Author: James DiEugenio

  • Homage to Ted Kennedy

    I was on vacation with my sister in that blessed haven of Santa Barbara when I learned of the death of Senator Ted Kennedy on August 25th. When I first heard of it, I thought it would be treated as a rather high profile senator dying in office. Was I ever wrong.

    It dominated the air waves for four days. The outpouring of grief and admiration and loss had to have been unprecedented for a senator in our lifetime. Perhaps in American history: the televised lying in state at the JFK Library, the Irish wake on Friday night, the Saturday Requiem mass attended by President Obama and three former presidents, and the following interment at Arlington near his brothers. These all had a regality and national prominence that rivaled the death of presidents – and actually surpassed some of them. Cumulatively it was kind of overwhelming.

    And then you look at the list of bills he was responsible for, and it gets more overwhelming. Over three hundred of his bills were passed into law. In more or less chronological order, he was actively involved in, or directly responsible for, what follows: the famous civil rights laws of 1964-65, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (which helped end a quota system based upon nationality), and the creation of the National Teachers Corps.

    In 1971, before it was fashionable, he called for an independent Ireland. In 1968, a little late, he began to assail Richard Nixon’s Vietnam policies. After the Watergate scandal, he began pushing for campaign finance reform, and he was one of the leaders behind the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974.

    Kennedy was always in the forefront of bills that really had no active or influential constituencies in Washington. Therefore he chaired a sub committee on political refugees from Vietnam, China and Russia. Back in the seventies, he was unequaled in his support for women’s and gay rights. When the Democrats entered their Dark Ages, that is the Reagan years of 1980-88, he became a master of parliamentary procedure and did all he could to slow down the conservative express. But along with that, he supported extending the Voting Rights Act something that the Reagan Justice Department wanted to drop to gain white support in the south. He was one of the early advocates for funding for AIDS treatments. He was a strong supporter for the vigorous enforcement of Title IX, which allowed for equal rights for women to participate in college athletics and extra-curricular activities. He was in the forefront of the opposition to Reagan’s intervention in Central America i.e. the bloody and not-so-secret wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Kennedy resisted and ridiculed some of the rather extravagant and unnecessary Pentagon boondoggles of the Reagan years e.g. the B-1 bomber, the MX missile, and its Strategic Defense Initiative – which he satirized as “Star Wars”. Instead, he wanted to prolong and strengthen the ABM Treaty and he supported the movement for a nuclear freeze – which the Reagan administration, in a cheap echo of J. Edgar Hoover, intimated was supported and influenced by the KGB.

    In 1985, repeating a controversial visit by Robert Kennedy, he staged a high-profile tour of South Africa. He defied the apartheid government’s express wishes and spent a night in the Soweto home of Bishop Desmond Tutu. On his return, he led the way for a bill enacting economic sanctions against South Africa. Despite a veto by President Reagan, this passed in 1986 and it began to turn the tide against that government. He urged Reagan to sign an arms limitation bill with the Soviets and on a trip to Russia he helped secure the release of dissident mathematician and chess prodigy Anatoly Shcharansky.

    Then came the riveting theater of the1987 Reagan nomination of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. At the beginning no one really thought the conservative Bork would be rejected. But Kennedy and his staff did two things in advance. First, they did their homework on the long paper trail left by Bork. Therefore they isolated and fanned the flames around his most controversial writings and decisions. Secondly, at the beginning of the process Kennedy made a sensational (in two senses) speech that was reminiscent of Harry Truman in 1948. (Click here.) Perhaps unfairly, he made Bork into the antithesis of every liberal policy enacted since the New Deal. The ferocity of his attack took the Reagan White House by surprise, and it made moderate Democrats hold their votes until after the questioning. In a high profile showdown with President Reagan, Bork was defeated.

    After Reagan, he led the successful fight to block most of Newt Gingrich’s Contract on America program. In 1989, with the unlikely partner of Sen. Orrin Hatch, he passed the Ryan White Care Act, which provided medical treatment for low-income people affected by AIDS. In 1990, with the help of Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, he passed a bill of which he was especially proud: the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. This provided, among other things, discrimination laws to help in the hiring of qualified disabled individuals and allowed access to the disabled into public and commercial buildings.

    Another vote he thought was important was the one he cast in 2002 against the war in Iraq. He was one of only 23 senators to oppose that disastrous resolution. Again, his staff did their homework and he decided that the twin banners of “weapons of mass destruction” and “Hussein’s aid to Al Qaeda” were mirages. He was right.

    Finally, there was health care. If you can believe it, as early as the 1970’s he began to push for universal health care. Realizing it was not possible to pass a huge, transformative bill at the time, he decided to proceed in stages. First he helped enact the COBRA Act of 1985,which extended employer-based health benefits after leaving a job. This was in turn extended and expanded by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Kennedy then expanded health insurance benefits to those with mental and emotional issues with the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996. In 1997 he was a principal mover behind the epochal State Children’s Health Insurance Program. This program used increased tobacco taxes to fund the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded health insurance for youths since Medicaid in the 1960’s.

    His dedication to this issue was reportedly behind his 2008 decision to publicly endorse Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama before the Super Tuesday primaries. There is little doubt that the now-famous American University event gave Obama a rocket boost in that race. One of the reasons President Obama is pushing a public option in his plan is because, “I promised Ted.”

    Considering the fact that I left a lot out, it is nothing less than a phenomenal record. Did any senator ever pass so much legislation that impacted the lives of so many people? But more specifically, and more pointedly: Was any senator ever involved in this much legislation whose aim was to help people who really needed the help and had no one to lobby for them? If any senator ever exemplified over the long haul the famous Democratic dictum that the aim of government was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable it was Ted Kennedy.

    In addition to the above, he was a fine orator. He made two immortal speeches. The first was the quietly moving eulogy for his brother Robert in 1968 (which you can listen to in part here). The second was his powerful and reverberating “Dream Shall Never Die Speech” at the 1980 Democratic Convention (which you can listen to in part here). This was billed as a concession speech after his failed attempt to defeat President Carter in the primaries that year. But it really wasn’t. Kennedy was never happy with either Carter or later, Bill Clinton. He thought they had moderated the true heritage of the Democratic Party. Which is why he made that splendid 1980 speech. It was really a liberal call to arms in the face of the impending southernization of his party. Because another reason Kennedy ran that year was because both he and his chief adviser Bob Shrum did not think Carter’s modified approach could defeat Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, they ended up being correct.

    It was a touching experience to watch the procession of over 50, 000 people march through the JFK library on Wednesday and Thursday just to make the sign of the cross in front of his coffin. Did you notice all the people in wheelchairs? That was because of his aforementioned 1990 bill to help them gain equal access and legal rights. They were there to say thanks to their champion.

    I guess the main thing that made him special is that he was the one Kennedy brother who actually had a long political career. And by doing that he kind of summed up and represented what America would have been like if his brother Joe had not died during the war, or if John and Robert had not been assassinated. It would have been like all the good legislation he helped pass. Except 24/7. For the last 46 years. And without the ill-founded and wasteful wars i.e. Vietnam and Iraq.

    But the thing no one wants to talk about is that after 1968, his was a losing battle. America today is not anything like it was in the sixties. It is a much worse country than when Ted joined the Senate in 1962. And that is mainly because, since 1968, when RFK and King were killed, Ted fought against Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. In other words, for 28 of those forty years, the GOP occupied the White House. And in the 12 years that the Democrats did, Teddy did not really like either President. Which, as I said, is why he ran against Carter in 1980, and could not stomach another triangulating Clinton in 2008.

    Kennedy had human failings of course. He made a big mistake I think in not running against Nixon in 1972. I think that may have been as bad as Mario Cuomo not running in 1992. There is no doubt he would have won the nomination and I think he could have beaten Nixon. And that would have been a real game changer. I have never been able to figure out the full story about what happened in 1969 at the bridge at Chappaquiddick. And Kennedy clearly displayed deplorable judgment in the 1991 Palm Beach incident, which resulted in the rape trial of his nephew William Kennedy Smith. But I think it’s important to understand that both controversial incidents were the results of a period of mourning over the premature deaths of first his brother Robert, and second his brother-in-law Stephen Smith.

    But I am glad for what he did do, and what he tried to represent: The idea of American liberalism, as modernized by FDR. The concept that government can be a force for good in people’s lives, that it can temper greed and avarice, that there is such a thing as a common good, and that it was the government’s moral function to protect and help those in the dawn of life, the dusk of life, and the shadow of life – that is the young, the old, and the crippled. Nobody did that as well or as persistently as he did for the last four decades. (Click here for him in his full fury fighting for a raise in the minimum wage.) When others in the party were talking up things like neoliberalism, or moderation in order to cater to the center, Ted understood that if you did that you moved the center to the right! Which is something he was not willing to do.

    If he never became active in investigating the true circumstances of his brothers’ deaths, I appreciate what he tried to do to keep their legacy alive. Unfortunately, there were not enough like him. Which makes him look good, and the shell of the Democratic Party we have today look bad.

    With the passing of his sister Eunice earlier this year, there is only one child left from the family of Joseph and Rose Kennedy: the youngest sister Jean. And worse than that, there is no one really like him to carry on his heritage on Capitol Hill. No one even close.

    Bye Ted, and thanks. For those of us who were around in 1962, you symbolized the last vestige of what America could and should have been.

  • Joan Mellen, Jim Garrison: His Life and Times, The Early Years


    This book is clearly the direct offspring of Joan Mellen’s heavily edited 2005 volume on Jim Garrison’s JFK investigation, A Farewell to Justice. I reviewed that book after it came out. One of the several criticisms I made of it was that although it had previously been heralded as a full biography, it was nothing of the sort. Mellen heard that complaint. And from the many pages cut out of that book, she culled this one. The complete title is Jim Garrison – His Life and Times, The Early Years. In other words, this covers the DA’s life prior to his delving into the John Kennedy assassination. From that complete title, I wonder if we can expect a follow-up volume, sub-titled “The Later Years”. Which naturally would trace his life from after Judge Christenberry stopped Garrison’s perjury prosecution of Clay Shaw, until the end of Garrison’s life.

    The book is valuable if only because there is no other biography of Garrison available. But actually I think it is a better book than A Farewell to Justice. At least I enjoyed it more. One reason being that the story line is simpler. Therefore Mellen does not have to juggle different time frames, locales and characters seemingly simultaneously. Which she did a poor job of in the previous attempt. Also, since it does not deal with the JFK case, Robert Kennedy is nearly absent. So thankfully we don’t have to put up with her uncontrollable anti-RFK venom. Finally, since it does not deal directly with the JFK case, we are spared all those dubious Cubans like Angelo Murgado who Mellen finds so fetching.

    But there are faults left over from that seriously disappointing book. Mellen still throws a lot of sexcapades at the reader. Some of them she actually repeats from the first book. (Although this time around we are gladly spared a description of the shape of Garrison’s penis.) And at times, although not as often as in the first book, there are interesting and relevant bits of information that go undocumented. And finally, although the book is working in a much simpler genre than the in depth investigation of a complex crime, Mellen never reaches any kind of dramatic or poetic resonance in the text. In other words, although the prose doesn’t get in the way like the first time around, the quality of it is – too be charitable – workmanlike. Because of the simpler task, it should have been better than that.

    The book contains a rather interesting introduction. After her first Garrison book, Mellen met a man named Don Deneselya. Deneselya had worked as a translator for the CIA in 1962. Contrary to what the CIA has maintained, Deneselya told Mellen that Oswald had been debriefed by the CIA on his return from Russia. It was by a man named Andy Anderson. The CIA was very interested in the Minsk radio plant where Oswald worked during his residence there. Deneselya reported to Robert Crowley, a close friend and colleague of James Angleton. Crowley handled the Robert Webster defection and Anderson, according to Deneselya, also reported to Crowley. According to this source, Oswald was part of the false defector program and was therefore working for the CIA’s Counter-Intelligence unit. (pgs. xi, xii) Deneselya maintains he actually saw the Anderson report on Oswald. Yet Oswald was not actually named in that report. But the context and description, which Deneselya was familiar with, made it clear it was he.

    Deneselya talked to both Richard Schweiker and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in the late seventies. (p. xiii) In his HSCA report, he describes his job in detail. It was maintaining files on all technical and scientific industries in Russia, which is why he was interested in the Minsk plant. Oswald gave the CIA a detailed briefing about the Minsk plant. Deneselya appeared on the infamous 1993 PBS Frontline special on Oswald. But his voice was drowned out by that of Richard Helms. The former CIA Director denied the Agency ever debriefed Oswald. What the show’s reporters – Gus Russo and Scott Malone – did not tell the public is that former intelligence analyst John Newman was on the set the day Helms issued his denial. When the camera was turned off, Newman leaned over to Helms and said, “Mr. Director, what would be so bad about the CIA interviewing Oswald on his return from Russia? I mean isn’t that what they were supposed to do? Doesn’t it therefore look bad if you say you didn’t?” Helms thought it over a bit. He then told the cameraman to start rolling again. This time he would say that the Agency did debrief Oswald. Of course, the program director did not take him up on that offer. Because PBS was in the tank for the Agency on that one.

    I

    One of the things the book does is to show just how wildly hatchet wielding Pat Lambert’s biographical sketch of Garrison’s childhood was. In her god-awful book False Witness, Lambert spent page after page going after Garrison’s father. Earling had an alcohol problem and a criminal record. The latter which Lambert noted in long and wearisome detail. It was a clear attempt at guilt by bloodline. What Mellen states though counters all of that. Jane, Garrison’s mother, left Earling when young Jim Garrison was barely six years old. (p. 5) After that, Garrison never saw Earling again. He did look him up many years after his death. And the son broke down when he noted that the authorities had written on a legal document that his father had “no family”. (p. 225) So Lambert’s cheap smears are just that.

    Jane Garrison moved the family from Iowa to New Orleans. While there, young Garrison attended Alcee Fortier High School, class of 1939. He did not play sports but he did participate on the debate team. And he found there his first romantic interest, a girl named Peggy Baker. He would often go to her house after school and stay there until he had to go home. The Bakers became a sort of surrogate family for Garrison. (p. 12)

    As a senior in high school, Garrison joined the National Guard. (p. 13) He then entered Tulane. But with war clouds on the horizon, he dropped out after his freshman year to join the service. It was a European artillery unit in the army. It was here that Garrison had the misfortune to meet Pershing Gervais. (pgs. 15-17) Mellen clearly implies that Gervais – a man of bawdy humor and street smarts – filled a father vacuum for the young Garrison. And Garrison was so charmed by Gervais, that they stayed friends and colleagues for almost 30 years. Even though Gervais was a terrible influence on the future DA. Although Mellen does not come out and say it, this unwise relationship clearly shows an early character flaw in Garrison which the DA never corrected: a blind trust in people he considered friends who really weren’t his friends. This trait would be magnified many degrees during his JFK investigation and would be fully taken advantage of by the likes of Bill Boxley, Bernard Fensterwald, and Herve Lamarr. (The last was the French intelligence operative who introduced Garrison to that clever diversionary product entitled Farewell America.)

    While in the service, Garrison flew very low altitude surveillance planes nicknamed “grasshoppers”. These were meant to spot artillery targets. They were very dangerous to fly and had high fatality rates. (p. 17) Toward the end of the war, Garrison was in one of the first details to liberate the German concentration camp at Dachau.

    In 1945, Jane Garrison married a man named Lyon Gardiner. (Garrison named his lawyer son, nicknamed Snapper, after his stepfather.) In 1946, the future DA entered Tulane Law School. (p. 21) Coincidentally, one of his teachers was Leon Hubert, who would later serve on the Warren Commission. In law school, Garrison began to show symptoms of his military service. He would suffer from dysentery and serious back problems for the rest of his life. (p. 25) While in law school, Garrison’s first love Peggy Baker got married. Although invited, Garrison did not attend the ceremony. But he did attend the funeral services of both of Peggy’s parents.

    Garrison graduated from law school in 1949. He later decided to get a Master’s of Civil Laws, which he did. In 1950, he tried his hand at writing short stories. (One of these was ironically called, “The Assassin”.) He then joined a big name law firm called Deutsch, Kerrigan and Stiles. But being part of a firm bored him. So he decided to join the FBI in the Pacific Northwest. Namely Seattle. But when the Korean War broke out, Garrison reenlisted in the service. But the memories of the dangerous grasshopper flights haunted him and flooded his consciousness. On his first day at Fort Sill, he reported to sick call. He was placed “on quarters” for two weeks and dismissed in October of 1951 due to battle fatigue. (pgs. 35-36)

    Returning to New Orleans, Garrison now broke into politics. Eberhard Deutsch (who Garrison named his last son after) introduced him to the Mayor of New Orleans, a man named DeLesseps “Chep” Morrison. Impressed by young Garrison, Morrison appointed him to the Public Safety Commission to govern over Traffic Court. (p. 41) The young lawyer did a bang up job. Unlike his predecessors, he took refusals to appear in court seriously. So he jacked up the fines for doing so and he pursued those who did not pay. He even got a bill passed to suspend the licenses of habitual offenders. As a result, in just one year, revenue from traffic fines nearly doubled. (ibid) And in his first run in with local judges, he assailed Judge Sperling for being too soft on failures to appear. Garrison was so successful that a new separate traffic court now opened with its own judge. (p. 44) Garrison turned down the judgeship. He told Morrison he would rather be appointed as an assistant on the District Attorney’s staff. Which he was. And he confided to a friend at the time that his ambition was one day to be the DA of New Orleans. (ibid)

    II

    In the discussion of Garrison’s years as an assistant DA – 1955 to early 1958 – the book disposes of another piece of disinformation. Namely, that Garrison never tried any cases in that position. I should add here, this was a canard that was deliberately made up after 1967 to smear the DA. The overall idea was to have compromised “journalists” like James Phelan, Hugh Aynesworth, and Edward Epstein – among others – do a hatchet job on Garrison’s inquiry. And the media barrage would spill over into character assassination against the DA. One way this was done was to paint Garrison as a wildly irresponsible public servant who was abusing his office. To do this, the purveyors had to insinuate that even as an assistant DA Garrison was not trusted by his superiors to handle a case in court. I should add, Clay Shaw’s lawyers were still bandying about this goofy deception – in 1994! I know this for a fact since Irvin Dymond, Shaw’s lead attorney, tried to dump it on me and Bill Davy in his office at that late date.

    The book proves this was nothing but part of the brutal propaganda campaign to caricature Garrison. In that effort, history was rewritten, the record was falsified. And the lawyers in New Orleans, like Dymond, must have known this. Because the truth is that Garrison handled many cases as an assistant. And of a wide variety: burglary, lottery operations, prostitution, homicide and fraud. (pgs. 44-45) And since another lawyer Dymond was allied closely with at the time of the Shaw trial – Milton Brener – actually worked with Garrison in the DA’s office at the time, it strains credulity to say that Dymond was unaware of this. This is now exposed as another deliberate lie by Shaw’s defenders.

    Mellen also describes just how bad the New Orleans Police Department was in the fifties. The force was being paid off in a protection scheme regularly every Friday. Gervais, who worked on the force at the time, actually stole the envelope twice. (p. 47) He was actually suspended for this “offense” for sixty days. He eventually resigned his position and became a bar owner. As we shall see, the people providing the funds were the owners and operators of the B girl clip joints that Garrison was going to bust up in the next decade. As the book notes, this would hurt his JFK investigation in two ways. First, because he had deprived them of a source of ill-gotten gain, the police would generally not support him. Which is one reason why Garrison went elsewhere for field investigators. Second, many of those people who lost money due to his vice campaign were not eager to help Garrison identify Clay Bertrand as Clay Shaw. Even though they knew they were one and the same.

    Mellen also sketches in the background of Aaron Kohn. Kohn was forced to leave the FBI when the Bureau raided a bordello he was frequenting at the time. (p. 49) He then moved to Chicago where he became chief investigator for the city’s anti-crime committee. He was thrown out of Chicago when accusations of his bribing of police officers arose. (ibid) Kohn now made New Orleans his last stop. To gain favor with Mayor Morrison he lied about his record in the FBI. He said he was an assistant to J. Edgar Hoover and had helped organize the Bureau’s National Academy. Hoover called thee claims “poppycock” when he heard of them. Kohn actually worked in the fingerprint department. (p. 49) But to garner more media attention Kohn lied further and said he did important work on both the Ma Barker and John Dillinger cases. (ibid) In reality, he made an error on the latter case and was reprimanded for it.

    But no one called him on his exaggerated, phony history and so he built the Metropolitan Crime Commission into his own little local FBI. He recruited a network of informants, which included Gervais. (p. 50) Mayor Morrison backed Kohn for one reason: self-preservation. New Orleans was so plagued by police corruption, prostitution and bribery, that the state government had threatened to come in and clean up the town. Kohn was Morrison’s fig leaf. (p. 48) But Kohn was a cheap grandstander even way back then. For example, when he could not get the grand jury to indict someone, he – with a straight face – accused a juror of frequenting a bordello. I turned out he was painting the place. Kohn was sent to jail for contempt for ten days because of this. (p. 52)

    One of the people new on the scene who also worked with Kohn briefly was none other than Guy Banister. Banister was also in touch with the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (p. 51). This was a rightwing Senate version of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Bitter JFK enemy Thomas Dodd would eventually helm the SISS. And it would use New Orleans intelligence asset Ed Butler to testify about Lee Oswald in the wake of the JFK murder. As Ed Haslam reveals in his book on Mary Sherman, Butler ended up with many of Guy Banister’s storied files. So this rightwing, New Orleans intelligence network – which would eventually employ Oswald – was being built and manned almost a decade earlier.

    After three years in the office, Garrison had made first assistant by 1958. Around this time, he also unsuccessfully ran for the office of City Assessor. (p. 59) Also at this time, Garrison did something chivalrous that would foreshadow the risk he took on the JFK case. Garrison had made first assistant under DA Malcolm O’Hara. When O’Hara ran for reelection in 1958 and won, there were charges of voter fraud. As first assistant, Garrison supervised the investigation of the charges for the grand jury. He promised to leave “no stone unturned”. (p. 61) Incredibly, he kept his promise. Why is it incredible? Because it cost him his job. His inquiry caused the election to be overturned and Richard Dowling was declared the new winner. In these days of Katherine Harris, this kind of heroism seems almost nostalgic.

    Since he forced himself out of the DA’s office, Garrison now went into private practice. He specialized in personal injury, and he did many cases for free. Even though he was not close to being well off. (p. 65) In 1960, Garrison lost another race. This time for a judgeship. After this, he eventually migrated into the City Attorney’s office. (p. 69)

    From his vantage point in the City Attorney’s office, Garrison had a close view of Dowling’s operation. He didn’t like it. Dowling sold off cases. In fact, David Ferrie bought one for five hundred bucks. (p. 71) Garrison and two friends decided to run for DA to clean up the office. Whoever lost pledged to support the winner in the run off. (p. 73) In a televised debate in January of 1962, Garrison did well and won the endorsement of the New Orleans Times Picayune. (p. 76) Garrison lost the primary to Dowling by a mere two thousand votes. And this positioned him very well for the run off. His old pal Gervais helped him out. He furnished letters showing that Dowling had been accepting contributions from strip club owners as part of a shakedown racket. (p. 81) In March, Garrison defeated Dowling by 7,000 votes. He had fulfilled his ambition of a decade earlier. He was now the DA of New Orleans.

    III

    Once in office, Garrison lived up to his word and began making reforms. He allowed no police beatings of African-Americans. Refusing to enter into an alliance with the Bishop, he prosecuted priests for soliciting sex and child abuse. He vigorously pursued illegal lottery operations. (p. 98) He brought the first female into the office, a woman named Louise Korns. And he went after Dowling for selling off cases. (p. 100)

    But Garrison also made mistakes. After hiring Lou Ivon and Roy Comstock as investigators, he then hired Gervais as an investigator. He also tried to have friendly relations with the grandstanding Aaron Kohn. (p. 99)

    Although a biography of Garrison until 1967, the book reveals some interesting information about the Kennedy case. Eugene Davis, a denizen of the Quarter and known as a homosexual pimp, referred more than one person to Dean Andrews for legal services. Andrews once said that Oswald’s buddies hung out at the Gaslight Lounge. Another source, Hardy Davis, stated that Oswald hung out with a homosexual clique. (pgs. 107-108) This is all perfectly consistent with Dean Andrews’ original story of Bertrand/Shaw sending Oswald to see Andrews with the “gay Mexicanos”. (There is even a hint in Andrews’ Warren Commission testimony that Bertrand/Shaw accompanied Oswald on a visit to his office. WC Vol. 11, p. 334) Another interesting aspect revealed here is that Burton Klein was a former law partner of Dymond. (p. 99) Since, as Richard Helms has stated and Bill Davy has proven, Dymond and Shaw’s lawyers were getting help form the CIA, this explains how Klein came to represent people like Gordon Novel and Sergio Arcacha Smith. Although, as shown above, Dymond would never admit that fact.

    One of the highlights of the book is the detailed description of Garrison’s relentless campaign to clean up Bourbon Street. Garrison was determined to stop the practices in the bars of suckering a tourist – spelled prospective “John” – into buying an expensive bottle of booze with the promise of sex to come. This racket was profitable since the split was 2/3 for the house and 1/3 for the “B” girl. Further, when drinking by the glass, the girls’ drinks were always diluted. In fact, at times, when the John was drunk enough, the girl’s drink was replaced with water. (p. 112) And make no mistake, the girls were told to lead the poor dunce on by telling him that she would meet him afterwards. Which they did not. (p. 113) Up until Garrison, the whole racket was condoned by the police. But beyond that, some corrupt cops took a split of the action. (p. 114)

    In May of 1962, Garrison began his clean-up campaign. He said that he was going to end the racket at all costs. He did not trust the cops so he hired his own undercover agents like Joe Oster. Once the undercover agent busted someone, Garrison took the case to civil court where he could get harsher penalties. At the campaign’s pinnacle, Garrison shuttered nine clubs in two days. Seven clubs were shut down permanently. (p. 116) Garrison garnered a large amount of publicity at this time both locally and nationally. So much so that the mayor and city council had to endorse what he was doing. Even though the merchant class in the French Quarter was being killed by Garrison’s merciless campaign.

    As noted above, this crusade had two future negative effects on Garrison’s Kennedy inquiry. The weird stories, circa 1968, about Garrison being gay and a cross-dresser originated over the resentment about the punitive damages Garrison had inflicted on the Quarter. (p. 117) And secondly, witnesses who knew Shaw was Bertrand would not come forward out of spite for what the DA had done. Professional web propagandist John McAdams likes to note an early report by Lou Ivon to Garrison saying that he had developed no leads yet as to who Clay Bertrand really was. Any idiot – except McAdams – can read Garrison’s book and note that Ivon realized that having Garrison personally in on the search would back bar owners off from helping them identify Bertrand. (On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 84) But once Ivon convinced Garrison he was a detriment, they did get an ID of Bertrand as Shaw. (ibid p. 85) In fact, as Bill Davy notes in his wonderful book on Garrison, even the FBI knew that Bertrand was Shaw’s alias. (Let Justice Be Done, p. 76) And when the HSCA re-investigated New Orleans, Detective L. J. Delsa discovered that Shaw’s use of that alias was common knowledge. (Ibid, p. 293) What Garrison obviously underplayed in his book was that it was his early vice campaign that caused the reluctance of many to come forward with what was well known. And in fact, Mellen talked to two witnesses – Rickey Planche and Barbara Bennett – who were explicit on this point. Namely that they knew Shaw was Bertrand and they would not tell Garrison because of the economic damage he inflicted on the French Quarter. (p. 117)

    IV

    As the reader can see, Garrison was not just waiting for the compromised police to bring cases to him. If he did that, the vice campaign in the Quarter would have never happened. He was actually doing his own investigations, creating his own cases. He did this out of a fines and fees fund attained by the courts. When Garrison took office, the total amount entailed was about a thousand dollars. In just a few months, Garrison’s aggressive prosecutions had increased it to $40, 000. Some of the other things Garrison used the money for were to improve the equipment the local coroner had and to buy cars for his investigative staff. He also did things like refloor the waiting room of the DA’s office to replace the drab trappings Dowling had maintained. The local Criminal Court judges had to sign off on the expenditures.

    Here developed a multi-faceted problem. Most of the judges favored having the police do investigations. (p. 125) Also, many were taken aback by Garrison’s new and bold approach. (ibid) Third, Garrison was not sensitive to the switch. Therefore many of his requests were very sketchy in nature, not fully informing the judges of what he was up to. (p. 127) Fourth, some people on the staff – like Gervais – did not keep vouchers or records of payments to informers. And this created an accounting problem. So in 1962, the judges decided to retaliate. First, they froze the fund, and second they dismissed a case against three Bourbon Street clubs. (p. 128)

    Garrison chose not to negotiate. He decided to engage the judges in open warfare. In October Garrison began a barrage against the Court. First he attacked them for taking too many days off. This allowed his docket to back up. He accused one judge, Bernard Cocke of taking Fridays off – which he did. (ibid) He then took out a personal loan to continue his clean up of the French Quarter.

    A peace conference was arranged. It failed. (p. 129) Garrison now escalated the rhetoric by wondering out loud if there was any connection between the bar owners and the judges. There was. Two of Garrison’s assistants had drinks with one of the judges, Judge Haggerty. (This is the justice who would preside over the trial of Clay Shaw.) Haggerty introduced the pair to Francis Giordano. Giordano, a Carlos Marcello associate, complained to them that when Dowling confiscated illegal gaming machines, he then returned them. But Garrison didn’t, why not? (ibid)

    On November 8th, the court charged Garrison with criminal defamation. They also changed the rules governing the investigative fund. Whereas before only one judge could sign off, now it took five of eight signatures to secure a withdrawal. They asked Garrison to apologize and withdraw his charge of criminal influence. (p. 130) Garrison refused. The case went to trial. Garrison’s lawyer asked for a jury trial. The judge refused. The fix was in. After the case was argued, Judge Ponder asked Garrison again to recant the racketeering charge. Garrison, who saw the case as strictly one of free speech, would not. Garrison lost the case. He said he would appeal. And now the case attracted national publicity. Almost all of it favorable. But Garrison lost again in the state appeals court. (p. 137) In April of 1964, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The month before the court had decided the New York Times v. Sullivan case in favor of free speech. This greatly aided Garrison. The court, in an opinion written by Justice Brennan, sided with Garrison’s right to criticize public officials openly. Garrison always cherished this decision. And he spoke about it at more than one public event.

    But Haggerty never forgot either. When Garrison’s case against Shaw came up on the docket, he maneuvered to have it assigned to his court. (p. 143)

    After this victory, Garrison battled with the police and their reluctance to fully aid his campaign. In a brief respite, the DA and the police jointly agreed to raid two clubs operated by Carlos Marcello and his brother. The one Garrison raided was actually across the county line in Jefferson Parish. (p. 151) He did this to goad the Jefferson DA into action. He even attacked the state Attorney General for being lax on the county. William Davy buried this myth about Garrison avoiding Marcello in his vice crusade. But here it gets even more dirt thrown on it.

    In 1964, Garrison backed a dark horse for governor of the state. A man named John McKeithen. There were nine candidates running that year. McKeithen was considered in the bottom half of the field. Garrison took out a full-page ad in the Times-Picayune backing McKeithen. To everyone’s shock, except Garrison’s, McKeithen won. (p. 155) Garrison now had an ally in the state house. Everyone knew that now, if Garrison wanted to be Lt. Governor or Attorney General, the office was his. He never asked. According to a 1995 interview I did with assistant Bill Alford, he actually turned down the Lt. Governor offer when it came. At the time, he was too busy investigating the Kennedy case. So much for the idea that Garrison was using his JFK inquiry to promote his career.

    By 1964, Garrison had racked up a pretty impressive record. In addition to the French Quarter campaign and his victory over the judges, he had managed to make every assistant a full time position, no moonlighting in private practice. Courts were now open every Friday. There was stricter foreclosure on bail bonds. He requested more money for the Legal Aid Bureau. Any time an assistant or investigator was contacted by an attorney other than the lawyer of record, Garrison had to be contacted. (p. 158)

    His reforms produced results. In Dowling’s final year in office, he had tried 70 cases and lost 42. In about eighteen months, Garrison had tried 101 cases and won 86. (p. 159) A remarkable turnaround in such a short time.

    V

    We now come to the James Dombrowski case. Dombrowski ended up being a pawn on a large chessboard with which the dying remnants of southern racism tried to effect one last power play as they saw the end nearing. The idea was to smear integrationists as Communists in order to delay and hamstring their efforts. Jack Rogers and James Pfister of the Louisiana Un-American Activities Committee (LUAC), along with Senator James Eastland and also J. Edgar Hoover, backed this strategy.

    Dombrowski was not a communist, but a communist sympathizer. And he did back the effort to integrate the south. But since he was not an actual Communist, the technique of tying him into the International Communist Conspiracy emanating from Moscow was not going to work . So the LUAC worked to get a state law passed entitled the “Subversive Activities and Communist Control Law”. ( p. 162) And it was under this pretense that the state police arrested Dombrowski, along with his colleagues Ben Smith and Bruce Walzer.

    As the book notes, the law was not evenly applied. If it was, then Lee Oswald could have been arrested under the same act. But the point was that Oswald did not play up integration as a cause. And the whole idea was to paint the civil rights movement with a red brush. Now state Attorney General Jack Gremillion knew that Garrison, a staunch first amendment backer, would not want to be part of any such effort. This is why the state police executed the raids, and why Garrison’s office was not alerted to them in advance. (p. 165) In fact, speaking of the arrests, Garrison went on the radio and said, “There is always a danger, particularly in fighting communism, that we may end up imitating communism.” (ibid)

    The LUAC delivered the evidence secured from the raid to Sen. Eastland of Mississippi. Even though Dombrowski’s civil rights organization was located in New Orleans. Garrison’s office did as little as possible to help as the case went through the both state and federal court. For instance, Garrison said that the actual warrants were made out improperly. (p. 166) But clearly, Gremillion wanted Garrison’s office to take over the prosecution since Dombrowski’s organization was located in New Orleans. But the charges were ridiculous. One was participation in the management of a subversive organization. Yet Dombrowski’s organization was not on the USA’s list of Communist front groups. Which of course, cancelled the second charge. Which was being a member of a Communist front organization. The third was operating within state lines for five days without registering with the Department of Public Safety. (p. 164) It was all a sham. The law was clearly unconstitutional. Local Criminal Courts Judge Bernard Cocke ordered all three men released on grounds of insufficient evidence. Afterwards, Garrison made clear he had gone through with the formality of a hearing only because there was no evidence to present. And he also added, he was very concerned about the arrests of the individuals, believing the LUAC was out of line. (p. 165) He later added, even if Dombrowski was a Communist, he could not be part of a conspiracy since he was the only one in the city. (ibid)

    As the case made its way upward on appeal, Garrison followed the same strategy: to evade, circumvent, and contribute as little to the prosecution as he could. For instance, he demanded that Eastland, in Mississippi, deliver all the documents seized from the Dombrowski office. Which he knew Eastland would not do. But eventually, in January of 1964, Garrison’s office had the three men indicted. The men did not hold it against Garrison, understanding it was all the Attorney General’s show. But the judge ruled the warrants were illegal and therefore the evidence seized was inadmissible. (p. 167) The case proceeded to the US Supreme Court with Garrison as the defendant. His office wrote an apologetic brief showing how the case was not handled through their office, but putting up a fig leaf defense of state’s rights. The Supreme Court ruled against the DA and used his own previous case against the local judges as a precedent. The lawyer for Dombrowski was Milton Brener, obviously no fan of Garrison. But even he admitted that Garrison’s office participated by rote, doing the “absolute minimum.” (p. 169) Jerry Shinley is a rather responsible critic of Garrison, as opposed to the virulent chemical imbalance inherent in say Patricia Lambert or the John McAdams appendage Dave Reitzes. (An interent troll who Rex Bradford actually links to.) Shinley uses this case to criticize Garrison. To me it’s a judgment call, and a relative one at that. If Garrison had not participated, Gremillion would have probably stepped in. And things would have been worse. So Garrison did what he could to lose a case he wanted no part of.

    Relieved of a case he wanted no part of, Garrison now went after the legal establishment over the sale of paroles in Louisiana. Garrison had found an informant named John Scardino who told him about how two of his criminal friends had purchased paroles for $3,500. Garrison demanded an open hearing on the issue. The state Parole Board went to court to stop the hearing. They failed. But they then tried to ban the press. (p. 171) Once the hearing was on, Garrison’s first question to a Parole Board member was “When did you start taking bribes?” Scardino testified and Scardino’s friend who purchased a parole answered a few questions before pleading the Fifth Amendment. (p. 172) The local press praised the DA. Thirteen lawyers resigned the Criminal Courts Bar Association upon hearing Garrison’s evidence. One prominent lawyer said that Garrison was now in a position to begin an exceptionally promising career. (p. 173)

    Which he threw away once he entered the Kennedy case.

    VI

    As I wrote previously, William Davy essentially pulverized the phony accusations that Garrison was somehow tied in with the Mafia and was covering for Marcello in his pursuit of the CIA. Mellen reveals something here that is quite relevant to that ersatz charge. If this were to have any truth to it, then Garrison must have been interested in being paid off for creating a phony sideshow. But Mellen presents something that completely vitiates this entire pretense. After McKeithen was inaugurated, he was eager to show his thanks for what Garrison had done for him. So he offered Garrison a state bank charter. Which, of course, would have made Garrison a very rich man. Garrison turned it down! McKeithen couldn’t believe it. (p. 173) But after he recovered, the governor awarded it to one of his other backers. Who promptly turned around and sold it for $750, 000. The equivalent of 2-3 million today. The governor then offered him a position as legal representative of a Savings and Loan. A desk job that would have made him a lot of money. Garrison turned that down also. McKeithen then offered him state business as part of a large law firm that would later make him managing partner when he retired. He turned that down also.

    In light of all this, how could Garrison even think of taking illegal bribes from the Mafia, when he would not take much larger amounts legally, and in the open? With the obvious answer to that question, writers like John Davis have never looked more stupid. Or dishonest.

    In 1965, Garrison was at the height of his power and popularity in New Orleans and in Louisiana. He issued a Report to the People. One of the achievements of his office that year was that it prosecuted 22 jury trials on capital offenses without one acquittal. Both Kohn and the Times-Picayune praised his work in that report. (p. 195) He actually thought of running for mayor. And in fact, with huge irony, the wealthy Stern family offered to back him. These were the owners of station WDSU who would later do all they could to save Clay Shaw.

    Garrison did not run for mayor but for DA again. Although Garrison made even more reforms to the office, he still employed Gervais. But Gervais’ reputation had become so bad that he had to resign before election day. Which he did, or Garrison may have lost. (p. 205) After this victory, Garrison revealed that his ambition was to eventually be a senator. (pgs 211-212) This, of course, was derailed by the Kennedy investigation.

    At the beginning of his second term, Garrison was still blazing trails for a New Orleans DA. He started to prosecute the state legislature for bribery. (Actually this started right before his re-election.) He favored strong gun control laws, which put him up against the powerful National Rifle Association in their bastion of the south. He also wanted to cap usury rates at 16% for finance companies. (pg. 215)

    The book makes a potent character point about Garrison at this time, which is right before he is to embark on his quest for President Kennedy’s true killers. Although Garrison was a reform DA, and relatively bold and honest for New Orleans, he was actually a moderate overall. For instance, he was anti-ACLU. He once said that it had “drifted so far to the left that it is now almost out of sight.” (p. 217) And he also favored the Cold War. In a speech he said that the US had to act against Communist aggression in places like Korea and Vietnam. (p. 208) This is an issue I discussed with Lyon Garrison, who is also an attorney, at one time. After studying Garrison’s career I had come to the conclusion that in 1966 he was actually a moderate. It was the Kennedy case that radicalized him forever. Lyon agreed with me.

    The book ends with the famous Linda Brigette case. Brigette, a local stripper, had been arrested for obscenity. This was a charge that, since Garrison was so much a believer in the First Amendment, he was hesitant to prosecute. So he requested a pardon for her 230 day sentence. Governor McKeithen granted it. Kohn used this case to go to war with Garrison. (p. 227) And this was the beginning of the false accusation of Garrison being in cahoots with Marcello. If you can believe it, it started over Brigette. The great Archives researcher Peter Vea once sent me his work on this case. In checking the timing – the case extended into late 1966 – Peter had come to the conclusion that Kohn’s nutty brouhaha over a stripper was really motivated by his knowledge that Garrison had secretly reopened the Kennedy case. And knowing what the FBI knew about Oswald, he was protecting his old employer. Mellen partly confirms this by revealing that Kohn had found out about Garrison’s inquiry through journalist David Chandler. Chandler was a friend of Garrison’s who turned on him at the request of his part time employer Life Magazine. In fact, Kohn had issued a report on Oswald through the MCC within a week of the assassination. It presaged the Warren Commission in its conviction of Oswald. When an HSCA investigator asked him where he got all the information and the photos of Oswald, Kohn replied that he had his avenues. He was clearly suggesting the Bureau. (p. 234)

    Right around this time period, when Garrison was launching his investigation of the JFK case, he crossed paths with the dismissed Gervais. Gervais had heard that Garrison was interviewing Jack Martin about David Ferrie. He warned his old Army buddy that this one would not be worth it. (p. 236) He told Garrison he was signing onto a suicide mission in which he would be telling the whole world the federal government was lying. Gervais was not one to sign up for, as he termed it, “kamikaze missions”. As he said, “I have acquired this habit of breathing.” But Garrison, who had gone after the Criminal Courts judges, the Parole Board, and the state legislature, was not about to back down. As he told Dutch television during his investigation, “Nothing else matters.” And in fact, in giving up the Lt. Governorship, and his dream of running for the Senate, it didn’t. And it stayed that way until his death.

    With all the reservations I made at the beginning, this book brings you closer to the real Jim Garrison. Not the deliberately and grossly distorted caricature that the MSM made him out to be. The real Jim Garrison was nothing like that. It was all a cruel campaign over the politically charged Kennedy case. Which Garrison was willing to risk losing his promising future for. And he did.

    It’s hard not to like a guy like that.


    Read James DiEugenio’s review of Joan Mellen’s 2005 book of Jim Garrison’s JFK investigation, A Farewell to Justice.

  • JFK: Inside the Target Car, Part One: Or, How to Rig an Experiment


    See Additional Reviews of Inside the Target Car


    Whenever I hear of a new scientific approach to the John F. Kennedy case, my first reaction is to shudder and then run for cover. I don’t think it is hard to understand why I feel that way. Actually, it’s quite simple. Its because whenever someone says they are going to treat this case with scientific rigor, sooner or later, the rigor dissipates and the so-called natural laws of the universe somehow fail. So suddenly, as with President Kennedy’s violent rearward reaction, Newton’s laws of motion don’t apply anymore. Or as with the trajectory of the Single Bullet Theory through Kennedy’s body, gun shot projectiles don’t move through soft tissue in straight lines anymore.

    Further, alleged “authorities” suddenly get thoroughly confused and confounded by the evidence. As Pat Speer has shown, Dr. Michael Baden didn’t even know how to orient one of the most important autopsy photos. NASA scientist Tom Canning moved Kennedy’s back wound up to make the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) work, and then shrunk Kennedy’s head to make the head wound trajectory work. Dr. Vincent Guinn “proved” the SBT theory with his Bullet Lead analysis—which we now know, through the work of Pat Grant and Rick Randich, is nothing but “junk science”. Its so junky that the FBI will not use it in court anymore.

    At other times, we even get the spectacle of people who should not be approaching the case at all acting as if they were qualified in a certain field of scientific endeavor. Vincent Bugliosi used a chiropractor whose office offered massage therapy—Chad Zimmerman—as an authority in radiology. Robert Blakey hired statistician Larry Sturdivan to show films of goats being shot to illustrate the so-called neuromuscular reaction. (And then they both failed to tell us that Kennedy’s reaction does not match what happens in the goat films.) Urologist John Lattimer was the first “independent” doctor admitted to the National Archives to report on the extant autopsy materials there. He somehow missed the fact that the president’s brain was missing. Lattimer then gave us the Great Thorburn Hoax, which was thoroughly exposed by Milicent Cranor. And, of course, who can forget Dale Myers’ computer 3D simulation, which turned the SBT from theory to “fact”. A “fact” that was ripped to smithereens by Milicent Cranor, David Mantik, and Pat Speer.

    The point of this partial list is simply to show that when the scientific method encounters the Kennedy case, it somehow loses all semblances to what most of us expect about that rubric. So for people like me who have become jaded by the above hijinks, I was not excited about another heralded and pretentiously headlined story. Especially after what ABC said in advance about the “indisputability” of the Myers debacle back in 2003.

    I

    The latest installment in this sorry pseudo-scientific lineage took place at the 45th anniversary of Kennedy’s murder. That is on November 16, 2008 on the Discovery Channel. The show was called JFK: Inside the Target Car. One of the problems I had with the show was that it had contracted out with Adelaide T & E Systems to do much of the technical work for the show. This is a large engineering company with strong ties to the Australian Defense industry. In fact, over half of Australian defense companies are located in the Australian city of Adelaide. The city relies on billions of dollars a year in contracts to make its economy hum. And hum it does. Both the population and economy has grown significantly since the nineties. Another interesting thing about the city of Adelaide is this: Rupert Murdoch’s giant media conglomerate News Corporation was founded in, and until 2004, was incorporated in that city. In fact, Murdoch still considers Adelaide the spiritual home of News Corp. Adelaide sounds roughly like the Australian equivalent of Langley, Virginia—with the Washington Post and all. As we shall see, there are dubious aspects of the show to support this interpretation. (This information was garnered from the Wikipedia entry on the city.)

    Further, The Discovery Channel, which hosted this special, is fast becoming the new CBS. If one recalls the work of people like Jerry Policoff, CBS was probably the most rabid defender of the Warren Commission from 1963-1967, and even beyond. In 1964, they put together a special almost immediately after the Warren Report was published. In other words, it was almost impossible for them to have read, digested, and analyzed the 26 volumes in time for the broadcast. But that didn’t bother them at all. They went ahead and coronated that disgraceful document. In 1967, they actually used Warren Commissioner John McCloy as a consultant to their multi part series—without informing the audience of that fact! Both these programs are embarrassing to look at today. But both Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather had their marching orders from above. And like good corporate foot soldiers, they did what they were told.

    Today, the cable version of CBS on the JFK case has become Discovery Channel. In 2003, they did a show called The JFK Conspiracy Myths. In this program, the producers used the same sharpshooter that Inside the Target Car used: Michael Yardley. The aim was to show that Lee Harvey Oswald could do what the Warren Commission said he did: That is fire three shots in six seconds getting at least two direct hits. Except for Yardley the time span was magically and conveniently expanded to almost eight seconds. Further, his rifle was hooked up to a laser switch which, of course, eliminates rifle recoil, making it easier to shoot and re-aim. As Pat Speer noted, Yardley was later honest about his ersatz experiment. He told a British journalist that he did not think Oswald could have pulled off the feat of marksmanship attributed to him. End of story.

    In 2004, the Discovery Channel was at it again. They ran a new program called JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet. This one tried to prove that the Magic Bullet was not really magical. In other words, it could have traversed the storied path through two bodies, two dense bones, three body parts, and still drive itself into John Connally’s thigh. And then reverse trajectory and plunk out. As Pat Speer notes in his review, this show was riddled with so many factual errors that it looked like it was being made up willy-nilly. For instance, the entry point on the president’s back was wrongly situated. The narrator said that the Magic Bullet hit Kennedy in the neck. Which is a lie made up by Gerald Ford. We know today through autopsy photos that the bullet entered in Kennedy’s back. Further, when they fired this bullet from an elevated platform, it emerged from the simulated torso of JFK at his chest. Not his throat. Another problem was that their bullet failed to explode the simulated wrist of John Connally as the Warren Commission said it did. And then when they found this bullet after a search in the brush, it was clearly deformed. Not in nearly pristine condition as in the Warren Commission version. I could go on and on, but for those interested in all the details, read Speer’s article at his website.

    The third aspect of JFK: Inside the Target Car that gave me pause was the participation of the Sixth Floor Museum through the presence of curator Gary Mack. The Sixth Floor Museum, since its inception, has been dedicated to preserving the Warren Commission deception about Oswald. For instance, when I visited there in 1991, their version of the Zapruder film was cut off before frame 313, when Kennedy’s body rockets backward off the rear seat. When I saw that piece of censorship to the Z film, I was reminded of the old joke about the Lincoln assassination, “Well Mrs. Lincoln, outside of your husband’s murder, how did you like the play?” (I am told this has been changed since. I hope so.) Further, they sell all kinds of pro-Warren Commission volumes, like the works of Richard Trask; but few, if any, Warren Commission critiques. Not even the works of Sylvia Meagher, Philip Melanson, or Gaeton Fonzi. Gary Mack—who I will discuss at length in part three of this review—makes up all kinds of weak excuses for this biased expurgation. But I have the real reason from a source in Dallas who asked someone on the board of the museum about this issue. The member answered that this was simply a set policy. Unlike Mack’s pronouncements it has nothing to do with timeliness or updated versions etc. They just don’t want people who go there to be exposed at any length or depth to the critical community that does not buy the Krazy Kid Oswald stuff.

    So the combination of Discovery Channel, Adelaide T ∓ E, the Sixth Floor Museum, and the dissimulating Mack did not look promising to me. In fact it was downright unappetizing. I actually felt lucky when Milicent Cranor and David Mantik reviewed the show for our site. When it comes to the medical and ballistics evidence, it does not get much better than those two. While reading their thorough and precise critiques, I began to watch the show repeatedly at my leisure. I have now seen it three times. It is clear to me that the show had an agenda from the beginning. And just about everything they did hewed to that agenda, thereby creating the preordained end result. But unlike in the other two Discovery Channel misfires, the producers learned from their previous amateur errors. This time around they were slicker. They tried to keep the trickster’s hand ahead of the viewer’s—read “the mark’s”—eyes. But to anyone familiar with the evidence in the case, the show collapses fairly easily. And therefore is exposed as another jerry-built propaganda piece for the pitiful Warren Commission. And like any apologia for that sorry panel, its self-contained, inherent shame transfers onto its defenders.

    II

    When one stops and analyzes this show one understands what it actually does. And that is this: it conflates, condenses, oversimplifies and therefore falsifies three complex areas of study in the Kennedy case. These are 1.) The medical evidence 2.)The ballistics, and 3.) The condition of the limousine after Kennedy is transported to Parkland Hospital. When I say “areas of study” I mean just that. A beginning student of the Kennedy case could take over a year to study the medical evidence. And even then he would not have mastered it. And it would not be his fault. The problem is not one of retention or reasoning. The problem lies quite clearly in the twists and turns of the evidentiary record. I mean, Michael Baden is a forensic pathologist. As I said earlier, he could not orient the back of the skull photo, the only one with Kennedy’s scalp refracted. Baden also embellished exhibits when he got desperate to prove his particular version of the evidence. He had his artist alter photos and drawings to create fractures that are not on the x-rays, and raised edges around wounds not on the former. One can understand his dilemma: How many gunshot murder cases have two different autopsies? How many have two wounds which dramatically move their locations in less than five years? How many have x-rays which change fragment patterns and in which large fragments not observable during autopsy x-rays, miraculously materialize on those same x-rays a few years later? But yet, on these new and changed x-rays, the fragment trail does not match up with either the alleged entry wound or alleged exit wound? All of these bizarre inconsistencies are documented in the JFK medical evidence. We can measure this show’s honesty with what it does with these provable facts.

    The ballistics evidence in the JFK case is almost as puzzling. For instance the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) determined that the wound in the back of President Kennedy had an abrasion collar on the bottom. This usually indicates a shot with an upward trajectory. Yet how could this be if Oswald was firing from six stories above? Were there two assassins? Was the photo touched up? Or is the scientific deduction faulty? As I wrote in Part Four of my review of Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History, the Warren Commission stated that the shot to Kennedy’s head came in low on the rear skull. But it exited above the right ear and forward of it on the right side. This created problems with both the horizontal and vertical trajectory of this bullet. For the angle from the so-called sniper’s nest of the Texas School Book Depository is right to left on the horizontal plane. So did the bullet alter direction inside the skull? And per the vertical, the bullet would seem to have exited too high for its entry point. Also, although the type of military jacketed bullets attributed to Oswald are tough to break apart, in this case, the bullet to the head did. For there were fragments found on the x-rays and in the automobile. The problem though is that the fragment evidence as attested to by the HSCA says that the middle of the bullet stayed on the outside of the skull, while the nose and the tail hurdled through the head and landed in the front seat. Yep, that is what they say. Somehow, the back of the bullet magically levitated at the precise nanosecond over the middle section and then scooted through the skull. As we shall see, this is a major problem for this show.

    Finally, of late, the condition of the president’s limousine has also become a controversial area of study in this case. Just what was the condition of the car when it arrived back in Washington DC? What happened to the car when it arrived at Parkland Hospital? Photos indicate that a Secret Service agent actually scrubbed down the inside of the car. But why would he do that? And what else did he do while he was inside the auto? When were photos taken of the inside of the car and were they in color or black and white? Was there a hole in the windshield indicating a shot from the front? And if there was, was that piece of evidence tampered with? Was the car then driven on a 500 mile mysterious, voyage westward after its stay in Washington? And if so, why was it driven and not flown?

    The above only scratch the surface of how difficult it is to fully comprehend any of the above complex areas of this case. So when writers like Vincent Bugliosi call the Kennedy case a simple one, I don’t know what they are referring to. And I never will. But my point in regards to this program is this: This special tries to conflate all three of these maddeningly complex areas of study into a sixty-minute program! That is the bottom line of this show. The reality is that you could spend one hour on just the condition of the limousine after the assassination until the point it was rebuilt. One hour would not do justice to the ballistics evidence in this case. As for the medical evidence: it’s safe to say that two hours would only give you an introduction to the material. Consequently, when you place them all together and rush through them in what amounts to—at best—speeded up motion, you have to leave out huge chunks of crucial information. And here’s a major problem with that: In the JFK case, a crucial aspect of the story is in how the details changed over time. In real life “simple” murder cases, this does not happen. And if it does, the court will entertain a motion to throw out the case on the basis of evidence tampering. This is one of the major aspects of the JFK case that the authors of this show do not reveal to the audience. Which is why its honesty should be questioned.

    Another serious problem is that of the Curtailed Alternatives. That is the experiment and the deductions are limited and controlled by the authors. This means that the variables seem arbitrarily chosen to produce a desired result. Cranor and Mantik have already shown this was so in the choice of firing points. But I should point out here, Gary Mack argued strongly for the so-called Badge Man location of the grassy knoll assassin for about twenty years. Yet that particular location was never even pointed out in this ersatz demonstration. Not even to critique it. Yet in his earlier incarnation as a fierce Warren Commission critic, Mack was at pains to show its validity for British documentary producer Nigel Turner. In fact, it was actually one of the highlights of the multi-part series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. (I will deal with the Mack metamorphosis in the third part of this essay.)

    This Curtailed Alternative method continued even after the show was (mercifully) over. Mack went online and answered some questions from viewers. His viewpoint on these answers was remarkably limited for someone who has been studying this case for over thirty years. I never considered Gary Mack a front rank, top of the line writer/researcher. But he was not a dumb or rigidly inflexible person. In fact, when he contributed to The Continuing Inquiry, he wrote a few good and valuable pieces. But today, he comes off about as mentally agile as, say, Robert Blakey. When someone asks him what happened to the bullets fired in the experiment, Mack admits they did not fragment like the ones attributed to Oswald did. Got that: Oswald’s did but Yardley’s did not. He then adds that he doesn’t know why that occurred and then drops the issue. But as Milicent Cranor points out, and I will discuss later, the matter should not be dropped at that point. Because this is where it gets really interesting. When someone later asks him if it was wise to use the alleged assassin’s rifle and ammo for a front shot, Mack’s reply is equally superficial. He says that if Oswald had been a “patsy” it seems likely “that another gunman would use the same ammunition. If a different weapon were used, investigators would find evidence and conclude there were two guns. A conspiracy to frame Oswald would want investigators to think there was only one gun.” Read that twice, and carefully: If the investigators found two guns, that would equal a conspiracy and the investigators would announce the frame up of Oswald.

    When I read that in my downloaded version of Mack’s online talk at the Discovery Channel web site I wrote in the margin, “Absolutely stupid.” Yet, I don’t think Gary Mack is stupid. But just to point out one problem with this response: It imposes on the reader the supposition that the investigators themselves were honest i.e. the only conspiracy that existed was the one that killed President Kennedy. The investigators actually tried to uncover the true circumstances of the assassination. Therefore if there was a conspiracy, they would have located it. Mack’s bottom line here is this: There was no cover up.

    Anyone who studies this case knows this view deserves the utmost scorn and derision. Here is how preposterous it is: even two members of the Warren Commission understood the fix was in early. They were Senator Richard Russell and Representative Hale Boggs. As author Dick Russell shows in On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, the senator so distrusted the investigators that he conducted his own investigation—at the time the Commission was ongoing! His private inquiry came to the conclusion that Oswald did not do it. (pgs. 126-127) Representative Boggs said that J. Edgar Hoover—chief investigator for the official inquiry—”lied his eyes out to the Commission—on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it.” (Texas Observer, 11/98) But more to Mack’s specific point about the two weapons: on November 23, 1963 Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman executed an affidavit. He swore that on the previous day he discovered on the sixth floor of the Depository a 7.65 Mauser equipped with a 4/18 scope, and a thick leather brownish-black sling on it. (The actual affidavit is in Mark Lane’s Rush To Judgment, p. 409) This is not what the Commission later said was Oswald’s rifle. They said it was a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano. But further, Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig was standing near Weitzman at the time of discovery. He said that Weitzman thought it was a Mauser at first. But then he looked at the rifle at close range and saw that it was stamped “7. 65 Mauser”. This is what confirmed the ID for the constable. (This testimony can be seen in the film Evidence of Revision on You Tube, Part IV.) So this directly contradicts Gary Mack’s assumption about the assassins using the same weapon and the investigators exposing that fact and therefore blowing up the conspiracy. The show’s main talking head is not telling the whole story. And the viewer should ask: Why not? I will get to the ‘why not” later and it goes to the very heart of the show’s credibility. (I should add here, Mack once published his own journal, which was called Cover Ups. But that’s all forgotten now. Today he says we can trust the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, Gerald Ford, and the Dallas Police. Yeah sure Gary.)

    III

    Very early, the show reveals an agenda. Gary Mack is hard at work to discredit the evidence of witnesses hearing shots from two directions. Sounding like Lawrence Schiller, he dredges up the old Dealey Plaza is an “echo chamber” argument. Therefore directionality was confused. But as Josiah Thompson has noted, if about the same amount say the shots originated from the Grassy Knoll as from the Texas School Book Depository, what does this argument really amount to? (Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 25) He then says that some witnesses later altered their stories. Revealingly, he does not add that many witnesses were forced by the authorities to change their testimony to conform to the official line. Or actually had it changed without their knowledge. (This fits the show’s agenda: don’t reveal the cover up.)

    After this the show picks up one of its main threads: the condition of the car once it arrived at Parkland Hospital. The narrator intones that evidence that was wiped away there, plus some other evidentiary points, have given Warren Commission critics reason to doubt the official story and has therefore spawned a huge controversy. He is referring to the blood spatter pattern inside the car—and he greatly overstates the case. Very, very few people have had their curiosity piqued by this issue. And even less have used it to attack the Commission. But, again, it shows the program’s unwinding agenda.

    The producers next reveal the fact that a Secret Service agent actually wiped the interior of the car with what looks like a bucket and sponge. I say they have to because there are pictures that reveal this fact. Yet they ask few questions about this incredible incident. Making nothing of some obvious questions : Who told him to do this? Why? What else did he do besides wipe anything up? Was this a cover story to plant evidence? And how do they know it’s a Secret Service agent? If it was, did they try and track him down? They avoid almost all of this and then say they have two witnesses who saw the car before the bucket brigade arrived. Yet it is not revealed how they can be certain about this timing. And further, as limousine expert Pamela McElwain Brown has written, no one had a really good chance to look inside the limousine once it got to Parkland to make a measured assessment. Because the convertible top was raised quickly upon its arrival there. But the show considers this important, a keystone actually, so we will return to it later because the producers do the same. But I should note an apparent contradiction here: Mack had just been trying to discount direct testimony by eye and ear witnesses. He now reverses course on that issue.

    From here the show now goes to a second main thread: Searching Dealey Plaza for possible firing points to the front of the car. I thought this little walking tour quite interesting. The first point that Mack and Yardley visit is what they call the south Grassy Knoll, which would be in front of the car and to President Kennedy’s left. Yardley says it is a possible shot distance wise, but the angle would only give the assassin about three inches of Kennedy’s head to fire at. As Milicent Cranor has pointed out, Mack and Yardley never noticed that there is a rise about ten feet back which would probably eliminate that problem. Moving clockwise around Dealey Plaza, Yardley and Mack now go to what they call the south end of the triple underpass. They eliminate this firing point because Yardley says the shot would necessitate firing through the windshield of the car. The supposition here is that there was no hole in the windshield. Again, the producers are not telling the whole story here. Because this statement is questionable. There is evidence on both sides of this windshield bullet hole issue. Another authority on the limousine is Doug Weldon. Weldon wrote an interesting thirty page essay for the anthology Murder In Dealey Plaza (pgs 129-158) Weldon raises serious questions about what happened to the car afterwards. For instance, about that 500 mile trek to Dearborn, Michigan that James Rowley told the Warren commission happened on December 20, 1963. (See p. 133) But more to the point, Weldon produces six witnesses who saw a hole in the windshield at Parkland Hospital. (ibid pgs. 139-140) He also produces evidence that the windshield was then switched to conceal this hole. (ibid pgs 136-138) But none of this is mentioned, and this firing point is quickly dismissed.

    We then move to what is called the north end of the triple underpass. What happened here was notable. This point intersects with what is the end of the famous stockade fence atop the Grassy Knoll. When I visited the area in 1991, I went to the end of the picket fence where it corners and then juts out. I thought this was the best firing point along the knoll area because the car was coming at you at a distance where you could track it for several seconds before squeezing off your shot. In fact, Yardley says words to that effect in this show. Then, he and Mack walk away from this point because there is shrubbery there today, and go a few steps downward on the slope. (Since they had Dealey Plaza cordoned off, why didn’t they pay a gardener sixty bucks to trim the shrubbery?) How good is this shot? When they showed it from the shooter’s angle, they moved Jackie Kennedy into the line of fire to try and discredit it. (I will return to this “mistake” later.) Mack finally dismisses this site because witnesses in the area could see the assassin. Yet one could say this about almost any firing point in the Plaza. Because as Mack intoned earlier, there were hundreds of witnesses in the area. What a precision hit team would be banking on is that they would be distracted by the president’s car and looking in that direction at the time of the fusillade.

    The reader should note at this point: The show has been all too eager to dismiss these three alternative sites. And further, Yardley has not taken one shot from any of them. This should be kept in mind as the show progresses forward.

    Yardley and Mack now move to a position further down and behind the stockade fence. This particular point brings you closer to the car, but you have much less time to track the target from this venue. This is why when I visited Dealey Plaza, I thought the previous point would be a better venue than this one. Yardley notes the tracking problem, but Mack decides on this point. We will see why later.

    The scene now shifts down under to Australia. The narration states that previously there had been no technology which could simulate a human head. But today “an exact replica of the human head” is possible. Further, there was only one place which could produce such an exact replica. That place is, of course, in Rupert Murdoch’s spiritual home of Adelaide. And the company is Adelaide T & E Systems. When I listened to this segment I began to smell some snake oil cooking. Why? Because I just don’t think its possible to produce an “exact replica” of a human head. I mean maybe you could create a reasonable facsimile. But not an exact replica. It’s just too complicated of a phenomenon: the muscles, tendons, nervous system, blood circulatory system, hair and scalp etc. So I thought this was overstated in the extreme. You know, Dale Myers and ABC country. And as we shall see, it was.

    What is even more interesting of course is that Adelaide T & E Systems also builds replicas of the human torso. So it would have been easy to attach the head to a torso which fit Kennedy’s dimensions. But they did not. The excuse was that it would have added another variable. This rationale was kind of smelly. The real reason I suspect this was not done is that in the Zapruder film, upon the bullet’s impact, Kennedy’s body rockets backward in the car and bounces off the back seat. Yet this is supposed to be a shot from behind. The producers probably suspected that when they simulated the shot from the Depository, Oswald’s alleged firing point, no such reaction would follow. And Gary Mack didn’t want to have to explain this. That would mean getting into the Luis Alvarez/Larry Sturdivan mumbojumbo about “jet effect” and “neuromuscular reaction”. He had enough problems already.

    IV

    He immediately went about fixing one of them. As everyone knows, one of the largest, most insurmountable problems in the Warren Commission is that all the evidence says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a poor marksman. Yet Michael Yardley is not. He has won many sharpshooting competitions. By all accounts, the shot Oswald supposedly took from the Texas School Book Depository which killed Kennedy was very difficult. Now Michael Yardley is the opposite. He is a contest winning sharpshooter. Further, the weapon Oswald allegedly used had a cheap scope which was not properly mounted. But Yardley placed a modern telescopic site on the rifle and then sited it in i.e. he took practice shots to make sure it was perfectly aligned. How does any of this duplicate what the Warren Commission said happened? But clearly, the producers were not going to risk proving the critics correct. Namely, they were not going to risk a miss by Yardley.

    Not only were they not going to risk a miss, they were going to ensure it not happening. Because when the show moves up to Sylmar, California where a shooting range simulating the dimensions of Dealey Plaza is put together, Yardley is not shooting at a moving target. The car is stationary. Mack remembered what happened when many others tried to duplicate Oswald’s alleged feat of marksmanship. They couldn’t do it. Realizing that would jeopardize the show, he was removing all those troublesome “variables”. The problem is if you remove too many variables, what conditions are you actually duplicating? Ones that weren’t there?

    Yardley then took his first shot from the spot he and Mack decided on from behind the stockade fence. . This was with a soft nosed hunting round, which is not the kind of ammunition Oswald was supposed to be firing. He hit the target, but something weird happened. The entire skull literally exploded to the point where nothing was left on the platform. When I saw this, my antennae went up. Outside of some cheap Hollywood horror movie, I had never seen or heard of such a thing happening. And I remembered how the show had said so fervently stated that these were exact replicas of the human skull. I don’t think so. As Milicent Cranor wrote, they appeared too frangible. Why?

    Yardley then fired again from that spot behind the fence. This time with the type of ammo Oswald was allegedly using. This time he hit the target with a more controlled damage pattern. Mack then went to the car and observed this closely. He then said something that was quite startling at the same time that it was revealing. He said that this shot would have also hit Jackie Kennedy. I then thought back to what had happened when the show had lined up the other shot, from the better position further down the fence: they had the models lined up wrong then also. At that time they were not in Sylmar, but were in Dealey Plaza. No one noticed this mistake and corrected it? Very hard to believe, because what Mack said is easily exposed as false. All you have to do is look at the Zapruder film, which Mack has done hundreds of times. Jackie Kennedy in Z frame 312—right before the fatal shot—is clearly ahead of her husband,. So a shot coming from a mostly side angle—as this one was—would not have hit her. And this point gets very interesting. Mainly because it is so hard to believe that no one caught it. Which is what Mack wants the pubic to believe.

    In fact in the aforementioned online discussion, Gary Mack admitted that he, and the show, were wrong about this. He then added this: “We didn’t catch it at the time.” But yet, according to Robert Groden, this is a lie. He was in Dealey Plaza at the time the show was filming the limousine simulations with models in it. He said that he pointed out to the show’s director and Gary Mack that the “positions and locations of both the actors portraying President and Jackie Kennedy were completely wrong.” Then Groden added something that is really important in understanding the program’s genesis and ultimate purpose. In that regard, it actually sounds like something J. Lee Rankin would write to his assistant counsel about the true position of the bullet that entered into Kennedy’s back. Groden posted that both Mack and the director replied that “the positions and locations were not important to the points they were trying to show.” But if this were so then why did Mack misrepresent that specific point to the public on the air! He actually said that the shot would have hit Jackie. I have an idea as to why. Because that was an easy visual way to discredit a shot from that angle. Almost like the show did focus groups, they understood this would easily register with the public. I know this because a colleague from work said this to me the day after the show aired. Knowing my interest in the JFK case, he came up to me at lunch and said, “Jim, the shot couldn’t have come from the front. It would have hit Jackie.” And we all know it did not. So the evidence Groden produces from behind the scenes, says that the producers knew they were wrong and went ahead anyway for propaganda purposes. And Mack then tried to conceal this when he said they didn’t catch it in time. Further, the quote by Groden that I am using was posted on February 5, 2009. Way after the show’s initial broadcast. He said he was reposting it at this time. Why? Because his initial post of the information had been removed!

    If I was Gary Mack in his present incarnation, when Mack said he didn’t catch the error in time, I would have posted something like this: “Gary, you’re a damned liar!” I will explain that quote in part three of this review.

  • JFK: Inside the Target Car, Part Three: How Gary Mack became Dan Rather


    See Additional Reviews of Inside the Target Car

    “I have become what I beheld and I am convinced I have done right.”
            —Eliot Ness, played by Kevin Costner, in The Untouchables


    When a debacle like this gets broadcast, something must be done besides just exposing it. As with Dale Myers, Gus Russo and the awful 2003 ABC special, it’s necessary to peer around the corner, to look under the bed in order find out how it got that way. (See our study of ABC in 2003.) Because clearly, after extended analysis, there can be no doubt that the Discovery Channel show was a set-up all the way. As in the worst tradition of broadcast journalism in the Kennedy assassination field, the producers decided where they wanted to go, and then—come hell or high water—they were going to get there. It didn’t mean a damn to them if the actors posing for President Kennedy and his wife were wrongly positioned. It meant nothing to them if they got their facts wrong on when the autopsists saw the x-rays and photos. They didn’t care if their bullet didn’t break apart in Kennedy’ skull, even though the 6.5mm fragment left behind was the Clark Panel’s major reason for elevating that head wound—which they are going with in their demonstration. To them, having an idiot hit team up on the knoll was fine—as long as they kept the audience in the dark about it. That, and nearly everything else, was cast aside in pursuit of their agenda. Which, of course, was to convict Oswald of firing from that window. And if that line won’t go back to that window using the pathologists’ autopsy report, well heck, we can make up a new exit so that the line does trace back to that window.

    So in its relentless pursuit of the Krazy Kid Oswald fable, this godawful program now joins the Hall of Broadcast Infamy. People who study this case know of what I speak since our web site makes a major focus of how studying the media on these cases tells you why most people do not trust the MSM anymore. It’s just that we knew that many years before things like the Florida election heist of 2000, and the phony excuses bandied about for the Iraq War. Both of which the MSM swallowed whole. That Hall of Infamy includes things like the 1967 CBS special on the Warren Report, the 1967 NBC special on Jim Garrison, the 1993 PBS Frontline special on Lee Harvey Oswald, and the 2003 ABC special on the JFK assassination. As I said, we have exposed almost all of these. (In addition to the ABC link posted above, see our NBC analysis and our CBS study.)

    What makes an examination of JFK:Inside the Target Car so fascinating and mandatory is that it has some of the same unique inside dynamics that the 1993 PBS fiasco and the 2003 ABC debacle have. That is: Someone who had previously been a so-called Warren Commission critic had now shifted sides. And in their new uniform they were now doing the same thing that they had deplored before. That is, they were extending and aiding the original Warren Commission cover up. In 1993 and 2003 of course, it was Gus Russo and his cohort in cover up Dale Myers. This time around, it was Gary Mack.

    Like Russo and Myers, Mack had been a Warren Commission critic for many years prior to his employment by the Sixth Floor Museum. Based in the Dallas Fort Worth area, he had been involved in providing the famous acoustical tape for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). In fact, that is where many people recall first hearing his name associated with this case. And historically speaking, when many books chronicle the history of the HSCA, they usually give Mack and Mary Ferrell credit for that particular piece of evidence. As I mentioned in Part One of my review, Mack also was a regular contributor to the journal The Continuing Inquiry, and for a brief time he had his own journal called Cover Ups. (According to two sources, it is wrong to state that he was the publisher of TCI as I did in Part One.) For instance, Mack first wrote about the famous cable from Hugh Aynesworth exposing his gutter journalistic ethics. Namely that he was a White House and FBI informant in his campaign to defame and derail Jim Garrison. But as the cowardly reporter requested, he wanted his covert role kept secret in all that. (See Destiny Betrayed, pgs. 183-184) Mack also assisted British documentary director Nigel Turner on his multi part special The Men Who Killed Kennedy. In fact, he was one of the two main talking heads on the show along with Robert Groden. This was originally broadcast in England and then later shown on American cable right about the time Oliver Stone’s film JFK was theatrically released. That documentary had some serious flaws in it, for example the goofy and gullible work done by Steve Rivele on the so-called Corsican Connection. But most of the things Mack contributed to the program were good and interesting e.g. his work on the so-called Badgeman photo. Which, by the way, Stone borrowed for his film.

    But then something happened to Gary Mack. Which, of course explains my use of the quote from The Untouchables to lead this article. But before I get to his particular chronicle, I want to outline it as part of a rather large and strange pattern that occurred at the time. I didn’t see it for what it was back then, and retroactively I should have. It’s something that no one else has described, at least to my knowledge. But belatedly, I think it merits a bit of attention. Because it may describe something important and relevant about today. Namely, the effort to undermine Stone may have started way before anyone else has written about.

    II

    “Yeah, so you know more than Dr. Alvarez, don’t you!”
            —Mark Zaid screaming at the ASK Conference in 1993

    I’ll never forget the above incident. Just like I will never forget Mark Zaid. First, consider who Zaid is appealing to as an authority. A man who sacrificed his considerable reputation in an unrelenting effort to muddy the waters in the JFK case. Alvarez is the guy who created things like the “jiggle effect”, the “jet effect”, and then used (abused?) his membership in the National Academy of Science to dispute the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) on the acoustics evidence. As fine a scientist as Alvarez was—like Dr. John Lattimer—he had an almost slavish agenda on the JFK case. So for Zaid to use him as a blind appeal to authority, that was quite revealing.

    I have written about the above bizarre conference on more than one occasion. (See, for example, my review of Ultimate Sacrifice.) Why? Because it finally flushed out two people who I believed to be quite circumspect by this time, namely Zaid and Gus Russo. I was warned at that conference by a complete stranger that Zaid and Russo were even more suspicious than I thought they were. This man, who I had never seen before, told me they were infiltrators. I discounted his warning at the time, but later on I came to the conclusion that he was right. I, and many others, had been naÔve. And not just about these two, but about others, e.g. Gordon Winslow. Considering the time period, and what was happening on the national scene, we all should have known better.

    It was a very high profile time for the JFK case. You had the Arts and Entertainment Channel broadcasting The Men Who Killed Kennedy in late 1991. And then you had the release of Oliver Stone’s JFK in December of 1991. There were dozens of books that came out at the time on the JFK case. And a number of them, like Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial, became best-sellers. There were also a number of documentaries on television about the case and many talk shows featured many writers and witnesses on the JFK case. In fact, entire programs were devoted to the subject. The resultant hubbub even spawned a second film on the subject named Ruby. Which was not nearly as good or powerful as Stone’s film. All of this furor greatly increased the size of the so-called critical community. It brought in many people who got really interested for the first time. It brought back many others who had been onto other things. It greatly expanded the circulation of existing journals like The Third Decade and it gave birth to new ones like Probe. Because of all this interest, many conferences and seminars were now set up, like the ASK Conference in Dallas, and others in Chicago and Washington. The Coalition on Political Assassinations was also formed.

    Clearly, all of this attracted the attention of the Dark Side. And with the 30th anniversary of JFK’s death upcoming, there were two overt ways that they decided to counteract it all. The first was when the notorious Robert Loomis met up with Gerald Posner. (The Assassinations, ed. by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 369) As I have discussed before, Loomis had been a mainstay at Random House for many years. His first wife, Gloria Loomis, had worked for CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton for a long time. Loomis had been associated with the likes of CIA friendly journalist Sy Hersh from almost the beginning of Hersh’s career. (ibid) Loomis had also worked with another spooky reporter, James Phelan, for decades. (ibid) Loomis had been instrumental in getting Bob Houghton’s apologia for the LAPD cover up of the Robert Kennedy assassination, Special Unit Senator published in 1970. He was then part of the effort to withdraw from the bookstands the excellent 1978 volume on the RFK case by Bill Turner and Jonn Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. (Turner and Christian, 2006 edition, p. xvi) In talking to Posner after a debate, Jim Marrs asked him how he came to write his book on the JFK case. Posner told him he had been approached by Loomis who promised him access to certain people like Yuri Nosenko—who, of course, almost no one had access to at the time. (DiEugenio and Pease, op. cit.) I once called Loomis’ New York office. He was not in. His secretary told me he was in Washington. She said he shuttled down there almost every other week. Clearly, Loomis and his Washington cronies were preparing to strike back at Stone’s film through their use of Posner. So Posner’s lousy book, which has since been reduced to rubble many times over, was given one of the great publicity tours ever. Including a front cover on US News and World Report. (August 30, 1993).

    I first heard of Posner in 1992. It was through Gus Russo. He told me about this Wall Street lawyer who was preparing this powerhouse book that was going to create a lot of problems for the critical community. Another person who alerted me to Posner’s book was Zaid. At the time, he had been meeting with people like Dick Russell and Jim Lesar about forming an organization to lobby Congress about the creation of the Assassination Records Review Board. I wrote a letter to those three outlining a strategy we should follow. I was stunned by what Zaid wrote back. First, he tried to say that there was not really enough evidence to call for a reopening of the case, and he pointed to Beverly Oliver as a witness to prove his point. I thought this was superfluous because I had never written about, talked to, or endorsed that woman. But secondly, he revealed in this letter that he had shown my original communication to his colleague Gerald Posner. Understandably, I felt betrayed. Though his book had yet to be published, I understood what Posner was up to.

    Right then and there, I should have understood who Russo and Zaid were. I also should have understood that there was a large and forceful movement afoot by the Dark Side, which felt that they had been ill-prepared for the hurricane effect created by Stone’s film. But I, and many others, were not quite aware of what was happening. But when PBS broadcast their 1993 Frontline special on Oswald, the truth about Russo began to dawn on us all. After all, Russo originated the show and was a chief correspondent. The program featured witnesses like Ed Butler, Priscilla Johnson, Ed Epstein, Robert Blakey, and Carlos Bringuier. As per the clincher with Zaid, at the 1993 Dallas ASK Conference mentioned above, Zaid went out of his way to do a very peculiar thing. The late Larry Harris had done a fine job in gathering many of the living eye witnesses who had been in Dealey Plaza the day of the assassination. He actually put them in their original places to be photographed and interviewed by the attendees. Zaid walked down to the Plaza with a stack of literature in his hand. And he began to distribute flyers about those witnesses explaining why they could not be believed! (He later wrote a pamphlet on this very subject with fellow “critic” Dennis Ford.)

    Question: What kind of Kennedy researchers would pay money to fly to such a conference, stay in a hotel, and pay for meals, in order to argue that the critical community was all wrong? In effect, Zaid and Russo were doing their best to scuttle the efforts of a nascent movement. Because Cyril Wecht and myself spoke out against them at the 1993 ASK Conference, Zaid and Russo did not appear on the conference scene again. But that did not mean that Loomis and the Dark Side was done. Far from it. For in 1994, Russo had reportedly met with CIA officers Ted Shackley and Bill Colby. (See Probe Vol. 6 No. 2, and Who Is Gus Russo? for more details.) The word was that they were worried about what organizations like COPA were going to say about their so-called maligned colleague David Phillips. After all, there were many new documents being released about Phillips that were quite interesting. Russo later tried to say this meeting was a research foray for a book he was writing. But what would CIA propaganda writer Joe Goulden be doing there if that was really the sole aim of the meeting? Further, one of the attendees there admitted that COPA was discussed. And John Newman later called Colby who confirmed this was so and they were worried about further disclosures about Phillips. Russo was toast within the community. But a man named Paul Nolan was unknown.

    III

    I had my marching orders.
            —Matt Labash to Gary Aguilar

    Which brings us to the second overt way Loomis and the Dark Side struck back. See, Paul Nolan is an alias. More accurately, it is an undercover name. Paul Nolan’s real name is John McAdams. And to understand why Loomis and company would use him to go after COPA and defend David Phillips, you have to understand a bit about his background.

    McAdams first surfaced after Stone’s film was released. But he first reared his ugly visage not in public, but on the Internet. He began to frequent many of the JFK forums that sprang up around the time period of 1992-93. Except he outdid almost anyone in the number of posts he delivered. At times they were around fifty per day. (Probe Vol. 3 No. 3 p. 13) But as I wrote at the time, his personality was so repellent and his style so pugnacious that many new to the field saw through him quickly. One wrote in an e-mail: “McAdams is a spook isn’t he … I am concerned about McAdams and his ilk. The stuff he puts up on the ‘Net is pure disinformation … The stuff McAdams puts on the ‘Net is pure acid. He doesn’t respond to the facts, he just discredits witnesses and posters.” (ibid.)

    At the time, I noted that McAdams liked to forge false messages in order to insult people in the JFK field, like Jim Garrison, and to promote others, like Posner. He would jump around from forum to forum posting disinformation. Like for example that Clay Shaw was never really on the Board of Directors of Permindex. According to McAdams, that was a myth promoted by Oliver Stone. Well, finally someone actually scanned Shaw’s own Who’s Who entry in which he himself noted he was on the board of Permindex. This shut up McAdams on that forum. So what did McAdams do? He went to another forum and said the same thing about Shaw—knowing it had been proven false! Nothing tells us more about the man than that fact. And nothing tells us more about the people who choose to associate with McAdams in spite of that, e.g. Dave Reitzes and David Von Pein.

    But one good thing about McAdams at the time, at least for the Dark Side, was that his presence in the JFK case had been confined to the Internet. So very few people in the critical community had ever seen him. That facial anonymity, plus his willingness in using a false name made him useful in the attack against COPA. In 1995, McAdams/Nolan attended the COPA Conference in Washington. Unfortunately for him, there actually was another JFK researcher whose real name was Paul Nolan. When he found out about the McAdams deception, he posted a web message: “I was just doing some research over the net. I wanted to see if anything came up that had my name in it. Guess what? My REAL name is Paul Nolan! Apparently some asshole wants to use my name as an alias.” (ibid)

    Using this phony name, McAdams went to the above conference. He happened to meet a conservative reporter named Matt Labash there. Labash was on assignment for City Paper out of Washington D.C. Nolan/McAdams told Labash that he managed a computer store in Shorewood, Wisconsin—which he did not. In Labash’s resultant negative article on that conference, Nolan was the only participant quoted at length. And what was one of the things Labash quoted him on? Shades of Mark Zaid. It was Dr. Luis Alvarez’ nutty “jet effect” explanation of Kennedy’s back and to the left reaction in the Zapruder film. (ibid, p. 26)

    Coincidence? Hardly. Labash had worked for rightwing propaganda mills like American Spectator and the intelligence riddled Washington Times. At the time of his hit piece on COPA he was working at Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard. Further, Labash is believed to have done this kind of infiltration assignment before for the Washington Times. His target then was the Institute for Policy Studies. When Gary Aguilar called Labash, he admitted that he had his “marching orders” from on high for his COPA assignment (ibid). To most people, it would appear that Colby and Shackley had fulfilled their mission. Except it was not through Russo. It was through McAdams masquerading as Paul Nolan.

    Did Zaid and Russo get anything out of their efforts in this regard?

    At the time Zaid first appeared on the scene in the JFK case, he had just graduated from law school. In 1989, he had finished his undergraduate work at the University of Rochester. And in 1992 he had graduated from Albany Law School of Union University. I’m not a snob, and I know you can get a good education almost anywhere, but for my upcoming point let me say this: Those two colleges are not exactly like graduating from Princeton and Harvard Law School. Yet, within a little more than a year Zaid had secured employment with an international law firm in Washington D.C. He then quickly became a national security lawyer with a high profile in the media. Today he and a partner run their own law firm handling many, many CIA related cases. Does Albany Law School of Union University have a great placement program? Do many of their graduates advance to international law firms in Washington at warp speed? Or was the writing Zaid did in The Third Decade so impressive that prominent lawyers in Washington were impressed?

    After his meeting with Colby and Shackley, Russo also gained suitable employment. He first worked with Sy Hersh on his godawful book, The Dark Side of Camelot. Loomis’ client Hersh, then got Russo further employment on the equally bad ABC special made out of that book, Dangerous World. And from there, Peter Jennings hired Russo as the lead correspondent for his horrendous 2003 ABC special. Not bad for a guy who used to be a music teacher before Stone’s film.

    Like Russo, Gary Mack was once considered a member of the critical community. Like Russo, something obviously transformed him around the time of Stone’s film. Most informed people know those two facts. But what many informed people don’t know is this: It was a good friend of Gus Russo’s who helped lead Gary Mack over to the Dark Side and into the waiting hands of the Sixth Floor Museum. And this is where the story behind this Discovery Channel special gets really interesting.

    IV

    “You are a damned liar!”
            —Gary Mack to a couple of speakers at Jim Marrs’ JFK class

    Anyone who played a part in producing a show as completely and thoroughly deceptive as JFK: Inside the Target Car has no right in calling anyone a liar. Yet this is something Gary Mack did at Jim Marrs’ UT at Arlington JFK class. This was to Jim’s invited guests who were offering up their testimony for acceptance or rejection by his students. And he did it more than once. And he did it with Dave Perry at his side. According to some, with Perry alternately pulling and loosening his leash. It’s an interesting association, Dave Perry and Gary Mack. How did it come to be?

    As most people know, Mack was one of the two main talking heads on Nigel Turner’s mini-series documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy. That series was originally shot in the 1980’s and reportedly broadcast in England in 1988. It was after this show’s original broadcast that Gary Mack’s life took a turn for the worse. And like a deux ex machina in some medieval play, Dave Perry was there to extend a helping hand.

    (Before I go any further with this part of the essay, I wish to explain something in advance. In what will follow I will use several anonymous sources. That is because some of the persons who I interviewed for this piece requested it. The reason I abided by their wishes is that the people behind The Sixth Floor Museum make up, as one source told me, the white power structure of Dallas. And, as we shall see in the case of Bob Groden, they play hardball. Secondly, the connections and character of Dave Perry are rather suspicious and sinister. I mean how many JFK researchers can claim FBI informant, and CIA applicant Hugh Aynesworth as their friend? Perry can. In light of the above, I think one can understand why much of the following will not be sourced.)

    As previously noted, Gary Mack had been a JFK researcher for a long time before he appeared on the Nigel Turner series. He had helped the House Select Committee secure and test the acoustical evidence, which they found compelling. He also had done much work on the “Badgeman” image. But according to one source, Gary Mack didn’t think he got enough credit for either of those two discoveries. (Which is probably why, even today, he still mildly pushes those two angles.) When Henry Hurt published his book Reasonable Doubt, he told Mack he was going to place the Badgeman image on the book’s cover. He did not. Then Mack got the talking head gig for the Turner series. But the notoriety Gary Mack got from this show did not help him. It actually seemed to hurt him. He lost his job as an announcer at Channel 5 in Fort Worth.

    But this was not the only misfortune that visited him at this time period. Prior to this, Gary Mack had been married and lived in a nice upper middle-class suburban development of Fort Worth named Wedgwood. At around the time period he lost his job, he also lost his wife and was forced to sell his home in a the subsequent divorce proceedings. According to two sources, Mack (whose real name is Larry Dunkel, “Gary Mack” is only a broadcast name) blamed some of his problems on his JFK work. And not just with Nigel Turner. When he worked with the NBC affiliated Channel 5, he had dug through their archives to find original footage of the shooting of Oswald. In fact, he had assembled nearly one straight hour of important footage: 30 minutes before and after the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby.

    But there is something I must note here about Mack/Dunkel’s split from Channel 5. He got a rather generous severance package. Usually three or four weeks pay is standard for workers, and recall Mack was not part of management. If a worker gets two or three months, you are doing well. Gary Mack’s severance package was for twice that. It was six months. Unusual as far as I know.

    This is where it gets even more unusual. Once Mack got his rather large severance package, he did very little in the way of looking for suitable employment. In fact, he did very little at all. But he did tell one source that he knew there was an opening coming up at the Sixth Floor Museum, and he thought he was a leading candidate for the position.

    Well the position of Director did come up. But Mack did not have the proper credentials in museum management. So Mack/Dunkel went back to college to attain the right background. This took awhile. So instead of waiting, when Gary Mack finished his studies, he assumed the position of curator, formerly held by Conover Hunt. Roughly speaking, this meant he would handle exhibits and collections and be their public spokesman.

    If the reader detects something odd here, something more than meets the eye, he should. Because contrary to what Gary Mack tries to convey, the Sixth Floor Museum is an all-out supporter of the Warren Commission mythology about that Krazy Kid Oswald. They once offered a prominent Dallas researcher a position at a six figure salary. But they made it clear to him that he would now have to exclusively support the Warren Commission in public. He turned down the deal on those ethical grounds. Apparently, the new Gary Mack did not have that dilemma.

    V

    Dave, are you with the CIA?
            —Question from a mutual acquaintance to Dave Perry

    All these events are swirling around the time that Oliver Stone had purchased the rights to Jim Garrison’s book On the Trail of the Assassins. That film was released in late 1991. But it had been in production for about a year and the script and research had consumed over another year. After Stone had purchased the rights to the Garrison book, he quickly decided to expand his lens on the subject. He did not just want to tell a New Orleans story. He wanted to go deeper into both Dallas and Washington. So he also purchased Jim Marrs’ book Crossfire and he brought on Vietnam authorities John Newman and Fletcher Prouty. But this was still not enough. He also decided to assemble a research team. One of the people who was considered for the position of chief researcher was Gus Russo. He did not get the job. Jane Rusconi did. Russo felt slighted by this and he always thought that Rusconi got the job because she was a woman. (He used to call her “the hippie chick”.) Russo stayed on as an informal adviser and Stone used him to compose the footnotes for the published script. So Russo was in on and onto the project almost from the beginning. We know this not just from the above, but also from Robert Sam Anson’s piece in Esquire, “The Shooting of JFK.” (November, 1991)

    Two things happened in Dallas while Stone was working on his film project. One was that Oliver Revell became the SAC of the Dallas FBI office. Revell had been in the Navy in 1963 and he became their liaison to the Warren Commission, handling things like Oswald’s strange career in the Marines. (Probe Vol. 3 No. 1) Revell’s number one man in monitoring the Dallas-Fort Worth area Kennedy research community was FBI agent Farris Rookstool.

    But before Revell came to town something else happened that was more under the radar. A guy named Dave Perry moved to Texas from the Washington/Baltimore area. He immediately tried to ingratiate himself with the JFK research community. One way he did that was to have a lifelong friend of his make calls for him in order to grease the skids. His lifelong friend was Gus Russo. Russo and Perry went all the way back to college together. And they stayed friends for all those years. In fact, Russo went as far as actually flying to Dallas from his home in Baltimore to introduce Perry to the critical community there. Perry tried to make friends with all the researchers in town. But there was something phony about him that put everyone off. Everyone except one person: Gary Mack.

    Mack, with Perry as his new cohort, now came out of the closet. He began to rage at some of the things he had previously believed in and some of the people he had previously been friendly with. One example being Jim Marrs. Marrs offered a course in the JFK case at UT Arlington. Perry and Mack signed up each semester. They never offered anything positive. Their main contribution was to make everyone else feel uncomfortable and to ridicule certain speakers Marrs had arranged to attend.

    Perry now became Mack’s guru on the JFK case. When he would talk to his former pals, he would sprinkle his conversation with prefaces like, “Dave says”, or “According to Dave”. He then would often berate them for certain areas of study they had developed. The only two things that Mack was now interested in from a conspiracy vantage point was 1.) The acoustics, and 2.) The Badgeman image. Those are two things he had been personally involved with, so he could not throw those out.

    Another reason people were suspicious of Perry was that he was always against everything they came up with. Yet he never developed anything on his own. And then he opened his house door for several weeks to Gerald Posner when he was writing Case Closed. This almost had to be at the request of Russo since Posner lived in his vicinity.

    Now, at this time frame of 1990-92, the leading journal in the JFK community was Jerry Rose’s The Third Decade. Neither Probe nor The Assassination Chronicles had surfaced yet. Perry became a frequent contributor to Rose’s publication. The first article he did was in the November 1991 issue exposing the Roscoe White debacle. This article was published right before the debut of Stone’s film, even though the press conference announcing the whole Roscoe White tale had happened on August 6, 1990. Perry’s article foreshadowed a new turn for Jerry Rose’s journal. From that issue on, it became a haven for writers like Jerry Organ, Dennis Ford, Mark Zaid, and Bob Artwohl. By 1993, it had become so studded with disinformation artists, it was almost useless. Which is one reason Probe was started. Perry wrote five articles I know of for that journal. None of them were based on any of the new documents published by the ARRB. Only one can be called even mildly anti-Warren Commission. That was in Volume 8 No. 5, where he ridiculed the work of Don Breo in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Besides this piece, I can find nothing else Perry ever wrote that furthered any lines of evidence in the new documents or was ever highly critical of the Commission. Nothing on Oswald, nothing on the Paines, nothing on the medical interviews by Jeremy Gunn, nothing on Mexico City, nothing on the various cover ups by the FBI or the CIA, nothing on how the Commission and FBI altered testimony or tried to intimidate witnesses, nothing on how the evidence list obtained by the Dallas Police was altered by the FBI, nothing on how Michael Baden altered evidence to raise the rear skull wound etc. etc. etc. I could go on endlessly simply because for a man who is interested in the JFK assassination, Perry has been seemingly oblivious to all this.

    Or has he?

    VI

    Go ahead and sue us.
            —The Sixth Floor to Robert Groden

    The power elite in Dallas never wanted to recognize the fact that Dealey Plaza was their top tourist attraction. To them it was a bad memory. They wanted it to go away. It was a black eye to an up and coming city that wanted to make its mark in America. For years and years the city tried to deny they saw all those people coming into town to visit the site where President Kennedy was killed. For a time they actually said the number one tourist attraction was the TV set for the series Dallas. Because that was the image the Dallas power elite wanted to project. Not that of a hate filled Wild West town whose police force allowed the murder of the president. And then allowed his alleged assassin to be killed literally in their arms live on TV.

    How much did Dallas want to forget what happened in Dealey Plaza? Well, at one time, they even floated the idea of razing the Texas School Book Depository. When that happened there was a public uproar against it. So Dallas County acquired the building in 1977 and located some offices there. From that time, a few powerful and private citizens set up a group to raise the money to lease and renovate the sixth floor. Some of the money was donated by local government and some from private corporations. Eventually, after over three million was raised, the museum opened in early 1989. And it was run by something called the Dallas County Historical Foundation. From the beginning they have tolerated virtually no differences with the Warren Commission. How could they, that could imply the local police were in on the cover up. When you put on their headphone talk inside, it is essentially the Krazy Kid Oswald story. On their web site, they even try and cover up for Life Magazine concealing the powerful evidence in the Zapruder film from the American public. This is what they say: when Abraham Zapruder sold his film to Life, it was with the understanding they not exploit the graphic details of Kennedy’s death until emotions cooled down. Zapruder sold all rights to Life Magazine. Once they paid him, he had no power over what they did with the film. Executive C.D. Jackson and Henry Luce—the owner of the magazine—decided to conceal the film from the public since they knew it contradicted the official story. The only way it was shown was when Jim Garrison subpoenaed the film for the trial of Clay Shaw and when Bob Groden spirited out a copy to finally show to the public on TV in 1975. Got that, 12 years later the public saw it. I think 12 years is enough for emotions to cool down. The truth is this: If it were up to Luce and Jackson, the public would have never seen the film. But that would indicate some kind of cover up. Which is something the Sixth Floor Museum will never admit.

    Not only is the Sixth Floor Museum in the bag for the Warren Commission, they are resolute in resisting any competition. Today, Bob Groden lives in Dallas because there is almost no competition there today for the Sixth Floor. So he offers the public an alternative view to the Krazy Kid Oswald fantasy they sell at their place. And they don’t like it. Groden has been charged once and ticketed 80 times for selling his books and DVD’s in the Plaza. The charges have been things like “vending without a permit”, “selling on public property”, “selling on private property” etc. The police have confiscated some of his things without ever returning them. Each charge has been thrown out. He has even been stopped at a red light and ticketed for illegal parking. You think it would have stopped after maybe 20 or 30 times. Groden firmly believes the Sixth Floor Museum has been behind this harassment. They don’t want anyone contradicting their cover story.

    But it even goes further than that. At one time, Groden and some partners discovered there was an opening at the Dal-Tex building coming up. They thought of leasing the space and opening up their own museum, which would have been right next door to the Sixth Floor. Well the Sixth Floor would have none of it. They swooped down and leased the space for themselves—without using it. Groden stayed out on the grass where he could be harassed.

    And far from just being a public spokesman, Groden has told me that Mack is actually involved in the setting of policy. Gary Mack is active and adamant about keeping serious Warren Commission critiques out of the bookstore. He once told someone that, “Those books are not accurate.” Sylvia Meagher and Philip Melanson are throwing up in their graves over that one. They are not accurate. But Gerald Ford and his raised “neck wound” are? The Sixth Floor went as far as to use some of Groden’s work without his permission. He complained about it. They said in effect, “Go ahead and sue us. We will tie you up in court for years.” They then agreed to make a trade with him. According to Groden, the stuff they gave him was not comparable to the things they took. And not only is the Sixth Floor anti-critical community, and pro-Commission, they are all too friendly with anyone else who supports that myth. When Robert Stone’s pitiful film Oswald’s Ghost came out, they helped screen it at the Texas Theater. This is the historical institute Gary Mack works for today. And this helps explain his active and boisterous participation in something as bad as JFK: Inside the Target Car.

    But let us return to the time when Gary Mack was in limbo. After he lost his job and was living off his rather generous severance package. As I wrote, he somehow knew in this bleak time period he would eventually secure a position with the Sixth Floor Museum. Which, of course, he did. How could he have been so certain?

    Because Dave Perry told him so—since it was he who helped get him the job. And I have that, through a mutual acquaintance, from Perry himself. Perry also admitted at the time that he was Mack’s handler. And that he is very close to the Dr. Doom of the JFK case, Hugh Aynesworth. Perry actually manages Aynesworth’s web site. And Perry has gotten Mack to sponsor talks by Aynseworth at the Sixth Floor. Like Gary Mack, Perry became a handler for certain witnesses, like Wesley Frazier—who needs to be handled by the Dark Side since he is a very suspicious character. In his post at the Sixth Floor, Gary Mack has clearly influenced witnesses like Gayle Nix and Billy Hargis. With Nix, he has managed to give her this bad impression that all researchers are only in it for the money. And he even instructed her to try and secure personal information about writers who try and interview her. With motorcycle patrolman Hargis, the Sixth Floor has clearly gotten him to believe that instead of being hit like a bullet from the debris out of Kennedy’s head, he actually just drove through it as it fell from the air. Which, of course, is what Perry’s buddy Posner wrote about in his book.

    Let me echo the sentiments of Jim Garrison in regards to the above: Anybody who associates with the likes of Hugh Aynesworth on the JFK case is deserving of both suspicion and contempt. (Click here to see why.) And anyone who opens his door to Bob Loomis’ pal Gerald Posner is somewhere below that. But this is the path that Gary Mack, guided by Dave Perry, took to become the Discovery Channel’s Dan Rather.

    Dave escorted Gary down the Yellow Brick Road. Except the trip did not end with Mack meeting the Wizard of Oz. It ended with Gary Mack becoming the new Wizard of Oz. A job which he took to with relish.

    Shame on them both.

  • JFK: Inside the Target Car, Part Two: Or, The Discovery Channel’s Idiot Conspirators


    See Additional Reviews of Inside the Target Car


    After his (planned?) false statement about Jackie Kennedy being in the line of fire, Gary Mack makes another observation. This one is more superficially credible—until one thinks about it. He observes that the bullet path from this particular position on the Grassy Knoll leaves an exit on the left side of Kennedy’s head. He then says that this was not evident at autopsy. He then uses this to discount a shot from that position. (He will later unwarrantedly aggrandize this into discrediting any shot from the right front at all!)

    He’s correct about the autopsy not showing this kind of exit. But he is wrong in the deductive logic of this eliminating any shot from that particular point. Let me explain in detail what I mean. Since the program’s Curtailed Alternative doctrine predictably ignores it.

    Clearly, something was happening behind the stockade fence. All you have to do is review the record. Let’s begin with the startling testimony of Lee Bowers, a worker in the rail yard adjacent to it and behind. From his vantage point in a 14-foot tower, he talked about the three cars he saw driving behind the fence about 25 minutes before the assassination. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 75) The first car looked like it was searching for a way out or checking the area. (ibid, p. 76) A second car came in about ten minutes later. The driver looked like he was speaking into a phone or a mike since he held something up to his mouth. This car probed a little deeper into the area than the first car. Then a third car came in: it was muddy up to the windows. It was occupied by what appeared to be a white male. This car spent a little more time in the area and then cruised back toward the Texas School Book Depository. At the time of the shooting Bowers saw two men standing between his vantage point and the mouth of the triple underpass. This would seem to approximate the spot, which I described in part one as being the best shooting venue. We all know what Bowers described next: “At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or … something I could not identify … some unusual occurrence—a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel that something out of the ordinary had occurred there.” (ibid p. 77)

    It is interesting—compelling actually—to couple this testimony with that of Sam Holland. In a 1966 interview that will live as long as people study this case, Josiah Thompson talked to Holland in Irving, Texas. He was reluctant to talk to Thompson. Why? Because as I mentioned in part one of this review—and what Gary Mack leaves out—many witnesses complained about what the FBI or Warren Commission did with their testimony. Holland is one of them. He told Thompson that the Commission “had not transcribed his testimony as he had given it.” (Thompson, p. 83) So now, three years later, he told Thompson his whole story. While standing in Dealey Plaza, he acted out what he did on 11/22/63. And those photos are memorialized in Six Seconds in Dallas. To anyone looking at them, they become almost seared into one’s sub-conscious. Holland told Thompson that he was originally standing on the overpass as he watched the motorcade come toward him. He then heard four shots, with the last two very close together. (ibid) Holland said the third shot sounded like it was from a different class of weapon than the others. Holland also said he saw a puff of smoke beneath some trees on the knoll area. (ibid, p. 121) Thompson then notes seven other witnesses who saw a puff of smoke in that area. (ibid) Three of these—Holland, James Simmons, and Richard Dodd—were so sure the shots came from over there that they ran off the overpass to an area behind the fence. When Holland got there, he could see scores of footprints in the soft ground behind a car. Looking at their pattern, it didn’t make sense to him. Why? Because they were all concentrated in a very narrow area, like a lion pacing in a cage. (ibid, p. 122) To cap this fascinating story, Thompson noted another witness named J. C. Price. Price saw someone running from this area with something in his hand, which he said could have been a headpiece. (ibid p. 123) This reminds us of the driver of the car Bowers saw, holding what he thought was a phone or a mike.

    Need more? A woman told Dallas Patrolman Joe Smith that the shots came from the bushes up on the knoll. Smith ran behind the fence and smelled gunpowder. While he was there he had his gun pulled. As he was replacing it a man in the area showed him Secret Service credentials. Yet, as Thompson notes, every Secret Service agent had gone to Parkland Hospital with the motorcade. (ibid, p. 125) So who was this guy?

    Finally, as more than one author has noted e.g. Richard Mahoney, John Davis, and Lamar Waldron, there exists an FBI report which states that two police officers saw some men standing behind the wooden fence on the knoll on November 20th. The men were engaged in what appeared to be mock target practice. They were aiming what looked like a rifle over the fence. When the patrolmen made their way up the knoll, the men disappeared in a nearby parked car. The policemen thought little of this episode until after the assassination. They then reported it to the FBI. The Bureau made a report on this that is dated November 26th. Yet this report was never made part of the official FBI record of the assassination. And it was not declassified until 1978. (For a depiction of the episode, see Ultimate Sacrifice, p. 704).

    Of course, this program notes the Warren Commission evidence for there being a sniper’s perch on the sixth floor of the Depository e. g. the boxes and shells near the window. And, at first, the show implies it was Oswald at this post. Then later—when all semblance of objectivity has disappeared—it calls the shot from this position “Oswald’s shot”. Yet, further indicating its agenda, when it comes to the stockade fence on top of the knoll, the program mentions none of the above. Not Bowers, not Holland, not Smith, not Price, not the policemen. Not one word about any of it.

    Because Gary Mack and the narrator are strangely mute about all the above, let us give voice to it. One obvious way to interpret it all is like this:

    1. Two days before the assassination, a hit team was testing out a firing point behind the fence.
    2. On the morning of the assassination, the team was transported behind the fence via a staggered three car caravan, leaving two men in place who were being communicated with by radio.
    3. This ended up being one of the firing points in Dealey Plaza as evidenced by gunshot sounds, a flash of light, and a puff of smoke.
    4. The hit team was furnished with fake official ID to protect themselves after the fact, because they knew their shot would attract witnesses to the area.

    I believe there is a good reason the show leaves all of this crucial information about planning in advance out. Because if they included it, the audience would realize how illogical—actually absurd—one of the show’s main underlying assumptions is. Namely that the conspirators would use the same weapon and ammo as the alleged assassin was supposed to. Because in light of all the above, if they did do that, they must have been mentally retarded. Why? Because a shot from that site with that weapon and ammunition would clearly prove there was a conspiracy and Oswald did not kill President Kennedy! For, from his vantage point, how could Oswald fire a shot that exited the left side of Kennedy’s head? He could not. So the autopsy would prove Oswald an innocent man. So, to a lesser extent, would the Zapruder film. Are we really to believe that Gary Mack 1.) Forgot about all of the evidence above, and 2.) Never once thought of this stupid paradox in the weeks, maybe months, he worked on this program? I don’t buy it. And if you do, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell you.

    As I have said, I personally do not believe a shot came from that particular site. If I had to bet on it, I would say it came from further down the fence toward the overpass. Yet a shot from that second point would not have produced the left side exit the producers clearly wanted. Which is probably one reason the producers did not fire from there. But, from a study of the Zapruder film, testimony like the above, and the medical evidence, I have for a long time believed that the shot from the front was a frangible bullet: one that exploded on contact with the skull. And before anybody says that the House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that this was not the case, I will reply that the HSCA was talking through its hat on this—as it did on many matters. I have communicated with CIA associated people on this issue. Believe me when I say the following: What these guys can put in rifles is literally beyond imagining. They can create very dense and heavy projectiles that, upon impact, all but disappear. Therefore, in any normal crime scene inquiry, you would overlook the traces. And this is obvious if you think about it. If you had an almost unlimited black budget to tinker with, and wizards of weaponry like George Nonte and Mitch Werbell were on your payroll, you should be able to come up with things that would be beyond the horizon. That is what you pay men like that for in the first place: To disguise a black operation. Not the Three Stooges stuff inherent in Gary Mack’s goofy fable which amounts to this: After previously scoping out a firing point, you then make sure you incriminate yourself. And in the process you exculpate the guy who is the designated patsy. Based on this, let us give the show a new title: Discovery Channel’s Idiot Conspirators.

    II

    Yardley: What are we basing this bullet hole on historically Gary?

    Mack: We’re basing it on something that the Warren Commission did not have in 1964; the actual autopsy photographs and x-rays … which were examined officially in the late 1970’s. We know that there is a bullet entry hole up in this area …

    The above statement is so studiously deceptive that it reminds me of a trick by Uri Geller. But it is imperative that Gary Mack makes it. If not, his “experiment” will have serious problems in this segment. Let me explain why in detail.

    This exchange took place before the simulation of a shot from the sixth floor of the Depository. As previously noted, the show now drops all pretenses of neutrality, and labels this as “Oswald’s shot”. Yardley asks Gary Mack about the precise placement of the rear skull shot into Kennedy. Mack replies with the above deceptive quote. He then points to the upper part of the modeled skull, a bit to the right of the midline.

    It is hard to believe that Mack does not understand how wrong he is here. Let us begin on the evening of November 22, 1963. That night at the autopsy in Bethesda, and contrary to what Mack says, the doctors looked at the x-rays! And at least two members of the Warren Commission had the photos: Arlen Specter and Earl Warren. (There is a strong hint that J. Lee Rankin saw a photo of the back wound, since he talks about it being clearly lower than the throat wound.) So for Mack to tell the public that the Commission did not have these exhibits is simply not accurate

    But it’s worse than that. In the time period of late 1966 and early 1967, there is evidence that the autopsy doctors were brought back in to look at the photos and x-rays. The 1966 visit was called a military review and the pretext was to sort out and classify these exhibits. In 1967, the visit was provoked by the strong reaction to the criticism of the Warren Report then peaking in the press. As former CBS employee Roger Feinman has reported, this visit was done with the help of John McCloy in order to help CBS defend the Commission. This controversy eventually resulted in former Warren Commission assistant counsel David Slawson writing a memorandum to Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Slawson requested that the Justice Department begin an official medical review to stave off the threat of a more wide-ranging and wholesale inquiry. The Slawson memo resulted in 1.) What appears to be the autopsy doctors looking at the exhibits again, and 2.) A new panel of forensic pathologists “officially examining” the photos and x-rays for a review of the medical evidence. This new panel, formed in 1968, was headed by pathologist Russell Fisher and is called the Clark Panel.

    Question: In light of the above two paragraphs, how can Mack misinform the public that these photos and x-rays were not officially reviewed until the late seventies? But an even better question is this: Why is he saying it when he knows better?

    Because the Discovery Channel wanted to go with the new and revised entry point in the rear of Kennedy’s skull. The one Gary Mack deceptively says “we know” about. The Warren Commission entry point, as confirmed by the original autopsy team, was at the bottom of the skull, at a point called the external occipital protuberance—the EOP. But this trajectory created problems with the Warren Commission exit point, which was on the right side of the head, above and to the right of the ear. As Josiah Thompson pointed out in his book Six Seconds in Dallas (p. 111), at Z frame 312, Kennedy’s head is not anteflexed enough to make this work. And the Warren Commission understood this because in the false drawings prepared for Arlen Specter, Kennedy’s head is anteflexed much too far—looking down into his lap—in order to cure this problem. (See ibid. At that page, you can see the dramatic comparison in forward lean for yourself.)

    Consequently, and contrary to what Mack says, Russell Fisher and the Clark Panel—working from the photos and x-rays—first revised this entry point upward by four inches in 1968. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), in 1978, then agreed with the Clark Panel revision. Unlike what Mack wants the public to believe, this official “review” did not happen 15 years later. Another key point Mack leaves out: The original autopsy doctors—James Humes, Thornton Boswell, and Pierre Finck—did not agree with this new and raised entry point.

    It is this disturbing landmark in the medical evidence that the program needs to tiptoe by. So it falsely states that 1.) The Commission never saw the photos and x-rays, and 2.) There was no official review of them until the late seventies. The clear and deceptive implication is that the autopsists missed the raised entry in the cowlick area because they did not have either the x-rays or photos. The supposition being that if they did, they also would have placed the entry wound up high. Again, this is inaccurate. Because when the pathologists saw these exhibits during the HSCA they mightily resisted the cowlick placement of the entry wound in the skull.

    The following was Discovery Channel’s problem. If the show admitted that the rear entry wound moved up in the space of about four years it would have trouble explaining how it happened. Because in real life this is almost unheard of. And further, contrary to what Mack’s certitude about an entry wound in the cowlick, the evidence strongly suggests that this later raised entry was manufactured after the fact. A point that the show also avoids by using this sleight of hand. (See Section Five of Part Four of my review of Reclaiming History for the troubling details.)

    But it’s even worse than that. As Gary Aguilar has pointed out, the Commission actually performed shooting experiments with Dr. A. Olivier on this specific issue. When firing at the EOP, the shot exited at the supraorbital process—the bony ridge above the eye. (WC Vol. 5 p. 89) The resulting damage was something resembling a blow-out wound to the right upper face. (See the skull photos and a discussion of this issue in Gary Aguilar’s essay in Murder in Dealey Plaza, p. 184) The problem with it was that 1.) This exit is not noted in the official autopsy report, and 2.) It is not evident in the photos. One has to wonder if all these evidentiary problems with the EOP entry caused Fisher to rework the original autopsy by raising this wound.

    Please note: all of this utterly fascinating material would have made a much more interesting, honest, and educational program than JFK: Inside the Target Car. Yet Gary Mack disposes of it all in the space of about two fraudulent sentences. He has to of course because he does not want Yardley firing at the Warren Commission’s EOP location. Because as noted by Aguilar, that could risk a shot exiting through Kennedy’s face. And that would create a real fracas for the official story wouldn’t it? Mack’s cheap trick with the medical evidence prevented it. Discovery Channel was determined from the outset to uphold the Commission—even if it meant revising the Commission’s own conclusions! Because remember, the Commission went with the lower EOP entry point.

    The above is a perfect illustration of what I said at the beginning of Part One about the risk in oversimplifying a complex and changing phenomenon: that one will end up inherently falsifying it. And this is what the show does in dealing with all the above in the space of about two sentences. All of this ducking and weaving in order to avoid fully informing the audience.

    III

    Bypassing all of the above, Yardley takes his “Oswald” shot at the revised and raised cowlick area. He hits it. But as I wrote in Part One, this creates still another problem for the show. As he wrote in his online discussion afterwards, Gary Mack says that the bullet did not fragment. He immediately tried to dispose of this problem. I understand why he wants to dispose of it ASAP. But it won’t go away. If his demonstration is to have scientific validity, this important point can’t be ignored. For in the second federally sanctioned JFK investigation, the one by the HSCA—the one the show is abiding by with the raised skull entry wound—the bullet did fragment. But it was a rather bizarre fragmentation. The head and tail of the bullet ended up in the front of the car. And the middle of the bullet somehow got stuck at the outer table of the skull high in the back of the head. This is probably one reason why Mack wants to dispose of this matter as quickly as possible. He doesn’t want to have to explain that rather weird phenomenon. Even though he (falsely) says the HSCA discovered the raised entry placement, he doesn’t want to explain the fragmentation that goes along with this raised entry. Why? Because it’s not explainable. In fact, experts have called it unbelievable.

    But that is not all. In the Clark Panel x-rays there is also a particle trail traveling horizontally across the top of the skull. This presumably represents the progress of this bullet across the top of Kennedy’s head. The problem is the trail does not match up with either the in shoot or out shoot point. Again, the show mentions none of this.

    Now, as Milicent Cranor has pointed out, it was not mandatory that the Discovery Channel experiment precisely duplicate this key issue about the bullet breaking apart in the middle. But it should have accomplished something that was at least similar. In other words, the bullet should have broken someplace. The fact that it did not break at all would suggest two logical deductions. Neither of which the show wishes to entertain.

    1. Either the projectiles striking Kennedy’s head were not Mannlicher Carcano bullets, or

    2. The snake oil cooking I described in part one was boiling over. That is, the Adelaide T ∓ E “exact replicas” of the human head were no such thing.

    Because the official autopsy in this case was so curtailed and incomplete—which is another area of the medical evidence this show does not want to get into—we cannot answer this question with real certainty. But I actually think number one could be true, and number two almost has to be true. Concerning the first, as I mentioned before, the shot from the front may well have been a frangible type of bullet that broke into bits upon impact, thereby leaving this weird particle trail in the skull.

    But there can be little doubt about number two. I recorded my surprised reaction in part one of this review about the skull breaking into smithereens when struck by a hunting bullet. Well, that was reinforced when this happened. Clearly, the manufactured skull did not create enough resistance to the bullet. And considering the background of Adelaide T ∓ E, the past history of Discovery Channel and their JFK specials, plus what the Sixth Floor represents, one has to wonder if it was by design. That is, they knew they could not duplicate what the HSCA said happened to this bullet. So they went ahead and created easily breakable skulls to give the viewer what they wanted to show: an unobstructed and visually discernible path through the top of the skull.

    And by doing this, they do not have to explain another mystery about this revised entry point. Which is this: both the Clark Panel and HSCA largely based this raised entry point on a circular 6.5 fragment at the back of the skull table. The dimensions, of course, exactly duplicate the shells allegedly used by Oswald (which no one in Dallas recalls selling to him). But further, no one at Bethesda saw this circular object on the x-rays the night of the autopsy! Yet how could they have missed it? In light of this fact, I understand why Mack does not want to talk about this issue. Not only does the non-fragmentation seriously impact the validity of his “exact replicas”, it also affects the credibility of his “knowing” there was a raised entry wound at the rear of the skull. Why? Because his “simulation” does not leave the 6.5 mm fragment—or anything approximating it—in the skull. Which, as previously stated, was one of the major reasons for raising the skull wound in the first place. But even though its not there, Mack raised the wound anyway.

    So much for Gary Mack’s oh-so-certain knowledge of this cowlick entry wound in the skull. It’s a “certainty” that his own experiment belies.

    I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. And I’m not trying. But I’m still not done.

    IV

    Let us now discuss Yardley’s so-called “Oswald shot”. Because something odd happened with it. When Yardley hit his shot, the whole right side of the “replica’s” head flew off. Including what appears to be the right front top of the forehead. Yet this is not the kind of impact that is shown on the Zapruder film, written about in the autopsy report, or shown in the autopsy photos. In those photos, the forehead is intact.

    And this directly relates to another important point. Toward the end of the show, Mack brings on two alleged experts in blood spatter analysis. For this segment, they pose what looks like a white plaster bust in Kennedy’s position in the car. They then place what looks like a target mark on it for the exit point. The mark was located in the upper forehead on the right side. My BS antennae sprung up about a foot in the air. Because if you read the autopsy report, this is not where the doctors located the exit wound. They located it on the right side of the head in the parietal area. Which is back from the forehead. (Most authors give the location as above and to the right of the ear on the right parietal.) Besides being utterly surprised and puzzled, I didn’t know how to explain it. Are we really to believe that Gary Mack, and the producers, and the director never read the autopsy report? As I said, this was very puzzling.

    A couple of minutes later I wasn’t puzzled anymore. At that point, I understood why they placed it wrong. And I should have known. Inevitably, in this age of computer graphics, the producers wanted to superimpose a line on the screen that traced back from a hole in the dashboard that the Yardley shot created, through this exit, and to the sixth floor window. And so with this Yardley exit, you can do that. But with the exit described by the autopsy doctors you cannot. So in addition to the dubious entrance wound, this show gives us an exit wound that does not correspond to the autopsy report. All in order to keep Oswald as the lone assassin.

    After this long and excruciating dog and pony show, the two witnesses are shown photos of the alleged “blood spatter pattern” in the car as adduced by this ersatz experiment. Now let me ask a logical question in light of the above: If the manufactured skulls were not close to being what real skulls are like, and if the entrance point on the skull was wrong, and if the exit point on the skull was wrong how could the end result be the same? But let me add one more point here. The stuff that is ejected from these skulls upon bullet impact seems about as exact a substitute for blood as the manufactured heads are for real skulls. The stuff looks like something out of a “B” horror movie, maybe The Green Slime. But let us discount the color, what bothers me is the texture. The texture may possibly approximate brain matter, but it does not appear to be close to blood. In any real experiment there should have been at least two things ejected from the skull, brain matter and blood. I didn’t see that here. Further, the actual photos taken of the car after it got to Washington only appear to show blood on the back seat. There was little if any of the spatter that was projected forward. So there was no control for this final part of the demonstration. With all these specious variables, with no control factor, and the proven untrustworthiness of the producers, the reliability of these witnesses who confirm the green slime at the end is worth very little.

    But that is not really the end. The end is afterwards with Gary Mack looking out the so-called sniper’s perch onto Dealey Plaza. Get it? That is where the shot that killed JFK came from. And with that posed and pre-planned shot, we understand what this program has been all about. From the selection of Adelaide T ∓ E, to all the cheating on the marksmanship, to the selection of that particular front shot, to the lie about Jackie Kennedy being in the line of fire, to the mentally impaired hit team which wanted to exculpate the patsy, to the oh-too-frangible skulls, to the wrong exits and entrances etc. etc. etc. all the way down the line. It was all done so the show could leave us with that final frame staring out the Sixth Floor window. Which is probably why The Sixth Floor Museum and Mack agreed to go along with the charade.

    But for one informed viewer, that shot did not suggest what the producers wanted—that is Oswald as the lone assassin. For me it was Discovery Channel, Gary Mack and the Sixth Floor as assassins of the truth.

    I will try and explain how it happened in Part Three.

  • Pat Speer, The Mysterious Death of Number Thirty-Five

    Pat Speer, The Mysterious Death of Number Thirty-Five


    speer dvdA new video documentary on the medical evidence in the JFK case is raising the bar on Kennedy research productions.

    In The Mysterious Death of Number Thirty-Five, longtime researcher Pat Speer was aided by two skillful technicians, director Braddon Mendelson and music composer Scott Douglas MacLachlan. These two men, especially the former, were very helpful in making Speer’s documentary aesthetically pleasing.

    (One of my pet peeves in the Kennedy research field is that many independent video productions e.g. Shane O’Sullivan’s DVD RFK Must Die! look like they were made in 1965. That is, at about the skill and technical level of Emile D’Antonio’s talking head film of Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment. With all the incredible advances in computer programming we have today, this is completely unnecessary. For a very reasonable price one can put together a slick looking production. And make no mistake, the skill in presentation makes a difference in the effective delivery of the message.)

    In this regard, Speer was well served by his cohorts. This film should serve as a model for how to represent the research community in this digital day and age. It is not in the technical stratosphere of Robert Stone’s Oswald’s Ghost, but 1.) Speer didn’t have Stone’s bucks, and 2.) Speer has actually dug beneath the surface of the Warren Commission pabulum. And what he shows us is stark, black, and even worse, proved that way by their own words and deeds.

    If you have read Part Four of my review of Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History, you can see I used some of Speer’s material in my critique of the former DA’s discussion of President Kennedy’s autopsy. Although Speer has a wider range of interest in the JFK case, he has spent most of his time studying the medical evidence. (Although this may be changing. In a recent appearance on Len Osanic’s Black Op Radio, Speer hinted that he may be doing an essay on the legitimacy of the evidence found at the so-called sniper’s nest.)

    This documentary has five major sections. The first is an examination of some of the work of Dr. Michael Baden for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). The second section deals with how the Warren Commission made the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) work. The third part is about the reaction of the government to the critical works about the Warren Commission, which emerged in 1966-67, and how high officials forced the pathologists to switch their stories and dissimulate in public. Part four deals with the true orientation of the famous “mystery photo” of the autopsy. It is sometimes called the “skull wound” photo. It is a crucial piece of evidence since allegedly it is the only photo taken of the skull with the scalp refracted and a hole evident. The last part of the documentary is a slide show, which Pat uses to discuss various pieces of medical evidence that are quite puzzling when they stand alone. So he places them in context with other exhibits to try and explain their meaning.

    The first section is slightly humorous, in that it shows us an alleged authority tripping up over the evidentiary flip flops necessitated by upholding the official story. Speer shows us some rarely seen House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) footage of Michael Baden up on a stage introducing the “Mystery photo”. One reason the picture is called that is because the photo is posed and shot so badly that it is hard to orient the picture. Therefore it is not easy to orient as part of President Kennedy’s head. Surely, Baden is clueless as to what it represents. When he placed the picture on an easel for public display, instead of placing it right side up, it was upside down. Which disorients top, bottom, left and right. We then watch as he begins to lecture about it, saying that it depicted the front of Kennedy’s skull and the defect on it was a beveled wound of exit. He actually quotes pathologist Jim Humes as saying this. Yet, pathologists Humes, and Pierre Finck both originally wrote – and we see their original typed words on screen – that they could find no exit near that point. We then see how Baden got the HSCA artist to draw an illustration of a bullet exiting at this point – above the forehead on the right side – with no bone above that trajectory. Yet, as Speer informs us, the Ramsey Clark Panel – appointed to review the medical evidence in 1968 – also wrote that there was no exit in the forehead above the right eye.

    Speer closes this section with what made these gyrations necessary. He poses this question: Why all this thrashing about by Baden in 1978? Didn’t the original autopsy team of Humes, Finck, and Thornton Boswell identify what this photo really represented? The answer to that question is: Yes, they did just that. But here’s the problem: Unlike Baden, they said the photo depicted the posterior of Kennedy’s skull. Yep, not the front, but the back. So it was imperative that Baden change the positioning of the photo. If he left it as a posterior photo it would appear as an exit in the back of the head – which meant the shot came from the front. Anything exonerating Oswald was altered by Robert Blakey’s HSCA. And Baden, like Arlen Specter, was eager to make a national name for himself. Therefore, he fumbled with the photo in public. Not really caring if it was right side up, upside down, or sideways. After all, he was just reading a script.

    The second section deals almost exclusively with the Warren Commission and their struggle to make the SBT work – whatever the cost. The night of the autopsy, the pathologists could find no exit for the back wound. And the FBI report dutifully recorded this. But as the story goes – and as I wrote in my Bugliosi review there is reason to doubt it – Humes talked to the Dallas doctors the next day and discovered a tracheotomy incision was made over a neck wound. This now became the exit for the back wound.

    Yet, at the Warren Commission executive session hearing of 1/27/64, Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin exclaimed that the back wound was too low to match the throat wound. Knowing this, the Commission sent Specter into action. Humes and Boswell were sent to meet with a young medical illustrator named Harold Rydberg. Rydberg was supposed to draw illustrations of both the wounds in the head and the wound in the back. There was a serious problem with the meeting. Humes and Boswell came to meet him with nothing: no photos, sketches, measurements. And we know this to be true not just from Rydberg, but as Speer shows, through the notes of his commanding officer, Captain Stover. The doctors now instructed Rydberg to draw a fallacious portrait of the back wound to cure Rankin’s problem. With nothing to go by except the pathologists’ words, he did. Rydberg raised the wound in the back above the wound in the neck. (Speer even shows a Warren Commission internal memo where Specter admits there is a discrepancy between the Rydberg drawings and the actual wound locations.)

    To underline Specter’s perfidy, the film then moves to the Dallas reconstruction of the shooting. Specter later admitted that a Secret Service officer had shown him the autopsy photos that day. (There is a question about who it is. It may be Elmer Moore or Tom Kelley.) As shown in the film, the photo of Specter lining up this reconstruction used by the Commission does not reveal the accurate white dot on the model locating the back wound. But Speer shows us another photo, which does show it. And at this location, from the high sixth floor angle, the trajectory would not have exited the throat. It would have been too low. During his Warren Commission testimony of 6/4/64, FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt was careful to dance around this issue saying that the trajectory “approximated” the entrance wound. But in private, Rankin was much more candid about the Commission’s aim: “Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.” (Memo of 4/27/64) Note the use of the word “hypothesis”. Rankin knows they never proved their case. Even today, it is still shocking to read something as cavalier as that about the assassination of President Kennedy. Which clearly connotes the irresponsible attribution of murder to a man who was never allowed a defense.

    The film goes on to show just how conscious the dog and pony show was. When Kelley testified before the Commission on 6/4/64, he let it slip that the wound was located in the shoulder area. Specter quickly covered up for him by saying it was actually in the neck. Speer tops this section off by repeating the declassified revelation that Commissioner Gerald Ford then changed the wording of the Warren Report by moving the location of the back wound from the back to the neck. The coda to this segment is the audiotapes of the famous phone call between LBJ and Commissioner Richard Russell. This is where they both admit that they don’t believe the SBT. Which, ipso facto, makes them conspiracy theorists.

    Section Three begins with the tumult caused in 1966-67 by the publication of books by authors who actually read the Warren Commission volumes and found them remarkably unconvincing. Speer here uses the famous memo from former Warren Commission counsel David Slawson, originally discovered by Gary Aguilar. Lawson worked in the Justice Department at the time, and he understood what was at stake – namely the undoing of the entire Commission, and the staff’s pubic disgrace and humiliation. So Slawson wanted to head the critics off at the pass. On 11/20/66 he wrote to Attorney General Ramsey Clark, “If public opinion continues to develop as it has over the past few months, we may soon be forced with a politically unstoppable demand for a free-wheeling re-investigation of all aspects.” Slawson had no intention of risking being tarred and feathered in public.

    So what Slawson and Clark helped plan was a narrowly focused counter-attack. What this consisted of was bringing in the pathologists and rehearsing them on how to address the critic’s points through the media. So in late 1966, Boswell was released from his vow of silence and allowed to talk to the press. And he now magically moved up the wound in the back to the neck so it would correspond more with the Rydberg illustration. Which, of course, it did not.

    But further, the counter-attack fostered by Slawson now also employed his boss, Warren Commissioner John McCloy. In 1966 CBS had planned to air a public debate about the Commission’s conclusions. This would give both sides equal time. But as this idea went up the corporate ladder, the concept was first smothered and then completely skewered. In 1967, McCloy was brought in to be a special, but secret adviser to the now infamous series. This Eastern Establishment paragon flew into Washington and met with people like Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara. Now, Pierre Finck was ordered back from Vietnam to join the two other autopsists for another viewing of the photos and x-rays. In January of 1967, Clark told LBJ that the doctors were defensive about their work and worried about their reputations. But he figured he could get them to sign affidavits in a couple of days. It took more cajoling and arm-twisting than that. It took five days. But by the end of January, the Mystery Photo had been reoriented. It was now rotated from the back to the front of the head.

    Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board interviewed the pathologists about this reversal that took place from 1966 to 1967. To say the least, they were non-committal. They now had hazy memories about how it happened. As they should have. Because the affidavits they signed were not written by them. They were written by the Justice Department. The doctors were now reduced to the level of prop masters. And they reluctantly went along with it.

    The last segment consists of Speer demonstrating through four landmarks in the photo that he has oriented the picture correctly. The autopsists originally had it right. It depicts the rear of the head. And through his study of the photo and the x-rays he believes that two shots hit the president’s head, one from the front and one from behind. The small entrance wound is down low near the base of the skull. The larger exit wound is above it. This idea, originally expressed by Ray Marcus back in the mid-sixties, gets evidentiary back-up here. The film advances evidence concerning entrance and exit holes in the photos, x-rays, and with primary documentation. The fact that the pathologists were forced to retreat by Ramsey Clark, shows them professionally compromised for the third time in just four years. The first time was by the military the evening of the autopsy. The second time was by Specter and the Commission. The third time was by Clark and his preparations for the review suggested by Slawson.

    The appendix to the documentary is a slide show in which Speer presents some fascinating exhibits in the medical evidence. These constitute neat little lessons in certain aspects of the case. In almost every instance, we see how drawings and exhibits were falsified in order to accommodate Oswald as the lone assassin. My favorite is Speer’s critique of the HSCA’s trajectory analyst Tom Canning. And how he had to alter his measurements and drawings in order to accommodate the medical evidence. Even to the point of shrinking Kennedy’s head!

    One of the best aspects of the film is the way the film-makers actually use the words of the investigators themselves to show their true intentions at the time. And this shows that the JFK/Oswald travesty was no accident. It was designed to deceive. Its not an original device by any means. It goes back to Marjorie Field’s aborted sixties book The Evidence. But it’s nice to see it used in a different medium.

    I have two main criticisms of the show. First, I disagree with some of the interpretations of the evidence and testimony. Speer is trying to show how the official story – in and of itself – exonerates Oswald. In other words, he does what he does without questioning the validity of the actual evidence. In courtroom terms, it’s called using your opponent’s evidence against him. As I showed in my aforementioned critique of Reclaiming History, I disagree about the provenance of certain aspects of the evidence. For example, the 6.5 mm fragment that no one can recall from the night of the autopsy. Speer also believes the photos are completely genuine. Even the famous back of the head photo, which looks as if the pathologists reassembled the back of JFK’s head. And afterwards, they then gave him a hair cut and combed his hair. Combed it right over that big hole that upwards of forty people saw in both Dallas and Bethesda. He may be doing this because he really believes it. Or perhaps he sees this as the safest, most acceptable, most mainstream way to challenge the official findings. Either way, in my view, it leaves certain matters unexplained. Secondly, although the documentary is good enough as far as it goes, I don’t think it covered as much as it should have. In other words, it could have been longer and therefore more complete as to the medical evidence. I hope that another installment is issued.

    But in spite of that, it’s worth owning and watching. It has new and fascinating information in it. And it also reveals just how hard the forces of the cover-up must work to keep the autopsy evidence in this case in check. Because with the revelations of the Assassination Records Review Board and the work of people like Speer and others e.g. Gary Aguilar, David Mantik, Milicent Cranor, Randy Robertson, this area has become one of the greatest liabilities for upholders of the Warren Commission. And recall, this type of evidence is usually titled by rubrics like “hard evidence” or “best evidence”. As is shown here, the so-called “best evidence” does the opposite of what the Warren Commission says it did. It exonerates Oswald and indicates conspiracy.

  • Gus Russo Marches On: Or, Rust Never Sleeps


    The current issue of American Heritage (Winter 2009) contains an article that is actually featured on the cover. It is called “Did Castro OK JFK’s Assassination?” It is by Gus Russo and Stephen Molton, and it is meant as a combination summary/excerpt from their new book Brothers in Arms. After having read Russo’s first book on the JFK case Live By the Sword, and then suffered through both the TV specials he worked on – for PBS in 1993, and ABC in 2003 – I admit I didn’t have the stomach to read the whole book. But I felt it necessary to at least comment on the book via the article. I thought that would spare me a lot of unnecessary work and mental anguish. I was right.

    Anybody who understands the game that Russo learned to play can quickly guess what the book is going to be like from the title. The work will generally concentrate on the USA/Cuba policy from about 1959-1963 to the near absence of anything else in the Kennedy presidency. It will then use many questionable sources from both the CIA and Cuba to cast the Kennedy brothers in the worst light. It will also try and take advantage of the reader’s lack of knowledge of the JFK case in order to distort certain subjects and episodes. The overall aim is twofold: 1.) To slightly modify but support the Warren Commission, and 2.) To trash the Kennedy brothers. These two aims are inextricably linked in the Russo/Molton scheme. That’s because the design is the oldest one in the CIA playbook on the JFK case: Blame the assassination on Oswald, the Cuban sympathizer out to avenge the plots against Fidel Castro by killing the US head of state. This, of course, is what David Phillips thought of doing by bribing an Antonio Veciana relative working for Cuban intelligence in 1964. (See Gaeton Fonzi’s The Last Investigation, p. 143). But Phillips tried to work this same deception even earlier, on 11/25/63, right after Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby. At that time he was using another asset of his from Nicaragua, Gilberto Alvarado. On that day, Alvarado walked into the American Embassy in Mexico City. He told the authorities there that in September, he had seen Oswald with two Cubans at the Cuban consulate. They passed money to Oswald while talking about a murder plot. (See Anthony Summers, Conspiracy, pgs 415-419) In the former case, Phillips called off the effort, perhaps because the earlier Alvarado effort had fallen flat. Alvarado first failed a polygraph and then confessed to manufacturing the story. On the subject of Phillips’ propaganda about the JFK case, in part three of my review of Reclaiming History, I note that Ed Lopez and Dan Hardway of the House Select Committee on Assassinations came to an interesting conclusion about all these “Oswald killed JFK for Castro” stories which surfaced in the wake of the JFK murder. Namely, that every story in this regard was linked to a David Phillips asset. The CIA/Phillips ploy had at least three goals. First, to conceal the actual perpetrators of the plot. Second, to take advantage of Oswald’s undercover intelligence status. Third, to attempt to provoke a full invasion of Cuba in retaliation for the murder of the American president. This last is something that the CIA and Pentagon wanted Kennedy to do for three years. Yet he refused.

    Russo reactivated this tall tale in his previous book, and he and Molton try and dress it up and rerun it again here. Predictably, they begin the article by apologizing for the Warren Commission. They write that the Warren Report was “in hindsight, as accurate as possible.” (p. 20) So clearly they are headed for the concept that certain intelligence operations Oswald crossed over had to remain hidden by the US government. Then the authors pull something that seemed to me to be really dishonest. To impress upon the reader the idea that upper echelon leaders understood that the Commission could not tell the whole truth for national security reasons, they relate the famous conversation of September 18, 1964 between President Johnson and Warren Commissioner Richard Russell. In a taped call of that day, they both said that they did not believe the main conclusion of the Warren Report. In fact, Russell said, “I don’t believe it” and LBJ replied with “I don’t either.” (Ibid) The authors try and present this as both men not believing in the element of a conspiracy involving Oswald as the sole assassin. In other words, they understood Oswald was being egged and urged on by shadowy Cuban intelligence (G-2) cohorts. Yet, as Gerald McKnight makes clear in his fine study of the Commission, this is not what the two were discussing. Russell was talking to Johnson about his resistance to the single bullet theory that was being rammed down his throat by Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin. (Breach of Trust, pgs 283-284) So the proper contextual grounding of this phone call cannot be a conspiracy with just Oswald as the lone gunman. What the two men are objecting to, the SBT, is the basis of Oswald as the lone assassin. Without it, there is more than one assassin. By not fully informing the reader of the context, Russo and Molton distort its meaning.

    Russo and Molton follow this up with another distortion in aid of their “Oswald as Castro agent” agenda. They try to say that Johnson and Robert Kennedy controlled the Warren Commission investigation. In their terms, they “directed its focus.” (Russo and Molton p. 20) See, LBJ and RFK suspected the whole Oswald retaliation story and wanted to keep it from the public. This is more malarkey. The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) has now declassified every transcript of the Warren Commission executive sessions. In addition, the working papers of the Commission, as held by Rankin, were also turned over. McKnight based his definitive volume about the Commission largely on these ARRB materials. There is no trace in them of any direct influence by Johnson or RFK. The Warren Commission needed no such help in centering on Oswald alone as the killer. In reading the transcripts of the executive sessions and the testimony in the Commission volumes, it seems clear that the most influential commissioners were Allen Dulles, Gerald Ford, and John McCloy. And these three had their minds made up virtually from the beginning. In fact, in a famous anecdote, Dulles passed out a book at an early meeting that described previous presidential assassinations as the work of disturbed misfits. (McKnight, p. 92) Further, Rankin was a longtime crony of J. Edgar Hoover, and the Commission was overwhelmingly reliant on the FBI for its information. The FBI had closed the case against Oswald in early December. And on December 12, 1963 Hoover told Rankin that a.) Oswald was a skilled marksman, and b.) The bullet on Connally’s stretcher had come from Oswald’s rifle. (McKnight, p. 94) These were both false statements. Today, the former is universally agreed upon as false by everyone except Russo. The latter would be proved false by a later interview of Parkland Hospital employee O. P. Wright, one of the two men who first discovered the bullet. (Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, pgs. 175-176) And that Hoover lied about this key fact, and that Rankin accepted the lie tells you all you need to know about the report being, in the authors’ words, “as accurate as possible.” It also tells you why both LBJ and RFK were essentially irrelevant to the proceedings of the Commission. Once the FBI verdict was submitted, Hoover was not going to let the Commission stray from its essential findings. And with McCloy, Dulles, and Ford involved, he didn’t meet much resistance. (I will touch on Johnson’s actual influence later.)

    But in spite of all the errors, distortions, and misrepresentations on just the first page of the excerpt, Russo and Molton insist they actually have the truth. And they add that they will now piece together and “tell the real story for the first time.” (Op. cit. p. 20)

    They begin by saying that Kennedy was in the grip of a Cold War paradigm that was especially true for Cuban relations. They say that President Eisenhower and Vice-President Richard Nixon had been plotting a coup in Cuba. Further, that assassination was part of it. Thus the historical backdrop is dubious at the start. It is true that Eisenhower did OK a plan to overthrow the Castro government. But he was urged on in this by CIA Director Allen Dulles. It was Dulles who first proposed the trade embargo on Cuba and urged Eisenhower to try and spread it to all American allies in order to isolate the island. Many commentators, including Harry Truman, have said it was this move which almost guaranteed that Castro would be thrown into the arms of the Russians. Which may have been the crusty old Director’s aim all along. (I have always respected Dulles’ brains as much as I didn’t the uses to which he put them.) In fact, in this whole preliminary Cuban/American discussion, there is no mention of Dulles or the CIA! Which is incredible. Because it is Dulles and the Agency which will continue with the overthrow plot and push it on the new president after Eisenhower leaves office. This resulted in the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. And its utter failure caused President Kennedy to fire its main architects, Dulles, Deputy Director Charles Cabell, and Director of Plans Dick Bissell. If you can believe it, in this article, the authors never mention this crucial information.

    Instead, they jump immediately to November of 1961 and Operation Mongoose. And then they distort that also. They say that RFK was closely involved with Mongoose but they leave out the main reason: after they were deceived on the Bay of Pigs, the Kennedys did not trust the CIA anymore. If you leave out the Bay of Pigs debacle, you can shove that crucial fact under the rug. And because this is Gus Russo, the essay tries to state that the Kennedys were part of the CIA’s attempts to assassinate Castro. The problem here is that both the CIA Inspector General Report on the plots to kill Castro, and the records of Mongoose have both been declassified by the ARRB. No reasonable person can state today that those records reveal what Russo says they do. In fact, Russo still uses the notorious liar Sam Halpern to try and insinuate the opposite. Halpern has been exposed many times by, among others, David Talbot and myself as being a fabricator on this issue. Russo and Molton then write that the Missile Crisis was precipitated over Mongoose. Yet in what is probably the best book on the Missile Crisis, The Kennedy Tapes, the authors disagree. In a long and detailed analysis based on declassified Soviet records, they note that Khrushchev first surfaced the idea of shipping nuclear missiles to Cuba in April of 1962. Why? This is one month after the US had completed its installation of Jupiter missiles in Turkey. (Ernest May and Philip Zelikow, The Kennedy Tapes, p. 674) That same month, the US resumed nuclear tests in the Pacific. The combination of these two events – both in April of 1962 – coincide with Khrushchev’s first private discussions of the matter with friend and Politburo member Anastas Mikoyan and then with defense minister Rodion Malinovsky. (Ibid p. 675) Further, when Castro was first approached about the installation, he was reluctant to accept it. He felt – correctly – that Cuba was being used to change the global balance of power. (Ibid p. 676) Castro felt that the deployment of the nuclear missiles would itself create an intense crisis. By ignoring all this new, relevant and documented information, the authors can then distort the causes of the Missile Crisis.

    When Russo and Molton go outside of Cuba, they have the same monomaniacal agenda. They actually can write that after Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic and Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam were killed, “Fidel became even more certain that he was the next hit on the Kennedys’ list.” (p. 24) This is ridiculous. In the case of Diem, Jim Douglass’ fine book JFK and the Unspeakable shows in exquisite detail that the responsible parties for the murder of Diem were Henry Cabot Lodge and Lucien Conein. (See especially pages 202-209) Not only did Kennedy not know what the two were up to, he was so distraught by what had happened he decided to fire Lodge. As for Trujillo, he had become such a brutal dictator, even his Latin American neighbors urged the US to get rid of him somehow. Yet, there is no evidence that Kennedy ever knew of, let alone approved of a plot. The actual assassination of the man was more or less a spur of the moment outburst. (See William Blum, The CIA: A Forgotten History pgs. 196-197)

    Around this point in the excerpt, Russo and Molton go into high gear and begin to describe their plot to kill President Kennedy. To say it is flimsy is to give it too much credibility. Predictably, they trot out the mildewed and disputed Daniel Harker AP story from September of 1963. Every writer in this vein – Jean Davison for example – uses this reportage and none of them seem to note that Castro disputes the story as written. (HSCA interview of Castro 4/3/78) And they also fail to note that there are two stories from this Castro encounter at the Brazilian Embassy in Havana. The second one, reported by the UPI and printed in the NY Times of 9/9/63 does not say the same thing as the Harker AP story. The latter quotes Castro as saying “If US leaders are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe. Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, since they too can be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death.” (p. 25) The UPI fourteen-paragraph story had none of this in it. As the authors note, the Harker story appeared in the New Orleans Times Picayune. The unproven assumption is that Oswald read it and this helped ignite his homicidal tendency to kill Kennedy. So Russo and Molton give us a disputed newspaper story that was assumed to be read by Oswald as key evidence in motivation.

    What is the rest of the plot? Well, essentially it is a rerun of the script Gus Russo wrote for German film director Wilfried Huismann. The film he made out of Russo’s work was called Rendezvous with Death and was shown on German television in January of 2006. This documentary was so full of holes, and used so many dubious witnesses that Russo apparently decided to clean it up the second time around. For instance, it actually relied on the David Phillips inspired and aforementioned Gilberto Alvarado story as its keystone. Even though that fable has been discredited for decades. Yet Huismann and Russo did not tell the audience this. Nor did they tell them about Phillips’ association with Alvarado or how this paralleled other efforts by Phillips. I should also add here that in the original telling, Alvarado said he saw Oswald and the two G-2 agents in Mexico City on September 18th. Yet Oswald was not supposed to be in Mexico at that time.

    Russo and Huismann then built on this phony foundation with people like Pedro Gutierrez. In the Gutierrez instance, Phillips found someone who got the date right. This guy said he saw Oswald in Mexico City on September 30th. But he says he saw a payoff to Oswald right in front of the Cuban Embassy! That G-2 would arrange the murder of JFK right in front of CIA cameras is ludicrous.

    Russo also got his Witness for All Seasons, Martin Underwood, a posthumous gig. Why, I don’t know. Maybe the Germans didn’t know about his poor track record. But it seems whenever Russo needs someone to bolster some unbelievable point of his, he trots this guy out. Underwood was an employee of Mayor Richard Daley who Daley loaned to Kennedy as an advance man for his 1960 campaign. Russo originally tracked him down for Sy Hersh and ABC to bolster one of the many fallacious tales spouted by the late Judith Exner. For the shameless Hersh, Underwood said he saw Exner leaving a train with a bag of money in Chicago when she met Sam Giancana. Well, when Underwood was called to testify before the ARRB about this incident the Hersh/Russo/Exner fabrication collapsed. Underwood “denied that he followed Judith Campbell Exner on a train and that he had no knowledge about her alleged role as a courier. ” (ARRB Final Report, p. 136)

    For the German TV special, Underwood – who later worked for LBJ – passed on a secret report, which he only wanted revealed after his death. The secret report alleged that Winston Scott, CIA Mexico City station chief, told Underwood that one of Castro’s top G-2 agents, Fabian Escalante, was in Dallas on the day of Kennedy’s murder. And the CIA missed that fact. The implication being that the Agency’s miscue caused JFK’s murder.

    One problem with this is that, contrary to the claim above, Underwood told this story while he was alive. And a further problem with it is that he could produce no “report” when the ARRB asked him for it. Russo had given the ARRB notes, but Underwood said he wrote those notes for use in Hersh’s book. That is, they were written in the nineties, not in the sixties when Russo and Huismann say the “Underwood Report” originated. Yet Underwood insisted Scott had told him this. But when he did send the ARRB his notes from Mexico, they only briefly mentioned Scott, and there was no mention at all of the JFK assassination. When the ARRB asked him to testify under oath, Underwood wisely and understandably declined. (ARRB Final Report, p. 135) One last problem with the fabled “Underwood Report”. Scott’s biographer, Jefferson Morley, spent years researching the man’s life. In 2008, he published his book on Scott, entitled Our Man in Mexico. There is no mention of either Underwood or the Escalante story in the volume. Did Scott only tell the Escalante story to Underwood? Why?

    Realizing this was all thin gruel for anyone familiar with the JFK case, Russo and Huismann came up with a new witness. This is a guy named Oscar Marino – which is a pseudonym. Marino said that Oswald volunteered to kill JFK. And Russo and Molton repeat this claim for this article. What is this based upon? Well, when Vincent Bugliosi called Russo, Russo said it was based upon Alvarado’s allegation! (Reclaiming History, End Notes, p. 736) With that, we know what to think of Marino. He has all the credibility of Underwood. But that didn’t matter to Russo and Molton. As I said, they repeat the quote here. (p. 29)

    In American Heritage, Russo and Molton say that Oswald’s shooting at Gen. Walker in April of 1963 was supposed to be an audition for G-2. Further, the authors say that Oswald ordered the rifle used in that shooting, the Mannlicher Carcano. Here is the problem with that. If this is so, then the bullet changed both color and caliber from April to December. Because as Gerald McKnight notes, the original bullet was silver in color and not of the 6.5 caliber used in the Carcano. (Breach of Trust, pgs 48-49) The FBI and Warren Commission altered its color and dimension to incriminate Oswald. Somehow, Russo and Molton leave out that pertinent fact.

    From here, the authors transition to Oswald’s trip to Mexico City. They say that Oswald was declined for a visa to Cuba at the Cuban Embassy because of his erratic behavior. Not accurate. Whoever was at the Cuban Embassy – Oswald or an imposter – was declined because he wanted an in-transit visa to Cuba. The ultimate destination was Russia. Oswald could not get a visa at the Russian Embassy. This is why the Cubans turned him down. They then relate how Oswald went to a local university to get some student leftists to vouch for him in his pursuit of a visa. They say that when Oscar Contreras, the leader of the group, called the Cuban Embassy he was told to forget it since Oswald was unstable. Again, not accurate. Eusebio Azcue told Contreras that he should forget Oswald – or whoever impersonated him – because he was probably an agent provocateur. In other words, he was a CIA operative. This is why Contreras did not help. (Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation, p. 290) This undermines their whole thesis. So the authors leave it out.

    The excerpt/summary ends in a crescendo of unintended satire. The authors write that because of the assassination, LBJ ended the secret war against Cuba. But the assassination almost forced a nuclear war against Russia based upon Oswald’s activities in Mexico City. (Russo and Molton, p. 29) What the authors leave out is that Johnson now eliminated the back channel Kennedy had been working on to create dÈtente with Castro. And that move caused the freeze out in relations between the two nations to persevere for 45 years. They also leave out the fact that the fear of atomic war with Russia was largely created by the phony Mexico City tapes the CIA sent to Dallas and Washington the night of the assassination. The ones that contained an imposter’s voice, not Oswald’s. And the whole idea that Oswald was meeting with a KGB agent in Mexico City to plan the murder of Kennedy was a fiction set up before the fact by James Angleton and David Phillips. (See John Newman, Oswald and the CIA, Chapters 18 and 19.) It was this false pretense which threatened atomic war that frightened Johnson. (James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 231) This fear was used to coax Earl Warren into helming the Warren Commission and conducting it in such a shameful manner. This also undermines their phony thesis.

    That’s pretty important information to keep from the reader. But its par for the course for Russo and Molton. American Heritage should be ashamed of itself for putting such a worthless piece of tripe in its magazine. Let alone on its cover. Shame on you.

  • Dick Russell, On the Trail of the JFK Assassins – Richard Case Nagell: The Most Important Witness, Part 2


    In reviewing Dick Russell’s new anthology book, On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, I noted how it revealed just how long the author had been writing about the JFK assassination. It goes back to at least 1975. And in my review I noted the multiplicity of subjects Russell had covered in that regard. These two factors, hitherto not fully revealed, shed backward light on his earlier JFK book, The Man Who Knew Too Much, in both its incarnations (1992 and 2003).

    Nagell1
    Richard Case Nagell
    Nagell2
    Richard Case Nagell

    When I first read Russell’s 1992 version of the book I was disappointed in the work. That book got a lot of exposure and was strongly pushed by its publisher. Russell got TV exposure and also an article in the LA Times. I thought the book was bloated, confusing, maddeningly meandering, and – most of all – wasteful.

    Why the last? Because, like others e.g. Jim Garrison, I have always believed that Richard Case Nagell was one of the most important witnesses there was in the JFK case. The only two rivals he has in regard to a conspiracy before the fact are Sylvia Odio and Rose Cheramie. Yet in the 1992 version of the book, Nagell’s story got lost. Actually, the better phrase would be it got buried. And today, in the aftermath of the current anthology, I think we can see why. In 1992 Russell was so eager to put so much of what he had been working on in the last 17 years into that book that he lost sight of the forest for the trees. This was unfortunate since, as anyone can see from reading On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, nothing else Russell wrote about in the JFK case ever approached the importance of Nagell. I could have easily foregone every sentence about Mark Gayn, and the Japanese International House etc. in the 1992 book for just one more section about Nagell. Russell did not understand this. And neither did his original publisher. This is what editors are for. To give a book wholeness and perspective. To tell a writer when he is wrong.

    Lachy Hulme finally did that. Hulme is an Australian actor who Russell is lucky enough to have as a friend. Hulme has a strong interest in the JFK case. And he understood the mistake Russell made in his first book. He convinced Russell to reissue the book in 2003 and he helped him edit out a lot of the pork. As we shall see, not quite all of it. But a very large portion of it. The text now comes in at a much more manageable 466 pages. The appendices and footnotes are about another hundred. The important thing is that now the Nagell story stays on center stage. It is not frequently consigned to sideshow status. Or, at times, completely absent. And that is the way it should be. Nagell should be the star – the name above the title. Sharing it with no one.

    Russell explains why right at the start. A most compelling piece of evidence that Nagell had at the time of his arrest in September of 1963 was a near duplicate of Oswald’s Uniformed Services Identification and Privileges Card. (See p. xvii) As Russell notes, it had the picture and the apparent signature of Oswald on it. Russell did not recall this card in the Warren Commission volumes. Neither did two other researchers he consulted with at the time. (ibid) The only other place the card had appeared was in an obscure book by Judy Bonner called Investigation of a Homicide. Bonner had gotten the card from the Dallas Police. But there is something even more interesting about the mystery. In the card seized by the Dallas Police, there is an overstamp that appears which says “October 1963”. In the version that Nagell had, the imprint does not appear. Why? Because Nagell was in jail after September 20, 1963. Also, the photo of Oswald in the Nagell version is different. That photo is from a different ID card. And on that card, Oswald used his Alex J. Hidell alias. As Russell notes, this second card is believed to have been fabricated by Oswald himself, including the added picture. In other words, Nagell had to have been very close to Oswald prior to his September 1963 arrest. For he actually had access to Oswald’s identification cards. Some versed in espionage would say that this indicates Nagell might have been either a “control agent” or a “surveillance operative” for Oswald. (The cards are pictured in the photo section of this book.)

    From this information in the Preface, Russell cuts to chapter one of the text. It is aptly titled, “The Man Who Got Himself Arrested”. At this time, Nagell had other things in his possession similar to what Oswald had in November: names in their notebooks, Cuba-related leaflets, and miniature spy cameras. (p. xviii)

    Russell details Nagell’s actions in El Paso on the morning of 9/20 better than anyone ever has. Nagell first went to a nearby post office before entering the bank. He mailed five hundred dollar bills to an address in Mexico. He then mailed two letters to the CIA. (p. 1. Later on, the author reveals that one was addressed to Desmond Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald was heavily involved in both Clandestine Services and Cuban operations at the time.)

    From the post office, Nagell walked over to the State National Bank. There was a young police officer in plain sight. Nagell walked over to a teller and asked for a hundred dollars in American Express traveler’s checks. (ibid) But before Nagell could retrieve the checks, he turned and fired two shots into a wall right under the ceiling. He calmly returned the revolver to his belt and walked out the front door into the street. He stepped into his car and waited. When no one came out, he pulled his car halfway into the street. He saw the policeman from inside and stopped his car. When the policeman came over to his car with his gun pulled, Nagell put his hands up and surrendered.

    The arresting officer was one Jim Bundren. When Bundren searched Nagell one of the odd things he found on him was a mimeographed newsletter from the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC). (p. 2) When Bundren notified the FBI, lest the arresting officers forget, Nagell asked them to get the machine gun out of the trunk of his car. Of course, there was no machine gun. But there was a suitcase, two briefcases filled with documents, a 45-rpm record box, two tourist cards for entry into Mexico (one in the name of Aleksei Hidel), a tiny Minolta camera, and a miniature film development lab. As previously noted, the personal effects Nagell had uncannily resemble Oswald’s.

    On the way to the El Paso Federal Building, Nagell issued a statement to the FBI: “I would rather be arrested than commit murder and treason.” (ibid)

    Now, to anyone familiar with the JFK case, just the above would be enough to certify that Richard Case Nagell was in the know about who Oswald was and what was going to happen. But Bundren related to Russell an incident that makes it all even clearer. At a preliminary hearing for Nagell, the defendant related to the officer the obvious: that he wanted to be caught. To which Bundren replied that he knew Nagell was not out to rob the bank. The following colloquy then occurred:

    Nagell: Well, I’m glad you caught me. I really don’t want to be in Dallas.

    Bundren: What do you mean by that?

    Nagell: You’ll see soon enough. (p. 3)

    When Kennedy was assassinated, the full impact of Nagell’s prediction did not hit Bundren. But when Jack Ruby shot Oswald, it did. Bundren exclaimed to himself, “How the hell would he have previous knowledge of it? How would he know what was coming down in Dallas?” (ibid) When Bundren went to the FBI to try and talk about Nagell’s stunning prognostication, the agent he knew there told him he was not at liberty to discuss it. Bundren concluded from the experience that “Nagell know a lot more about the assassination then he let on, or that the government let on. Its bothered me ever since.” (ibid) Indicating Bundren was right about what the government knew, Russell notes at this point that one of the notebooks seized from Nagell that day was not returned to him for eleven years. The other notebook was not returned at all.

    As Nagell told Russell, the CIA was not the only government agency he tried to notify in advance of the murder. He also was in contact with the FBI. In fact, an FBI agent’s phone number was in his notebook. But that wasn’t all. He also had written down the names of two Soviet officials, six names under the rubric of CIA, a LA post office box for the FPCC, and an address and phone number for one Sylvia Duran of the Cuban Consulate in Mexico. This last was in Oswald’s notebook also. (p. 6) And not revealed until many years later, Nagell had a Minox miniature spy camera in the trunk of his car upon his arrest. The same kind of spy camera that the FBI tried to deny Oswald had for many, many years. (p. 6)

    I think it’s important to note: If the above was part of the contents of the notebook that the FBI finally returned to Nagell, imagine what was in the notebook they never returned to him.

    On March 20, 1964 Nagell wrote a note to Warren Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin. In that correspondence Nagell revealed his warning to the FBI. But he also revealed that he had made a request through the prison authorities for the Bureau to get into contact with the Secret Service about an upcoming assassination attempt. The date: November 21, 1963. Incredibly, Nagell’s name does not appear either in the Warren Report or in the accompanying 26 volumes.

    But probably the most interesting correspondence to survive is a letter that Nagell wrote to Senator Richard Russell. Russell was the former Warren Commissioner who had expressed doubts about what the Commission was doing. So much so, that he had conducted his own mini-investigation using his own investigators. Apparently, Nagell had heard of this. And in this letter Nagell, for the first time, revealed some of the specifics of what he knew about Oswald. He began by saying that he had been monitoring Oswald in both 1962 and 1963. This surveillance, plus information gathered from others, led him to conclude that: 1.) Oswald had no real relations with the FPCC 2.) He also had no real relations with pro-Castro elements, but he was gulled into believing he did 3.) He had no real relations with any Leftist or Marxist group 4.) He was not an agent or informant, in the generally accepted sense of the word. 5.) He was involved in a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy which was not communist inspired or instigated by a foreign government. (p.7, Russell’s italics.)

    The date of this letter is January 3, 1967. Before any of the discoveries of the Garrison investigation were made public. Before the domestic publication of the works of Mark Lane or Sylvia Meagher. In fact, Nagell was still in prison when he wrote it. And he had yet to be visited by any investigator for Jim Garrison.

    Later on, in a letter to Representative Don Edwards, Nagell revealed that his letter of warning to the FBI was specifically addressed to J. Edgar Hoover. He wrote it using one of his aliases, Joseph Kramer. In it he said that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy which he thought would take place in late September of 1963. (The mistaken date is why Nagell did what he did in El Paso on September 20th.) He gave the Bureau a complete description of Oswald including his true name, physical description, two aliases and his residential address. He conveyed certain data about the plot including one overt act which was a violation of federal law. And he used the name Kramer because two FBI agents in Miami knew him by that alias at the time.

    No wonder Garrison called Nagell the most important witness there is.

    II

    Russell reveals in his anthology that he first discovered Nagell through his meeting with Richard Popkin. He had gone to California to meet Popkin while on assignment for the Village Voice. But before actually meeting the most important witness, the author decided to stop in El Paso to do some research through the local papers.

    He discovered some interesting facts. When he appeared before the court on November 4, 1963 Nagell told the judge, “I had a motive for doing what I did. But my motive was not to hold up the bank. I do not intend to disclose my motive at this time.” (p. 13) Russell also discovered something that is interesting because it did not happen. Even though two FBI agents were in on his arrest, and the Bureau confiscated his belongings, no FBI representative testified at his trial. (p. 14) This is especially intriguing since, in a newspaper story of 1/24/64, Nagell revealed that the FBI had asked him about Oswald and Oswald’s activities. (p. 14) After he was convicted, Nagell leaped to his feet and shouted, “Why weren’t the real issues brought out in court!” Later adding, “They will be some time.” (p. 16)

    After his trip to El Paso in October of 1975, Russell then traveled to Los Angeles to meet Nagell for the first time. At this meeting Nagell was not really forthcoming but he did reveal that he had a photo of Oswald in his trunk at the time of his arrest, which the FBI never returned to him. (p. 26) That his mother and sister were both interviewed by the FBI after the assassination. (Which, of course, is strange since Nagell is not in the 26 volumes of the Commission.) Researching Nagell’s appeals case, Russell discovered a filing made in 1974 which was quite revealing about Nagell’s monitoring of Oswald. He wrote that although he was under contract to the CIA in 1962-63, he came to the conclusion that his inquiries in the time period which concerned not just Oswald but people like Manuel Artime and Vaughn Marlowe, were also being done for a “foreign nation”, that is the Soviets. (p. 29) This holds out the possibility that someone in the CIA was working with the original KGB agents who hired Nagell to prevent the assassination of JFK.

    As mentioned above, the FBI interviewed Nagell’s sister after the assassination. It is clear from reading this book that Nagell was quite close to her. Right after he was arrested, but before the assassination, he wrote to her that “I have refused to offer an explanation as to certain overt acts … Someday I shall explain everything in detail to you pertinent to this apparent disgrace.” (p. 37) His sister’s widower said that Nagell’s mission was to eliminate Oswald before the assassination. (p. 39) He also told Russell that the FBI visited them in 1965 to see some of the papers Nagell had sent to them. While they were on vacation, the FBI broke into their home and stole some of the documents. (p. 40)

    Nagell’s career in the armed forces was distinguished. In 1953, during the Korean War, Nagell attended the Monterey School of Languages. In 1954, he suffered through a plane crash. And although many have said that somehow this impacted him psychologically forever, the army cleared him of any kind of personality change afterwards. (p. 46) In fact, less than a month after the crash he was approved for a new intelligence assignment. (ibid) Working for Army Intelligence, Nagell opened the mail of suspected communists with postal inspectors right next to him. They broke into the offices of suspected communist organizations and stole whole file cabinets. (p. 47) It was in the winter of 1955-56 that the CIA first recruited Nagell. (p. 48) And in fact, the names of his two recruiters were found in his notebook. Russell called one of them and he confirmed that he had worked in the LA office of the CIA. (ibid) Later in 1956, Nagell was transferred to another intelligence agency called in the Far East called Field Operations Intelligence (FOI). FOI was involved in black ops: assassinations, kidnappings, blackmail etc. (p. 54)

    While in the Far East, Nagell worked in Japan. He used the aliases of Joe Kramer and Robert Nolan, and the CIA has certified this. (p. 61) It was at this time and place, Japan in 1957-58, that Nagell first met Oswald. This was after Oswald was observed outside the Soviet Embassy in Tokyo. (p. 72) Curious about what he was doing there, Nagell arranged to be introduced to the young Marine under an assumed name. (ibid) Also, Nagell told the author that both he and Oswald had girlfriends at the Queen Bee, a famous nightclub in Tokyo. (p. 76) Further, Nagell raised the possibility that Oswald was involved with him and a Japanese local in an attempt to get a Soviet intelligence officer named Eroshkin to defect. (p. 73)

    When Nagell left his Far East assignment in late 1959, he moved to Los Angeles, and a he got a job working for the state of California. But, he told the author, that he was still working for the CIA. Specifically, in the Domestic Intelligence unit, which would later be formalized under Tracy Barnes as the Domestic Operations Division. (p. 263) This is quite interesting of course since this part of the CIA was an illegal unit that was doing all kinds of weird things and it employed people like Howard Hunt, and according to Victor Marchetti, probably Clay Shaw. (William Davy, Let Justice be Done, p. 196) What makes it even more interesting is that former CIA agent Robert Morrow later revealed that in 1963, Barnes told him that he was aware of a plot to kill President Kennedy which included Shaw. We will refer to this fascinating aspect of the Nagell story later.

    After a shooting incident on the job, Nagell left his state employment. He secured a Mexican tourist card from the consulate in LA. From there, he went to visit a friend of his at the Hotel Luma in Mexico City. And this is where Nagell’s tale takes on a large and sinister dimension.

    III

    In 1966, Nagell hinted at what had happened to him in Mexico in 1962. He wrote his dear sister, “If it does eventually become mandatory for me to touch upon the events leading to my sojourn in Mexico in 1962 … (where and when it began), I shall do so, but only subsequent to being granted immunity from prosecution …”( p. 145) Nagell was now purely under the employment of the CIA. And a friend of his in Mexico, Art Greenstein, went to a party with him once where he later referred to someone he had talked to, his contact there, as a typical CIA agent. (p. 147) His mission was to serve as a double agent for the Agency in an operation against the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. The timing of this “disinformation project” was near the outset of the Cuban Missile Crisis. And since these kinds of operations were the domain of David Phillips–who had a Cuban desk in Mexico City–Nagell hinted to Greenstein that Phillips had been an accomplice in this project. It was after the completion of this mission, when the Missile Crisis was over, that Nagell first learned of a plot to kill JFK. And he learned of it in his double agent status through the KGB. (p. 152)

    In October of 1962, a Soviet contact of his told him that he had heard that a Cuban group named Alpha 66 had been talking about a plot to kill JFK. The reason being that they had gotten wind of Kennedy’s no invasion of Cuba pledge made to close the crisis. The contact asked him to investigate the rumor to see if it was true. If it was to try and ascertain those involved, the method to be used etc. (p. 154) Nagell had barely begun his inquiry when he was called to the Soviet Embassy. Something that had never happened to him before. He was told there that it was not just a rumor. He was briefed further, furnished a number of pictures, and told to return to the USA and continue his investigation in earnest. (ibid) Alpha 66, of course, was a violent Cuban group backed by the CIA. In fact, Antonio Veciana was probably its most famous member. And Veciana famously told investigator and author Gaeton Fonzi that David Phillips was his CIA handler, and he had seen Phillips meeting with Oswald in Dallas in the late summer of 1963. And before he left Mexico, Oswald’s Soviet contact showed him a photo of Oswald since they were suspicious of him from his Soviet sojourn. (p. 155) Though, at this time, not in relation to the plot to kill Kennedy. On October 21st, 1962 Greenstein saw Nagell off from the Hotel Luma. He asked Nagell if he would be hearing from him in the future, or if he would read about him in the papers. Nagell said that he would. Greenstein then said, “Something big?” To which Nagell replied, “Yes … something big.” (p. 160)

    He first journeyed to Dallas to inquire about the status of Oswald. At this time, Oswald had been back in Texas for about five months and was carefully ensconced in the White Russian community. This had been done with the help of George DeMohrenschildt. But only after the approach to Oswald had been approved by local CIA Station Chief J. Walton Moore. After doing this, Nagell then went to both Washington DC and New York City. While in Washington he was approached by what he thought was a Soviet agent and he reported this to his CIA handlers. He was then told to go to Miami and wait in a bar to be approached by a Soviet agent. (p. 163) At this time, not sure whom he was working for, caught up in a web of intrigue, Nagell journeyed both west to Tallahassee, and south to St. Petersburg. There he checked into a Bay Pines VA Hospital complaining of headaches, blackouts, and amnesia. This was on December 20, 1962. Some commentators have used this incident, and another to be described to discredit Nagell as being neurotic or worse. But what they always leave out is what Nagell told Russell about what he learned in Florida. He had penetrated a Cuban exile group who had planned on blowing up the Miami stadium where Kennedy was to speak to the prisoners released from Cuba in the Bay of Pigs exchange. (p. 164) Nagell was trying to keep a safe distance from the plot. So far from discrediting his story, this is consistent with what he did in El Paso in September of 1963. And Russell furnishes evidence of the plot. There is an intelligence report from the Miami Police Department that says that a local Cuban was overheard saying on the night JFK spoke in the Orange Bowl that “Something is going to happen in the Orange Bowl.” (ibid) Nagell was right. But the FBI and the VA tried to smear him anyway. The FBI file on Nagell excerpted the first line of the Bay Pines report which said, “Chronic brain syndrome associated with brain trauma…” (p. 179) The FBI left out the final line of the report which declared Nagell competent upon his departure. Further, the VA exaggerated his so-called “brain trauma”. It was actually diagnosed from his previous injury as “brain concussion, cured.” (p. 180) With a witness as good as Nagell, the Bureau pulled out all the stops. Especially when he blamed Hoover for not heeding his letter of warning previous to the assassination.

    Nagell then did some work in Miami. He was checking on an alleged relationship between Eladio Del Valle and New Orleans Cuban Revolutionary Council representative and former Batista official Sergio Arcacha Smith. (p. 182) He also was checking on an associate of Dave Ferrie. This is all extraordinary of course since Smith and Ferrie will soon figure prominently in Oswald’s life, in a most intriguing manner. Nagell was one heck of an investigator.

    In April of 1963, Alpha 66 announced the opening of a Los Angles chapter. (p. 208) Consequently, Nagell decided to move to LA temporarily in order to monitor this new branch opened up with much fanfare. Nagell picked up the scent of another plot to kill JFK when he arrived in LA in June of 1963. The man the plot focused around was Vaughn Marlowe, an executive officer with the LA FPCC. (p. 210) Marlowe had written a letter to Jim Garrison in 1967 telling him about Nagell and how, for reasons unknown, he had been tailing him back in 1963. Nagell revealed in 1964 that he was watching Marlowe since he was being scoped out by an Alpha 66 Cuban who would later visit Sylvia Odio in September of 1963. (p. 211) According to Nagell, the plot was to take place during JFK’s visit to the Beverly Hilton hotel for the premiere of the film PT 109.

    When Russell found Marlowe he told the author that Nagell approached him like some kind of double agent would. He told him he was a former Army Intelligence officer who actually wanted to help Marlowe in his social causes. (p. 213) Nagell later filed a report on Marlowe that was 23 pages long. Which he kept on microfilm. (ibid) The reason Marlowe was such an attractive candidate was that he was a stern critic of JFK from the left. He had a critical poster of JFK in his bookstore front window and he organized a demonstration against him around the time of the Missile Crisis. Finally, and this made him a better candidate than Oswald–Marlowe was an ace rifleman from his days in the service. After the assassination, Nagell wrote Marlowe a letter from prison telling him not to tell anyone that he mentioned the name of Oswald in his talks with him. Marlowe then got in contact with Nagell’s mother and told him he thought Nagell was somehow involved with the JFK murder. When she dodged the point he asked her if someone had told her not to talk about the JFK assassination with anyone and she replied they had. Many years later, in 1975, Marlowe finally located Nagell and wrote him a letter. He apologized for not doing more to help inform the public of why Nagell was in jail back in 1964. (p. 218)

    On June 4, 1963, three days before JFK was to arrive in LA, Nagell did what he had done in Miami. He attempted to check himself into a VA Hospital. This time, the resident psychiatrist apparently saw through the sham and he was not admitted. (p. 219) Meanwhile, one of the groups demonstrating around the Hilton was the civil rights group named the Congress of Racial Equality. A group that Marlowe had once worked with.

    Repeat: Nagell was a good investigator.

    IV

    From here, that is around July of 1963, Nagell began to monitor the plot that finally was enacted in Dallas. But when Oswald stepped onto center stage that summer, Nagell felt that something about the motivation behind the plot had changed. Why? Nagell wrote his friend Mr. Greenstein that the Cubans had gotten wind by now of the back channel Kennedy had been working on to effect a rapprochement with Castro. (p. 239) Two of the Cubans, Angel and Leopoldo, had convinced Oswald they were actually pro-Castro. And that they wanted to involve him in a plot to kill JFK. This was in reaction to plots enacted by the USA against Fidel. If he did so, Oswald would be furnished a “safe conduct” pass into Havana by the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. Nagell told Russell he had been in Mexico City with Oswald, but not at the time of the notorious trip discussed in the Lopez Report. Nagell had told a friend of his, John Margain, about this trip. Russell later interviewed Margain and he confirmed certain details about it. (pgs. 240-241) Including the fact that Nagell told Margain that Oswald was being set up by the CIA and the Cuban exiles.

    From here, Russell describes some of the characters and events from Oswald’s last summer on earth. Which he spent in New Orleans with a now famous cast of characters. He quotes William Gaudet saying he saw Oswald leafleting and Oswald did not know what he was doing. Guy Banister had put him up to it. (p. 253) Russell also tells us that Nagell too had the famous Corliss Lamont flyer, “The Crime Against Cuba”, but he does not tell us which edition it was. Russell produces witnesses who say they saw Oswald and Ferrie at a Cuban exile training camp that summer. (p. 256) Interestingly, Russell discusses one Carlos Quiroga, a colleague of both Carlos Bringuier and Sergio Arcacha Smith. Quiroga has often been accused of acting as a double agent. That is of posing as a pro-Castro sympathizer. Which of course, is what Nagell described as what the plotters were doing around Oswald. When Garrison aide Frank Klein interviewed Quiroga in 1967, he tried to pin the assassination of JFK on Castro. At the end of his memo, Klein wrote “This man knows a lot more than is telling us.” (p. 261) Apparently, Klein was correct. Quiroga later took a polygraph test. He indicated deception on, among others, two key questions: did he know in advance JFK was going to be killed, and had he seen the weapons to be used in the assassination beforehand. (ibid)

    The above dovetails perfectly with a memo that another Garrison investigator wrote. This was one William Martin who was the first person Garrison sent to interview Nagell in prison. Nagell told Martin that in his work infiltrating the conspiracy, he was able to “make a tape recording of four voices in conversation concerning the plot, which ended in the assassination of President Kennedy.” (Garrison Memorandum of 4/18/67) When Martin questioned Nagell about who was on the tape, Nagell replied that one of them was named “Arcacha”, and another he only identified as “Q”. (ibid) (Although later, Nagell told Russell that Arcacha was discussed on the tape, not one of the actual speakers he had recorded. P. 275)) The first person referred to must be Sergio Arcacha Smith, and the second is very likely Quiroga. Further, when Garrison tested Quiroga with the question, “According to your own knowledge, did Sergio Arcacha know Lee Oswald?”, the criteria indicated a deception. (Davy, pp287-88) It very much seems that Quiroga was hiding his advance guilty knowledge. Of course, Martin turned out to be one of the several CIA agents who helped capsize Garrison. He may be the reason the tape never surfaced. (Or that may be due to new information to be discussed later.)

    As Russell notes, most of Nagell’s time from July to his arrest in September was spent on Oswald. And although Nagell was deliberately vague about exactly what he was doing, another source, besides Garrison, shed some backward light on those activities. In 1976, former CIA agent Robert Morrow wrote Betrayal, a fictionalized account of his days in the Agency leading up to the murder of Kennedy. In that account, he named a man who was almost eerily resembled Nagell. Except in that book, he was called Richard Carson Fillmore. It was not until many years later, in the nineties, that Morrow discussed openly who the actual people in the 1976 book represented. As we have noted, Nagell revealed he worked in the forerunner of the DOD from 1959 onward. In 1962, Tracy Barnes exercised control over this newly named and organized unit. With both Nagell and very likely Clay Shaw under him. Interestingly, Morrow knew that “Joe Kramer” was one of Nagell’s pseudonyms. (p. 264) Barnes told Morrow that he had sent Nagell to New Orleans to investigate certain goings-on with the Banister-Ferrie group in the summer of 1963. As Russell notes, Nagell corroborates this part of Morrow’s story in a letter to Greenstein he wrote in 1967. There he mentioned that he had received instructions from someone at CIA HQ to join a Cuban exile affiliate of Alpha 66 in New Orleans to “find out if things were real.” (ibid) Further, Nagell later told Garrison that “Angel” and “Leopoldo” both had worked with the group Movement to Free Cuba which was supervised by Barnes. Nagell also said at the time that Ferrie knew both of these men who, of course, ended up at Sylvia Odio’s home in late September of 1963. (p. 265)

    Let me mention another fascinating linkage between Nagell, Odio, and the Garrison inquiry. Sylvia Odio always maintained that the Caucasian who accompanied the two Cubans was referred to as one “Leon Oswald”. This, of course, corresponds with the name given to the man at Ferrie’s apartment discussing some kind of assassination plot as testified to by Perry Russo. Nagell told Russell that he knew both Oswalds, Lee and Leon. (p. 287) And he said the latter showed up on the fringes of the nascent conspiracy. Nagell added that Leon Oswald worked only with the anti-Castro Cubans and made no attempt to appear pro-Castro. He also said that this second Oswald was in Mexico City somewhere between July and September of 1963. Nagell wrote to Russell that Leon Oswald was eliminated in the latter part of September by mistake. (Russell surmises that it was probably by the KGB.) This new Nagell aspect now makes three witnesses who met someone referred to as “Leon Oswald”. All of the meetings taking place in a clearly conspiratorial aspect and pre-assassination. (I should add, there is a fourth witness to this Leon Oswald. It is Ferrie’s friend Ray Broshears who said Leon resembled the real Oswald. p. 367) It sounds very much like someone was trying to confuse things about multiple Oswalds before the fact. For instance, Nagell says that the Leon Oswald he knew was killed around the third week of September. If so, Angel and Leopoldo were still using that name with what was probably the real Oswald. Further, both the KGB and Barnes strongly suspected a conspiracy to kill Kennedy forming in New Orleans with Cuban exiles like Smith, and with CIA agents like Ferrie.

    Russell implies that by the end of August and in early September, Nagell realized he was in the middle of something very big and very evil. In late August Nagell communicated to Desmond Fitzgerald of the Clandestine Services that something was clearly transpiring. (p. 275) Except at this point Nagell apparently thought the actual assassination attempt would take place in the East, in the Washington-Baltimore area. In fact, he actually tried to join Communist Party cells at the time in those areas. (p. 276) Journeying to Mexico for further instructions, Nagell could not meet with his CIA contact there. But his KGB contact told him to try and separate Oswald from the conspirators by telling him he was being duped. And if this did not work, and the plot appeared to be heading forward, to eliminate him. (p. 278) Later, Nagell told the author “If anybody wanted to stop the assassination, it would be the KGB. But they didn’t do enough.” (ibid)

    From Russell’s narrative it seems that Nagell failed in his KGB mission. He could not convince Oswald to admit he was being used. Therefore the plot proceeded. Nagell describes a meeting with Oswald in Jackson Square where this confrontation occurred.( p. 282) What seems to be happening in this incident is that you have two agents from different parts of the CIA taking orders from different chiefs. Oswald connects through officers like David Phillips and Howard Hunt through to James Angleton. Nagell works through his Mexico City contact named Bob up to Tracy Barnes. I have never seen any evidence that connects Barnes to the conspiracy. I have seen a lot of evidence that connects Hunt, Phillips, and Angleton. Because of that unseen gulf, Nagell could not fulfill his mission. What made his dilemma worse is that he also could not bring himself to kill Oswald. Feeling lost and helpless, Nagell used his old stand by trick. He tried to check into a VA Hospital. This time in Los Angeles. Again, he couldn’t pass muster. (p. 278) Because of his failure, it appears that Nagell expected to be killed. For when he visited a friend in LA, he informed him of what to do with some of his possessions in case of his demise.

    I must note here that Russell insinuates an absolutely diabolical possibility in a chapter called “The Setup”. One of the reasons Nagell may have panicked is because the CIA was freezing him out. (p. 283) He got no reply from his communication with Fitzgerald. While in Mexico, his contact failed to meet him. His only communication about the plot was now with the KGB. Russell holds out the possibility that Nagell had been duped into thinking that he was working on this mission for both sides. When in fact the CIA was using him to both monitor and confuse the KGB effort to thwart the plot. This may be why Leon Oswald was mistakenly eliminated and why Nagell was confused about the conspiracy’s ultimate location. (Although, as seen by his conversation with Bundren, he ultimately found out its actual destination.) Another possibility is that someone in the know learned about Barnes’ efforts and told him to back off.

    Nagell became so confused that he actually thought of leaving the USA and going to Eastern Europe. And his KGB contacts agreed he should. Around September 17th, he mailed a letter to the FBI alerting them to the conspiracy. He then drove to El Paso. He was supposed to meet a contact across the border, in Juarez. (p. 290) Nagell was thinking of going from Mexico to Cuba. He cruised the streets for awhile and decided against crossing over and meeting his contact. He went to the post office, and as related above, mailed the money to Mexico and wrote the letters to the CIA. (Later on in the book, Nagell reveals to Russell that the five hundred dollars was for Oswald’s expense money on his Mexico trip. p. 290) He then walked over to the bank to purchase the American Express checks. Nagell told Russell there was a reason for this. As revealed in On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, Nagell was being paid by the CIA through this company. And there is strong evidence that Oswald was also. Since there was no robbery, Nagell believed he would be tried on a misdemeanor. And that all the things in his car, plus the purchase of the American Express checks would allow him to reveal the machinations of the plot in court. But as also revealed in the previous book, the prosecution vehemently objected to any mention of American Express. And many of the things in his car were disposed of. In his first interview with the FBI Nagell actually said, “all of my problems have been solved for a long time, and now I won’t have to go to Cuba.” (p. 292)

    Oh ye of too much faith.

    V

    While Nagell was in jail, the plot he monitored proceeded forward. Russell does an OK job of outlining it. For instance, he describes the incredibly important Hunt memorandum. This was an internal 1966 CIA memorandum describing the need for an alibi for Howard Hunt for November 22nd since he was in Dallas at the time. It came from James Angleton’s office. And as anyone knows who has read Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial, Howard Hunt never did have an alibi for where he was on 11/22/63. Yet people who worked with Angleton tried to give him one at the legal proceedings depicted in Lane’s book. (Lisa Pease probably did the best short treatment of this issue. See The Assassinations, pgs. 195-198) Russell also relates the information about David Phillips’ deathbed confession admitting he was in Dallas on the day of Kennedy’s murder. (p. 272) This comes through Shawn Phillips, David Phillips’ nephew. Shawn’s father was the writer James Phillips, David’s brother. The brothers had been estranged for a number of years. James had told his son that from conversations with his brother, he understood that David did not care for JFK at all. James also suspected that his brother had a serious role in his demise. After a period of estrangement, David called up James when he knew he was dying. At the end of the call, James asked his brother if he was in Dallas the day of JFK’s murder. The CIA officer started to weep and said that yes, he had been. Since this confirmed what he had long suspected, James hung up on him. (ibid)

    While in custody, Nagell wrote a letter to the FBI again. He stated that what he did on September 20th in El Paso came from a love for his country no matter how inappropriate or incomprehensible it appeared. This note was sent by air-tel to Washington the next day. Two days after, President Kennedy was killed. (p. 347)

    To complete the cover up, Nagell was sent to Springfield prison as part of his incarceration. He was part of their behavior modification program. (p. 385) As was also-and I suppose this was just a coincidence– Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden. (See James W. Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 216) It just happened that both men were intelligence officers who, based on their privileged knowledge, tried to blow the whistle on the Kennedy plot. The FBI fully took advantage of Nagell’s Springfield predicament by telling the Warren Commission that Nagell was psychologically disturbed and could not be trusted. (p. 386)

    The first judge at Nagell’s trial retired before the trial actually began. He was replaced by Homer Thornberry, a close friend of President Johnson’s. Further, the CIA friendly Texas attorney Leon Jaworski recommended Thornberry. (p. 391) After his conviction and sentencing, Nagell was dragged from the courtroom screaming that the FBI had allowed Kennedy to be shot. And further that they had questioned him about Oswald before the murder. (p. 393) The FBI agents on the scene made sure that Hoover was alerted to this fact. When he was sent to Springfield, Nagell wrote a letter to his sister saying he understood why he had been sent there: “If the American people think that only the Chinese are experts at brainwashing … I am afraid someday they will be in for a big surprise when it is discovered that the FBI is not too far divorced from Hitler’s Gestapo …” (ibid) While in jail, Nagell was visited by the CIA who told him to stop talking about Oswald. (p. 401) Nagell was then transferred to Leavenworth where he was tortured. (p. 404) On trips back to El Paso for hearings on his appeal, he was beaten up.

    Nagell’s attorney, Joe Calamia, was so intent on getting Nagell freed that he got his client to cooperate with the government in a psychological ruse. An army doctor named Edward Weinstein had once treated Nagell after an airplane crash in the service. Nagell actually told the FBI about Weinstein himself. But the court made it clear that Nagell now had to lie about this in order to have any chance upon appeal. In other words, Thornberry and the FBI were striking a deal with the defendant: We will give you a chance to go free if you go along with our deceitful discreditation of you as a witness. Urged on by Calamia, Nagell went along with this ploy, but he did so kicking and screaming. (p. 408) Eventually this is how Nagell was finally released. Weinstein said Nagell had suffered brain damage from his plane accident and therefore had “confabulated” his story about Oswald and what he did in the bank. Here is the problem with Weinstein’s thesis: Nagell underwent an EEG and psychological testing at Springfield. The examining doctor wrote: “I did not find any evidence or finding suggestible of brain damage.” (p. 407) This report was deliberately kept out of Nagell’s second trial. By both the defense and prosecution. Calamia made a deal with the devil to get his client out of jail. Nagell got out in April of 1968.

    When Nagell was released the CIA gave him $15,000. He then left for East Germany on a mysterious mission. Russell believes this may have been to be debriefed by the KGB. And Nagell has also written to Greenstein hinting at this possibility. (p. 427) The context of this debriefing would have been his meetings with Jim Garrison and his volunteering to appear as his witness at the trial of Clay Shaw. And if anyone doubts how important Nagell’s testimony would have been, consider this: On February 12, 1969 while in New York, a hand grenade was thrown at Nagell from a speeding automobile. After this, Nagell went to New Orleans. He told the DA he did not think it would be a good idea for him to testify at the Shaw trial. He then turned over the remnants of the grenade to Garrison and his staff. (p. 436)

    But this game worked both ways. Nagell’s ex-wife had split and taken his two children with her. As part of his dealings with the CIA upon his release, they told him the State Department would help locate his children who he thought were in Europe. While searching for them in Spain he told a consulate officer that if they did not keep their part of the bargain, he would reveal the whole story about President Kennedy’s murder to the media. (p. 437) The CIA took this very seriously and now had the press monitored to see if Nagell was talking. (p. 438) They also began tracking Nagell throughout Europe. Further, Russell checked every CIA name in Nagell’s notebook and they all were really with the Agency. A number of them were from Angleton’s staff. (p. 439)

    In the spring of 1970, Nagell was finally alerted to the whereabouts of his children. In a rather incredible revelation to Russell in 1993, Nagell’s son told him that he recalled being in East Germany as a small child with his sister. When he revisited Germany as an adult, he recalled some of the places he had been. But he added about the earlier sojourn, “It was not with our mother. We went by plane, with some blonde woman … A very strange situation.” (p. 445) Was the CIA using Nagell’s children as bartering chips for his silence?

    The other chip the CIA used was Nagell’s retirement benefits. Which he finally received after a protracted struggle. (p. 446) But the rest of his life was very much controlled. The government was not satisfied with smearing him as being “disturbed”. His files had him pegged as a racketeer “and associated with people I never even heard of.” (ibid) His mail was monitored and stolen. Many letters Russell wrote to Nagell during the writing of The Man Who Knew Too Much never got to him. (p. 449) His handlers ordered him to stay completely clear of Russell. When he would not they ordered him to clear any talks with the author beforehand. (p. 448)

    The day after the Assassination Records Review Board sent Nagell a letter requesting a deposition, he died. When the authorities broke into Nagell’s home they found a key ring with 19 keys on it. Six of them were for footlockers in which Nagell had stored his valuables concerning his CIA service and monitoring of Oswald. While living with a niece, Nagell had told her of the contents of one of these foot lockers. Pointing at a purple one, he said “This one contains what everybody is trying to get hold of.” (p. 451)

    Nagell’s son Robert found out the location of the foot lockers was Tucson. He went there and found five of them. The one that was missing was-no surprise– the purple one. And the day Robert went to Tucson, his house was ransacked while he was gone. Someone was definitely worried about what Nagell would leave behind. When the niece was shown the inventory of what was in the other lockers she said Nagell told her about a couple of audio tapes and a couple of photos. None of these articles survived.

    The new edition of The Man Who knew Too Much closes with some compelling information not available to Russell in 1992. First, the author talked to a former military intelligence officer named Jim Southwood. Southwood actually saw the 112th Military Intelligence file on Oswald. The one that was famously destroyed after the assassination. (p. 456) While stationed in the Far East, he received a request from the 112th to do some research on Oswald and the DeMohrenschildts. Southwood told Russell that he discovered Oswald was under surveillance by both ONI and Army Intelligence while in Japan. One of the reports had Oswald frequenting gay bars. And one of them had him intimately involved with a Soviet Colonel named Eroshkin. Which, of course, would confirm Nagell’s story about his first encounter with Oswald. From perusing the file Southwood was convinced Oswald was some kind of intelligence operative. And although he could find no new info on the DeMohrenschildts, he did find out something quite interesting. All the info the 112th already had on Oswald came from that couple. And it was all of a prejudicial nature: he was a strange personality, he had weird sexual habits, and he needed to be watched at all times. As I noted in the review of On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, this contrasts dramatically with what the DeMohrenschildts toward Russell in 1975. And it is further evidence that they had been used earlier and felt badly about it later.

    Russell, with the help of Hulme, did a much better job of telling the above story in 2003 than he did in 1992. If anything, Hulme did not go far enough with the editing scissors. I would have cut out about sixty or so more pages. For example, the chapters on General Walker and the material on Charles Willoughby seem to me to have almost no relation to the Nagell story. Further, it seems that Russell never read the declassified Lopez Report, one of the crown jewels of the ARRB. Because in his discussion of Mexico City in late September, he makes some statements that are contradicted by that adduced record.

    But finally the Nagell story is in a manageable and understandable narrative form. To me it is one of the crucial and most powerful stories in the Kennedy literature. And for anyone to deny it, one must believe in something of a wild conspiracy theory. Witnesses like Art Greenstein, Nagell’s sister, his niece, his son-in-law, and his son must all be lying. And they all must be lying to the same effect. Jim Bundren and John Margain are lying and the lies just happen to coincide with what Nagell screamed out to the crowd after his conviction. When he was arrested, Nagell just happened to have all that paraphernalia in his car that was so similar to Oswald’s. And he then just happened to guess right at the mutual American Express payment method for the two spies. And Nagell just happened to have the phone number for Sylvia Duran before anyone knew how she figured in the plot. And he had a version of Oswald’s Uniformed Services Privilege Card before Oswald altered it. And somehow, what Nagell knew about the conspiracy just happened to partly coincide with what both Sylvia Odio and Rose Cheramie knew, down to the actual Cubans involved.

    Oh, really? Who is wearing the tin foil hats now? But that’s how good a witness Richard Case Nagell was.

    Appendix: Corroborating Evidence for Richard Case Nagell

    Exhibits


    Mexico tourist cards for Nagell and Aleksei Hidell (hard cover edition of Dick Russell’s The Man Who knew Too Much, p. 113)

    Nagell’s letter to J. Lee Rankin of March 20, 1964, about his prior attempts to warn FBI and Secret Service of an assassination attempt on President Kennedy (Russell, second trade paper edition, p. 7)

    Nagell and Oswald both had Sylvia Duran’s phone number at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City (ibid, p. 6)

    Nagell had a duplicate of Oswald’s Uniformed Services Identification and Privileges card (ibid, p. xvii)

    Nagell had a copy of Oswald’s signed Social Security card (Ibid, p. 252)

    Witnesses


    Arthur Greenstein: Nagell’s friend in Mexico who he left while on assignment in late October of 1962. At that time, Nagell told him he would probably read about him in the papers since he was on to something big. (Russell, p. 160)

    Eleanore Gambert: Nagell’s sister, who he wrote to before the assassination about the bank robbery being a charade. (Letter of October 10, 1963) FBI interviewed her and her family after the assassination (ibid, p. 37–39)

    Louis Gambert: Eleanore’s husband at the time, present during the FBI interview, where a copy of Nagell’s warning to the FBI was produced (ibid, pp. 38–39)

    Roger Gambert: their son, who told Russell there was a break in at their home afterwards and some of the items from this file were now gone (ibid p. 40)

    John Margain: Nagell’s military and personal friend; a CIA acquaintance sent him an article about Nagell in 1968. Nagell had told Margain about his warning letter to the FBI and his visiting Mexico with Oswald. (ibid, 100–02, 240–41)

    Jim Bundren: Oswald’s arresting officer in El Paso in September. Nagell was waiting for him, and he told Bundren he “would rather be arrested than commit murder and treason.” He later told the guard that he really did not want to be in Dallas; when Bundren asked him what he meant by that, he said, “You’ll see soon enough.” (Russell, pp. 2–3)

    Prior attempts on JFK


    Vaughn Marlowe: Nagell tracked him as a member of the FPCC, and Marlowe later talked about Nagell visiting him before the assassination. Russell, p. 215)

    Bomb in Miami: In December of 1962, Nagell was in Florida penetrating a Cuban exile plot to bomb the Orange Bowl on December 29, 1962. There is a Miami Police report of January 3, 1963, on how certain Cubans did discuss such a bombing.

    Cross References in declassified Databases:


    Joe Kramer was the name Nagell said he used in his warning letter to Hoover in September of 1963. In a 1994 CIA release, it was revealed the CIA had Nagell files kept under this name.

    In Japan, Nagell said he saw files concerning Oswald’s relationship with a Russian colonel named Eroshkin. It was later revealed that military intelligence had files about Oswald in some kind of relationship with Eroshkin. (Russell, pp. 455–57)

  • Dick Russell, On the Trail of the JFK Assassins – Richard Case Nagell: The Most Important Witness


    Dick Russell’s new book is an anthology of his life’s work on the JFK assassination. And one of the most revealing things about the book is 1.) How long he has been at it, and 2.) How many pieces he has written on the subject.

    The author has had a long and varied career in journalism writing about many other subjects. Russell has written for several mainstream publications e.g. TV Guide and Sports Illustrated. In fact, he was on the staff of both those magazines. And he has published more than one acclaimed book. Two of them being Eye of the Whale, and Black Genius. The main area of interest in his writing career has been the environment. So it was a bit surprising to me to discover that Russell had spent so much time and effort on what most mainstream publishers consider an eccentric topic.

    At the beginning of the book, Russell describes how he graduated from the University of Kansas journalism school and almost immediately secured a job that many young writers would consider a godsend. He was a staff writer with Sports Illustrated. But he resigned just six months later. (Why he did so is not really explained.) While making a tour around the world he met a former friend of CIA Director Allen Dulles. This man told him that Madame Nhu had President Kennedy killed as an act of revenge for the death of her husband Diem. (Interesting that Dulles seems to be the first to spread this disinformation story.)

    A few years later, Russell was freelancing for journals like The Village Voice. He secured an assignment to write about the fledgling Assassination Information Bureau which was set up to cover the formation of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). It was while doing this report that Russell first heard of Richard Popkins’s work on the programmed assassin Luis Castillo. The then editor of the Voice, Gloria Steinem’s former CIA colleague Clay Felker, tried to discourage him from hanging out with such goofballs. But Russell persevered. And so his JFK writing sidelight, and the book, was off and running.

    There are over forty chapters in the anthology. Not all of them are devoted to separate subjects. For instance, both the first and second chapters of the book are about Popkin and Castillo. The way one measures a book like this is by this question: How many of the essays are really important, insightful, and worth preserving? By that standard the book measures small. Many of the chapters are so ephemeral, I took almost no notes. Some of the work, like a section on Antonio Veciana, is just plain dated. I mean after Gaeton Fonzi’s marvelous The Last Investigation there is not much to add on this guy. And since Russell’s work on him was from the mid-seventies, it has been superseded many times. Further, some of the chapters just do not go anywhere. Or if they do, it’s not very far. Some examples here are the sections on Gordon Novel, Ronald Augustinovich, Gerry Hemming, Larry Howard, and Loran Hall. These are all quite interesting characters. And in their own ways – except for perhaps Augustinovich – they are important to the JFK case. That is, if they had been rendered in full. Or at least close to it. But Russell does not take their stories far enough to make the profiles really worth preserving, or even reading. This, of course, may owe to the fact that magazine pieces are not meant to be done in depth or at length.

    There are other pieces that I felt amounted to little more than meandering speculation. For instance, ever since Richard Case Nagell told Russell that David Ferrie hypnotized Lee Harvey Oswald, Russell has spent a lot of time and energy attempting to show that somehow, in some way, the CIA’s MK/Ultra program figured in the JFK assassination. Unfortunately, that misguided penchant appears again here. And at much too great a length for my taste. And, even worse, without any intrinsic evidentiary justification. The author here goes on for six chapters, from pages 236-277, revisiting this diaphanous concept. Much of this reads like the worst vein of Kennedy assassination research – right down there with the infamous Canfield-Weberman ear identification of Howard Hunt as one of the tramps in Dealey Plaza. It seems to me to amount to nothing more than conspiracy smoke. Largely because it is based on unnamed sources, strained associations, and unreliable witnesses e.g. Marina Oswald channeled through Priscilla Johnson.

    There are more questionable pieces. Russell did a couple of interviews with Marina Oswald in 1992. Now there is a woman who one could spend hours with talking about just two people: Ruth Paine and Priscilla Johnson. Russell does not do much with her. She says that the Warren Commission translation of her testimony makes her sound like a fifth grader. She says there are a few thing wrong with the backyard photos. In the original pictures she says the rifle was different, there were more angles, different photos, and the background stairs are in the wrong place. And that’s about it. (I should add: John Armstrong’s book goes further on both these matters than Marina does here.) The rest of the section deals with her attempts to try and legally reopen the case. Which consisted of one meeting with some lawyers in Cambridge. Was this really worth including? There is a mildly interesting chapter about the strange death of CIA officer John Paisley. But any connection to the JFK case here is rather strained. And there is a concluding interview with Doug Horne who did much of the medical investigation for the Assassination Records Review Board. This should have been a humdinger of an interview. For me it was not. Russell has never shown much interest in the physical evidence in the JFK case. And I thought this interview revealed that lack of interest. Having just done a lot of research in this area for Section Four of my review of Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History, I can see many relevant questions that should have been asked but were not. The value of this interview comes almost entirely from the subject and not the interviewer.

    With the (rather large) ration of negative aspects now delineated, I want to mention some of the book’s more positive attributes. Russell has always been good on the private investigation of Warren Commissioner Richard Russell. Russell was the Georgia senator who suspected from the start that the Commission was a dog and pony show governed by J. Edgar Hoover and Nicolas Katzenbach. So he used people on his personal staff along with other acquaintances to conduct his own inquiry. One of the people he consulted with was Colonel Philip Corso, a retired Army Intelligence officer who had been on the staff of the National Security Council under Eisenhower. Corso did some investigating for the Commissioner and found out some interesting tidbits. He concluded that the Mannlicher-Carcano could not have performed as the official story leads us to believe. (p. 126) He also concluded that there was a Second Oswald. (ibid) Further, that Oswald had gone to Russia as part of a fake defector program being run out of the Office of Naval Intelligence. (p. 127) After doing all this inquiry he told Russell that his opinion was the assassination was a project of rogue CIA agents and anti-Castro Cubans. (ibid) Russell tended to agree with him but he said he could never get the other members of the panel to believe him.

    The opening two chapters on Richard Popkin and the investigation of the Luis Castillo case are interesting. (And, by the way, it is through Popkin that Russell ended up learning about Richard Case Nagell. p. 17) For those unaware of this fascinating case: Castillo was captured by the intelligence forces of the Philippine government in 1967. They concluded that he was a programmed assassin whose mission was to assassinate President Marcos. Once he was in custody, the government hired a psychologist named Victor Arcega to try and deprogram him. It turned out that Castillo was a Puerto Rican who was raised in the USA. And further, he seems to have been programmed as an assassin in the USA. After being beaten by a fellow prisoner, Castillo did not want to go through any further deprogramming sessions. So Arcega left and moved to Los Angeles. He was there the night of the RFK murder. When he read up on the case of Sirhan and the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress, he recognized the parallels in the two cases. He decided to return to his native Canada.

    Chapters 5 and 6 about Senator Richard Schweiker of the Church Committee and the HSCA’s first counsel, attorney Richard Sprague, are also worth reading. Especially the latter. Compared to the vast majority of official investigators on the JFK case, these two men come off exceptionally well. Schweiker sounds like Jim Garrison: “The Kennedy assassination is a mirror image proposition. What makes it hard to know what happened is that you’re struggling to find out the real focus in the mirror. And you really need two reversible ones.” (p. 42) Here’s another Garrison echo: “The more witnesses we talk to, the more they raised the fact that the Warren Commission really is a house of cards. Now it’s just prodding, pushing, shaking the tree enough to have it fall.” (ibid) Schweiker had one of his staff members, Dave Marston, working the JFK case about 90% of his time. And another worked on it full time. Further, 8 of the 11 Church Committee members consulted with him on a regular basis. (p. 43) Schweiker’s exemplary efforts gave great ballast to the creation of the HSCA and the appointment of Richard Sprague.

    The Sprague chapter is even better. It begins with his appointment as Chief Counsel and all the anxious anticipation that this choice placed in those interested in the JFK case. It then follows through with the attacks on him in the media, his mini-war with Representative Henry Gonzalez, and his eventual forced resignation. Russell interviewed him in his office in Philadelphia as the HSCA was winding down under his successor Robert Blakey in the summer of 1978. Sprague comes off as a man who went into his new job with some hopes and ideals that were eventually crushed into the ground. Again, in some respects, he comes off like Jim Garrison. Consider this comment on the media: “I feel that for some reason – and to me it’s the most fascinating part of my whole Washington experience – there is some manipulation of the press that’s successful enough that it’s not interested in a real investigation … There was a total dishonesty in the reporting of newspapers that I would otherwise have confidence in, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. This attitude by the press was most successful in taking advantage of … individual Congressmen who were manipulated such that the press could achieve a tone to kill the investigation.” And then comes the capper in this regard: ” … there is a greater ability to manipulate public opinion by certain agencies of government than I would have believed possible … . I’ve become more interested in the media than the assassination.” (pgs. 52-53) He then goes on to get specific about particular instances of this with David Burnham of the Times, and Jeremiah O’Leary of the Washington Star. (p. 52) He notes that once he was gone, Burnham was taken off the HSCA beat. Coincidence or conspiracy?

    Further, Sprague believed that it was his investigation of Oswald that made him a target of the media. Sprague came to the conclusion that there was more of a connection between Oswald and the intelligence community “than has ever surfaced.” (p. 56) Two of the areas he was interested in were Oswald in Mexico City and the puzzle of why Oswald was not debriefed by the CIA on his return from Russia. And further, he was not going to sign any non-disclosure agreements with the intelligence community. (p. 55) In other words: what he saw, the public would see.. And if he had to subpoena information, he would. In other words, we were finally going to get the whole story about Oswald. Sprague is convinced it was this uncompromising attitude in this area that got him sacked. As he tells it: “Because of where I was at, and the timing of these attacks, that convinces me that the motivation came to kill me off.” Sprague has nothing but disdain for Blakey and his investigation. He calls it a “charade” and a “fiasco”. (pgs. 55. 56) And he concludes by commenting on Richard Helms and James Angleton. (p. 57) He says that he had a source who told him Helms had gotten the word to a Kennedy family member that the Kennedys should not back a reopening of the JFK case. He concludes that “Obviously Helms himself was one of the people that I ultimately wanted very much to interview. But not until I would be thoroughly prepared.” (ibid) In his comments on Angleton, he very interestingly compares him to Tony Boyle in the Jock Yablonski murder case. Boyle is the man Sprague convicted for the murder of labor leader Yablonksi.

    Russell penned a well-written piece about Jim Garrison in 1976. This was an article printed in Harper’s Weekly entitled “The Vindication of Jim Garrison.” It was meant to coincide of course with the installation of the HSCA. Garrison describes a conspiracy made up of elements of the CIA, anti-Castro Cuban exiles, and parts of the Mob. (p. 97) In other words, he had Anthony Summers’ design before Summers did, and before the HSCA actually got going. From here, Russell then goes into a short narrative of the Garrison inquiry and quite properly writes, “The full story of how Garrison was hamstrung would fill a volume.” Which, we now know via declassified documents, is absolutely true. Unfortunately, no one has yet written that volume. But he does include Victor Marchetti’s discussion of CIA executive meetings in which the Agency’s attempts to torpedo Garrison were kept off the record. Comments were made that such matters would be discussed after the meeting, or “We’ll pick this up later in my office.” (p. 101) And Russell details some of the actual subterfuges, like the CIA paying for certain lawyers and the CIA cooperating with judges in not serving subpoenas. (p. 101) Again, things that we can prove today with documents.

    He concludes this profile of Garrison with revelations about David Ferrie supplied by his friend Ray Broshears. He first contrasts what Broshears said to him in the seventies with what Warren Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler told the public in 1967: Liebeler had seen the FBI file on Ferrie and he announced there was nothing to indicate Ferrie was involved in the JFK case at all. (p. 107) Yet Broshears told Russell that Ferrie called him in San Francisco shortly before his death and told him he was going to be killed. “The next thing I knew, he was dead. They said he killed himself. But he didn’t. You know it, and I know it.”(ibid) About Ferrie’s trip to Texas on the day of the assassination: “David was to meet a plane. He was going to fly them [the assassins] on to Mexico, and eventually to South Africa.” But the call Ferrie got at the skating rink told him he was not needed for that assignment. (Ibid) And finally: “He told me Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill the president. He was very adamant about it, and I believed him. All the things he told me about Oswald, I doubt he could have shot a rabbit 50 feet away.” Obviously Broshears is one of the many key witnesses Liebeler never talked to.

    Another important witness, George DeMohrenschildt, agreed with Ferrie. He says Oswald was the most honest man he knew, “And I will tell you this – I am sure he did not shoot the president.” (p. 133) He also told the author that CIA station chief J. Walton Moore had cleared Oswald in advance for him to approach him. (p. 135) If he had not, he would never have spoken to him. Which, of course, tells us a lot about George DeMohrenschildt’s relations with the CIA, let alone Oswald’s. Personally, I am glad someone besides Edward Epstein has confirmed this story. The capper for me in this section on the DeMohrenschildts was a quote from his wife Jeanna: “Of course, the truth of the assassination has not come out. It will never come out. But we know it was a vast conspiracy.” (p. 135) Recall, this is the couple that originally did the Warren Commissions’ bidding by caricaturing Oswald mercilessly in their testimony as doing things like shooting off his rifle in public parks. Evidently, they later came to feel guilty about what they had been made to do.

    Chapter 33 chronicles the famous meeting in the Bahamas in 1995 between employees of Castro’s G-2 – including Fabian Escalante – and some selected Kennedy researchers. Also on hand were Arturo Rodriguez and Carlos Lechuga. Russell summarizes some important findings presented by Escalante. First, they had verified from their end that Maurice Bishop was David Phillips. Second, they had an informant in Eladio del Valle’s organization in 1962 who said del Valle had told him that Kennedy had to be killed to solve the Cuban problem. (As an aside here, Russell adds that Nagell told him that one of the two Cuban exiles manipulating Oswald was linked to del Valle.) Third, Escalante has become convinced that what caused the exiles to act was that word had leaked out about the Attwood/Lechuga talks authorized by JFK to create a dÈtente between the US and Cuba. Fourth, Escalante confirmed that the Daniel Harker story used by David Phillips, Gus Russo and others to lend some credence to the Castro did it angle was a distortion. He says that what Castro actually uttered was “American leaders should be careful because the anti-Castro operations were something nobody could control.”

    Finally, Escalante said that Phillips had arranged to have letters addressed to Oswald from Cuba. And he showed these in a slideshow. There were five of them: two from before the assassination, three from afterwards. One of the letters, intercepted by G-2, was dated November 14th and addressed to Oswald at a hotel in Miami where he was never at. Arturo Rodriguez concluded that the text was of a conspiratorial character and that all of the letters were written by the same person, “as part of a plan to blame our country for the assassination.” (p. 223) This would be the provocation for the invasion of Cuba, which – despite the claims of Lamar Waldron – Kennedy never authorized.

    I should conclude this review with a discussion of Chapter 34 where Russell adds some new information on Nagell. In 1967, Nagell had written Warren Commissioner Richard Russell about being assigned by the KGB to initiate certain action against Oswald, who was the “indispensable tool in the conspiracy”. (p. 225) That is, the Soviets had found out about a plot to kill Kennedy. Fearing they would be blamed for the murder, they hired Nagell to infiltrate the plot and stop it. A book published in 2007 by a former Romanian intelligence officer notes that in the spring of 1963 just such action was requested by a KGB Chief named General Ivan Fadeykin: that is, the search for an agent to neutralize Oswald.

    A second interesting development is support of Nagell’s testimony is this: Nagell wrote a friend of his that his intelligence work in 1962-63 was to be paid for through American Express. And, in fact, during his trial, the prosecution objected to any mention of American Express. Why? Well, when Oswald handed a note to Lt. Francis Martello in New Orleans, in the margin was the espionage number of Michael Jelisavcic. Who was this Jelisavcic? He was a CIA asset stationed with American Express in Moscow at the time of Oswald’s defection. The FBI was aware of this fact. Hoover wrote a note to an agent in New York that in any interview of Jelisavcic, he should be closely questioned about his name and phone number being in the address book of Oswald.


    (See Part Two of this review, Richard Case Nagell: The Most Important Witness which relates On the Trail of the JFK Assassins to the first and second versions of Russell’s The Man Who Knew Too Much.)

  • Lamar Waldron, with Thom Hartmann, Legacy of Secrecy – Update


    My review of Legacy of Secrecy was cross-posted at various sites on the web. And Ed Sherry did a mass mailing of it to his large JFK list. This caused some interesting feedback.

    First off, there was a primary witness involved who can shed some light on how President Kennedy felt about the contingency plans. Some of which, like OPLAN 312, I specifically mentioned in my review. Sherry was temporarily based at Homestead AFB in Florida in November of 1962. He was an Army Intelligence officer who monitored the plans and kept track of all circulating copies from dawn to dusk. While in Florida on TDY from Virginia, he was temporary custodian of all 48 copies of the Contingency Plan for two weeks. He knew the subject well as he had typed in many of the revisions and addendums to the original plan. When Kennedy visited the base in late November of 1962, it was Sherry who typed the briefing for him on the plan. About ten days after Kennedy left Florida, Sherry recalls getting a classified code word to cancel the plans and return home. Kennedy was going to keep his word to the Russians about his no invasion pledge of Cuba. Sherry recalls that there were a lot of unhappy officers when JFK canceled the plans. Recall, these were contingency plans JFK was cancelling.

    Second, another reader sent Sherry an e-mail concerning my review. Recall, according to Waldron and Hartmann, the coup was set for December 1, 1963. According to a CIA cable, the plotter in chief, Juan Almeida, was on a flight to Algeria on November 28th. He was the head of a 162 man Cuban delegation that had been arranged well in advance. This is incredible. What are we to believe in light of it? Almeida was going to run the coup and its resulting chaos from Africa? Further, this reader said the National Security Agency was monitoring traffic in Cuba closely at the time. They detected nothing suspicious going on there.

    But it’s even worse than that. The reader (who wishes to remain anonymous) told Waldron about this a long time ago. And in fact, when I learned this, it did ring a bell with me. And sure enough, it is in Legacy of Secrecy. On page 280, Waldron and Hartmann mention the flight to Algeria. Ignoring the fact that the trip had been prearranged, they now try to say that Almeida left because Castro suspected something was going on. But what is the evidence he suspected Almeida? The authors list none. So why did Almeida leave if the coup was to take place within 72 hours, and he was to be running it from the island? If you can believe it, and you probably can, the authors never answer that question. They never even pose it. Since the evidence indicates that Almeida left because there was no coup scheduled, and he was not a part of it. In their nearly fanatical clinging to a discredited theory, Hartmann and Waldron remind us of the likes of David Belin, David Slawson and, even worse, John McAdams.

    But perhaps even more shameful is the way their promoters cling to it also. In my review of Legacy of Secrecy, I mentioned one of them: Mark Crispin Miller. I also could have mentioned another, Gore Vidal. I know through two sources that Miller read my review of Ultimate Sacrifice. This did not stop him from promoting that book on his blog. And he later also praised Legacy of Secrecy. And in terms that are rather unrestrained. (In fact, they remind me of the bought and paid for movie blurbs that adorn the ads for so many lousy films these days.) Take this for example: “Legacy of Secrecy is the astounding sequel to their Ultimate Sacrifice, which came out in 2005; and this new volume is as thorough and meticulous in its research as it ground-breaking predecessor.” Further on, Miller writes, “…the authors demonstrate that the long suppression of the facts about Jack Kennedy ‘s murder set the stage for the killings, five years later, of both Martin Luther King Jr., and Bobby Kennedy.”

    All of this breathless hyperbole makes me ask a sensible question: Did Miller read the books? As I discussed in my review of the latter book, the authors demonstrate no linkage between C-Day and the murders of King and RFK. How the heck could there be? The book says Ray killed King, and the weight of the evidence dictates that Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy. Was Ray in on C-Day? Was Sirhan?

    And the last word I would use to describe the work of Hartmann and Waldron is “meticulous”. Even worse is ” ground-breaking”. What ground did they break? As I mentioned in my review of Legacy of Secrecy, Gus Russo wrote about the contingency plans years before Waldron and Hartmann did. And as I and others have proven nine ways to Sunday, the authors grievously mischaracterize them. And by doing so, they create a false theory, actually a misleading mythology. As for being meticulous, how can Miller write that with a straight face? What kind of meticulous writers deliberately disguise the source for Edwin Black’s wonderful work on the Chicago Plot? And once that is done, the same writers twist that work into something it is not. What kind of authors don’t even look up the proper date of Jim Garrison’s flight to New York with Russell Long? And then attribute something to those two men that could not have happened if they got the date right? Is hiding the name of Bernardo DeTorres from the reader “meticulous”? Is then altering his background from a dyed-in-the-wool CIA officer to a protÈgÈ of Trafficante meticulous? Yes, in one way it is: its meticulously misleading.

    Miller’s mindless praise for these two awful books is so skewed that it made me wonder if he, like Waldron and Hartmann, had an agenda. It turns out he does. And like Vidal, it is to denigrate Oliver Stone’s film JFK. Consider the following: “…the authors show that that long cover-up was driven not by an enormous dark alliance of complicit US agencies and corporations … but by a lot of entities compelled by motives infinitely more prosaic. (Bobby also helped maintain the cover-up.)” Further on, Miller continues that although there was a conspiracy and the Warren Commission was a crock, “all such secrecy was not proof of complicity, as Oliver Stone would have us all believe … Rather, that cover-up but [sic] motivated by a raft of other, largely more innocuous … concerns …”

    Of course, this is exactly what I wrote that the aim of Ultimate Sacrifice was. After my long analysis of how these “meticulous” researchers had altered the evidence, I concluded that they did this to detract from the real evidentiary trail and confabulate out of whole cloth an already discredited one: Robert Blakey’s Mafia did it theory. But they tried to disguise this around their phony C-Day scenario. Which has now collapsed.

    But none of this matters to Miller. Why?

    Because he has enlisted in the Noam Chomsky/Alex Cockburn ranks. Like them, he styles himself a leader of the Left. And he explains how that fits into his agenda about these two volumes: “These books are absolute must-reads because they liberate us from the dangerous assumption … that anyone who dares to speak up for the good will be cut down by violence, at the hands of an almighty, inescapable cabal. That fatalistic view is one that we cannot afford to hold-and one that is, in fact, unfounded, as these two books so powerfully demonstrate.”

    The last thing I would say is that these two books “powerfully demonstrate” their thesis. I have demonstrated that in detail. When the Cuban coup leader is in Africa, you have some problems. When neither the Secretary of Defense, or State, or National Security Adviser or Director of Plans for the CIA knows about your upcoming invasion, you have more problems. When your chief “confessor” is suffering from Alzheimer’s while a jailhouse informant is coaxing him, well, that’s the ball game.

    But, like Chomsky and Cockburn, this is beside the point for Miller. Facts don’t matter. And if facts don’t matter, then truth doesn’t matter either. Why? Because he knows what is good for the progressive public. And if they need to be served up pabulum, so be it.

    I disagree with Miller. But I agree with Bob Tanenbaum, the first Chief Counsel of the JFK investigation for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. And he knows a heck of a lot more about the JFK case than Miller or Vidal do. During a speech in Chicago in 1993, he outlined how the CIA, and especially David Phillips, obstructed his investigation into Oswald’s activities in Mexico City. And when he wanted to confront Phillips with perjury charges the committee backed down. He ended his speech by posing this question: “Does anybody really believe that certain people in the executive intelligence agencies are more equipped to handle the truth than the American people? If so, then we will redefine the nature of our democracy. And that’s something I’m not prepared to do.”

    That’s the real question about all this. The question that Waldron and Hartmann wish to disguise. The question that the likes of Miller and Robert Stone don’t think the American public can handle. So in this regard, and with an almost cosmic irony, Stone and Miller resemble the former heads of the major networks, i.e. Bill Paley and David Sarnoff. Except the pabulum that Waldron and Hartmann give the public is not the old pig in a poke of the Warren Commission. But Blakey’s Mob did it pig. A pig with lipstick, eye shadow, and mascara.

    But only someone either too ignorant or too willing to be gulled would have been taken in by the makeover.