read it yet. Also, is there any indication that Sheridan was a "reporter" for anyone other than his stint during the Garrison investigation for NBC? Thanks.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Mr. Talbot,

Garrison claimed to have recorded Sheridan threatening Perry Russo and offering to set him up anywhere in the country, if he turned against the prosecution. I've never been able to learn whether or not this recording actually took place, and if a tape of it exists.

If such a tape had ever existed the whole world would have heard it long, long ago. No such tape ever existed for the simple reason that no such conversation between Russo and Sheridan ever took place.

[Dawn Meredith]

Mr. Talbot,

Garrison claimed to have recorded Sheridan threatening Perry Russo and offering to set him up anywhere in the country, if he turned against the prosecution. I've never been able to learn whether or not this recording actually took place, and if a tape of it exists.

If such a tape had ever existed the whole world would have heard it long, long ago. No such tape ever existed for the simple reason that no such conversation between Russo and Sheridan ever took place.

Ray:

Given all that happened to Garrison's investigation- phones taped by FBI, CIA, infiltration by those who wished to sabotage the investigation, extraditions not being honored, I think it is a bit naive to just dismiss the possibility of a a tape saying "the whole world would have heard about it". How so? Our very conspiracy friendly media?

---------------------------------

David: I so loved your book that I am telling everyone to read it. Even people who don't read books like this. I think it should be required reading in every 10th grade class.

Q: Joan Mellen says RFK sent Garrison to NO TO sabotage the Garrison investigation (to hide his involvement with the Castro plots). Your book stops short of this, with RFK sending Sheridan to NO to look at what Garrison had, then turning Bobby against him. This may be a more fine distinction than actually existed, but nonethe less a distinction. I cannot believe that Bobby while trying to find out the truth would immediately try to sabotage the only investigation in the country, if Sheridan did not convince him that Garrison was all smoke and mirrors.

Also having met with Murgado, did he try to feed you the same line Joan bought? (That right up to JFK's death they were trying to kill Castro)? If so did you believe this?

Would you be so kind as to have someone list when and where you will be making tv appearances, or personal book signing appearances.

Thank you for coming here to discuss your masterful and powerful book . (I cried so many times while reading it).

Dawn

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I think it is a bit naive to just dismiss the possibility of a a tape saying "the whole world would have heard about it". How so? Our very conspiracy friendly media?

Dawn

Up to the time his prosecution of Clay Shaw was laughed out of court, Garrison had the ears of reporters from all over the world, not all of whom were controlled by the CIA. In those days, just as now, there were many independent voices on late-night radio who broadcast listener's phone calls expressing every conceivable viewpoint and suspicion about the assassination.

If Garrison ever had such a tape it would have been a very simple matter for him to broadcast it to the whole wide world. The fact that he never did broadcast or otherwise produce such a tape should tell you something.

[Pat Speer]

I think David is dead-on in his assessment of Sheridan. This man was Bobby's pit bull, tugging at the leash. While Professor Mellen takes Sheridan's ruthlessness as an indication of his amorality, I suspect it's more clearly an indication of his blind loyalty to Bobby and the Kennedy clan. Think about it. Sheridan COULD NOT move on Hoffa and Marcello, his chief suspects. He could, however, dig into Garrison's investigation, and dig he did, with GUSTO. Once he discovered that Garrison was avoiding Marcello, whose relationship with Ferrie and Banister was overt, he smelled a rat. From thereon their collision course was set in stone (and not Oliver).

My question is perhaps a little more troubling. I suspect the real story is that LBJ suspected that Bobby suspected HIM, and that Bobby, in his deepest darkest thoughts, DID suspect Johnson of killing JFK. There are bits of evidence for this scattered throughout the record.

1. At one point, when discussing the Manchester affair (which is largely absent from David's book) LBJ tells Katzenbach "to get Bobby over here with a bolt rifle." I listened to this a couple of times a few weeks back, and while the tape is lousy, I think Johnson is telling Katzenbach "if Bobby still has doubts about me then the hell with it, tell him to get his skinny ass over here and kill me with the same weapon he thinks I used on his brother. If he's got the guts..."

2. Then there's the timing of the Pearson column saying that Bobby's plans on Castro backfired and got JFK killed. The column appeared the day after Bobby came out against the war and started off by telling the public how the noble LBJ was sitting on the story trying to protect Bobby's reputation. What a heap of manure!!!! Pearson had had the story for months. Johnson admitted to Clark that Pearson had met with him personally to discuss this information. What a coinky-dink then that this info appears the day after Bobby publicly turns against LBJ... It seems likely from this that LBJ was trying to use JFK's death against Bobby, before Bobby could use it against him...

3. Then there's the timing of the Clark Panel report re-interpreting the medical evidence. The report was written just before Bobby entered the race, but just AFTER LBJ, according to his memoirs, had already decided against running. If this is so, then this report, which was sold to the public as an affirmation of the Warren Commission's findings, was very likely designed in part to cut into Bobby's re-opening the case. After Bobby was killed, it became unnecessary. As Nixon was running campaign ads decrying violence, and as these ads ended with a close-up of the "Oswald gun',' not coincidentally reminding the audience that Johnson and Humphrey came to power via a murder, the report should have been released in 68. Instead, Johnson sat on this report for almost year. The report, in fact, was not released until the beginning of the Shaw trial, as a ploy to deny Garrison access to the medical evidence, mere days before Johnson stepped down.

I once had an acquaintance whom I suspected was gay (I barely knew the guy and really didn't care one way or the other.) Anyhow, years later, when he came out and told his close friends and they said "Duh!" he said "Pat told you, didn't he?" Somewhere, years before, he'd looked at me and knew I knew. Well, I suspect this happened with LBJ and Bobby. LBJ looked at Bobby and knew Bobby knew, and Bobby knew LBJ knew he knew and WANTED him to know he knew.

In the 1950's a Marcello associate named Jack Halphen told investigators that LBJ was on his payroll. Marcello would later tell writers that he was a businessman who was entitled to make campaign contributions just like everyone else. I've read that Bobby was looking into the Marcello/Johnson connection just before his death. (was this in Payoff? I'm trying to remember.) Anyhow, did you find any evidence for this? Did Bobby, in fact, suspect LBJ's involvement?

Edited May 21, 2007 by Pat Speer