Category: News Items

Current items culled from external sources and which are of interest to the topics treated on this site.

  • CIA Helped Bush Senior In Oil Venture


    By Russ Baker and Jonathan Z. Larsen | The Real News Project

    A Real News Exclusive


    NEW YORK–Newly released internal CIA documents assert that former president George Herbert Walker Bush’s oil company emerged from a 1950’s collaboration with a covert CIA officer.

    Bush has long denied allegations that he had connections to the intelligence community prior to 1976, when he became Central Intelligence Agency director under President Gerald Ford. At the time, he described his appointment as a ‘real shocker.’

    But the freshly uncovered memos contend that Bush maintained a close personal and business relationship for decades with a CIA staff employee who, according to those CIA documents, was instrumental in the establishment of Bush’s oil venture, Zapata, in the early 1950s, and who would later accompany Bush to Vietnam as a “cleared and witting commercial asset” of the agency.

    According to a CIA internal memo dated November 29, 1975, Bush’s original oil company, Zapata Petroleum, began in 1953 through joint efforts with Thomas J. Devine, a CIA staffer who had resigned his agency position that same year to go into private business. The ’75 memo describes Devine as an “oil wild-catting associate of Mr. Bush.” The memo is attached to an earlier memo written in 1968, which lays out how Devine resumed work for the secret agency under commercial cover beginning in 1963.

    “Their joint activities culminated in the establishment of Zapata Oil,” the memo reads. In fact, early Zapata corporate filings do not seem to reflect Devine’s role in the company, suggesting that it may have been covert. Yet other documents do show Thomas Devine on the board of an affiliated Bush company, Zapata Offshore, in January, 1965, more than a year after he had resumed work for the spy agency.

    It was while Devine was in his new CIA capacity as a commercial cover officer that he accompanied Bush to Vietnam the day after Christmas in 1967, remaining in the country with the newly elected congressman from Texas until January 11, 1968. Whatever information the duo was seeking, they left just in the nick of time. Only three weeks after the two men departed Saigon, the North Vietnamese and their Communist allies launched the Tet offensive with seventy thousand troops pre-positioned in more than 100 cities and towns.

    While the elder Bush was in Vietnam with Devine, George W. Bush was making contact with representatives of the Texas Air National Guard, using his father’s connections to join up with an elite, Houston-based Guard unit – thus avoiding overseas combat service in a war that the Bushes strongly supported.

    The new revelation about George H.W. Bush’s CIA friend and fellow Zapata Offshore board member will surely fuel further speculation that Bush himself had his own associations with the agency.

    Indeed, Zapata’s annual reports portray a bewildering range of global activities, in the Mideast, Asia and the Caribbean (including off Cuba) that seem outsized for the company’s modest bottom line. In his autobiography, Bush declares that “I’d come to the CIA with some general knowledge of how it operated’ and that his ‘overseas contacts as a businessman’ justified President Nixon’s appointing him as UN ambassador, a decision that at the time was highly controversial.

    Previously disclosed FBI files include a memo from bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, noting that his organization had given a briefing to two men in the intelligence community on November 23, 1963, the day after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The memo refers to one as “Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency” and the other as “Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency.”

    When Nation magazine contributor Joseph McBride first uncovered this document in 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush, then vice president and seeking the presidency, insisted through a spokesman that he was not the man mentioned in the memo: “I was in Houston, Texas, at the time and involved in the independent oil drilling business. And I was running for the Senate in late ’63. I don’t have any idea of what he’s talking about.” The spokesman added, “Must be another George Bush.”

    When McBride approached the CIA at that time, it initially invoked a policy of neither confirming nor denying anyone’s involvement with the agency. But it soon took the unusual step of asserting that the correct individual was a George William Bush, a one-time Virginia staffer whom the agency claimed it could no longer locate. But that George Bush, discovered in his office in the Social Security Administration by McBride, noted that he was a low-ranked coast and landing-beach analyst and that he most certainly never received such an FBI briefing.

    It was perhaps to help lay to rest the larger matter of the elder Bush’s past associations that the former president went out of his way during his recent eulogy for President Ford to sing the praises of the Warren Commission Report as the final authority on those days.

    “After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And a conspiracy theorist can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Gerry Ford put his name on it and Gerry Ford’s word was always good.”

    In fact, Ford’s role on the Warren Commission is seen by many experts as a decisive factor in his rise to the top. As a Commission member, Ford altered its report in a significant way. As the Associated Press reported in 1997, “Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in hand and changed – ever so slightly – the Warren Commission’s key sentence on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy’s body when he was killed in Dallas. The effect of Ford’s change was to strengthen the commission’s conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas Gov. John Connally – a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.”

    This modification played a seminal role in ending talk of a larger conspiracy to kill the president. Knowledge of Ford’s alteration has encouraged theorists to scrutinize the constellation of other figures who might have had a motivation to cover up the affair.

    Meanwhile, there is much more to learn about George H. W. Bush’s friend, Thomas Devine. The newly surfaced memos explain that Devine, from 1963 on, had authority from the agency to operate under commercial cover as part of an agency project code-named WUBRINY.

    Devine at that time was employed with the Wall Street boutique Train, Cabot and Associates, described in the memos as an “investment banking firm which houses and manages the [CIA] proprietary corporation WUSALINE.” These nautical names – ‘Saline’ and ‘Briny’ – or, for the Bay of Pigs invasion ‘Wave’ – are CIA cryptonyms for the programs and companies involved.

    George H.W. Bush’s own ties are amplified in the 1975 CIA memo, dated November 29, which makes it clear that he had knowledge of CIA operations prior to being named the new director of the CIA in the fall of that year.

    The 1975 memo notes that, through his relationship with Devine, “Mr George Bush [the CIA director-designate] has prior knowledge of the now terminated project WUBRINY/LPDICTUM which was involved in proprietary commercial operations in Europe.”

    The Bush documents, part of a batch of 300,000 records the CIA provided to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, were publicly released in 1998 as the result of a lawsuit, donated to a foundation, scanned into a database – and only just noticed by an independent researcher.

    Click the following to view original supporting documents [1] [2] [3]

  • Old theory, new doubt


    (from the Pittsburgh Tribune – August 25, 2006)


    Scientists at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory studying the assassination of President John F. Kennedy have done what many thought impossible — their research suggests that the single-bullet theory is even less credible than it seems.

    And by extension, it further casts doubt on the credibility of Arlen Specter, the U.S. senator who, in another career, invented the magic bullet scenario — a tumbling, direction-changing projectile that long has defied the laws of physics and common sense.

    The Pennsylvania Republicrat, who at the time was an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia, was an assistant counsel for the Warren Commission, charged by President Lyndon Johnson with investigating the crime.

    Pat Grant, director of Livermore’s Forensic Science Center, and metallurgist Erik Randich say that key evidence such as the crime scene bullet fragments might have been misinterpreted. They contend the so-called chemical fingerprints that supposedly identified which bullets the fragments came from are anything but conclusive. Those “chemical fingerprints” are not the equivalent to the one-of-a-kind human fingerprints; they’re more like generic tire tracks.

    And because of that, the scientists say there could have been one to five bullets instead of the three supposedly fired by alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Specter’s lone-gunman theory is that much closer to being disproved.

    Librarians always should be prepared to move “Passion for Truth,” Specter’s ironically titled book about finding JFK’s single bullet, to where many believe it always should have been:

    The fiction section.

  • Challenge to lone gunman theory


    (from the Contra Costa Times)

    By Betty Mason


    LIVERMORE – More than four decades after his death, John F. Kennedy’s assassination remains the hottest cold case in U.S. history, and the clues continue to trickle in. Now Lawrence Livermore Laboratory scientists say a key piece of evidence supporting the lone gunman theory should be thrown out.

    A new look at clues gleaned from studies of crime-scene bullet fragments shows they may have been misinterpreted.

    “It basically shatters what some people call the best physical evidence around,” said chemist Pat Grant, director of the lab’s Forensic Science Center.

    Grant and Livermore Lab metallurgist Erik Randich found that the chemical “fingerprints” used to identify which bullets the fragments came from are actually more like run-of-the-mill tire tracks than one-of-a-kind fingerprints.

    “I’ve spoken with people on both sides of the conspiracy divide and there’s no question but that (Randich and Grant’s) work is going to be very difficult, if not outright impossible, to refute,” said Gary Aguilar, a San Francisco ophthalmologist and single-bullet skeptic who has studied the Kennedy assassination for more than a decade. “It looks impregnable.”

    The government’s claim that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed Kennedy spawned a vitriolic debate between conspiracy theorists and lone gunman supporters that rages to this day.

    In 1964, the Warren Commission, established by President Lyndon B. Johnson to investigate the assassination, concluded that Oswald fired just three shots from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas: The first missed entirely. The second passed through the president’s neck, into Texas Governor John Connally’s body under his right arm, out through his chest and then splintered his wrist and wounded his left thigh. The third fatally hit Kennedy in the head.

    Single-bullet theory
    Even though three bullets were involved, this scenario became known as the “single-bullet theory” because it requires the second bullet to account for all the nonfatal injuries to both Kennedy and Connally.

    The injuries to Kennedy’s neck and to Connally happened within a split second of each other. So either the injuries to both men came from a single bullet from Oswald or from at least two bullets from more than one shooter. Oswald’s rifle couldn’t have fired two shots in such rapid succession.

    So in order for Oswald to be the lone gunman, it had to be a single bullet.

    Skeptics and believers alike say the bullets amount to the most important piece of physical evidence for the single-bullet theory. Throwing it out is like removing a leg from a four-legged table.

    “Warren Commission defenders consider this evidence central to the single-bullet theory,” Aguilar said.

    But Grant and Randich say the bullet lead analysis was faulty. Both Randich and Grant are forensic scientists at Livermore Lab but researched the JFK case on their own time. Their work is the latest chapter in an ongoing saga.

    Lead impurities
    In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, the FBI analyzed five bullet fragments recovered from the limousine, the governor’s wrist, the president’s brain and from a hospital stretcher.

    The FBI used a technique known as “neutron activation” analysis to find the precise composition of the fragments. By determining the exact amounts of impurities in the lead, such as antimony and silver, they hoped to be able to tell which fragments came from the same bullet. But the FBI decided it couldn’t draw any conclusions from the results.

    In 1976, the U.S. House of Representatives formed an assassination committee to investigate the deaths of JFK and Martin Luther King Jr. The move was largely a response to hundreds of books, documentaries and magazine pieces questioning the government’s version of the JFK assassination, as well as public outcry following the first airing of Abraham Zapruder’s home movie of the assassination on the television show, “Good Night America.”

    The committee called in nuclear chemist Vincent Guinn, one of the world’s foremost experts on neutron activation, to reanalyze the bits of bullet lead.

    Unlike the FBI, Guinn drew a very clear conclusion. He said the antimony in the fragments clearly showed they all came from two, and only two, bullets of the type used by Oswald’s gun, which supports the Warren Commission’s lone gunman theory.

    According to Guinn, one set of fragments from the president’s brain and the limousine in front of the president had around .06 percent antimony, and all came from the bullet that killed JFK. The other set of fragments from the governor’s wrist and a nearly intact bullet found on a stretcher at the hospital had closer to .08 percent antimony and were pieces of the infamous “single bullet.”

    Based on evidence including the bullet lead, the committee concluded in 1979 that both shots had come from Oswald’s gun.

    They did not, however, rule out the possibility of a conspiracy. In fact, they strongly suspected a second shooter was present that day, but based on Guinn’s data, any second shooter had missed the target.

    Or maybe not.

    “It turns out that if you really analyze the results correctly, then the results are wrong,” said Grant.

    Fatal flaw
    Randich and Grant’s study grew out of work Randich did in 2002 that exposed a fatal flaw in the FBI’s use of bullet-lead evidence to connect suspects with crime scenes in thousands of criminal cases during the past three decades.

    The FBI claimed that like a fingerprint, each batch of lead has a unique chemical signature, so the specific amounts of impurities in a lead bullet could match it with other bullets from the same batch. For example, if bullets at a suspect’s house were found to have the same impurity signature as a bullet or fragment found at a murder scene, it was treated as evidence tying the suspect to the crime.

    Randich’s training as a metallurgist told him there was something wrong with this reasoning.

    “I realized these people could put my sons in jail with bogus science,” he said. “I thought I ought to do something about it.”

    By analyzing years of data kept by lead smelters, Randich found that batches are not unique, and bullets from different batches of bullets poured months or years apart could have the same chemical signature. And bullets poured from the start of a batch could differ slightly, but measurably, from those at the end.

    He has testified in about a dozen cases. Because of his work, courts now reject bullet-lead analysis and the FBI no longer uses it as evidence.

    JFK case problems
    The JFK case has similar problems.

    According to Guinn, the type of bullets used by Oswald happened to have highly variable amounts of antimony.

    Guinn said the variation between bullets of this type was so great that he could use it to tell individual bullets apart, even from the same batch of lead.

    Randich and Grant say that assumption is dead wrong.

    They analyzed the same type of bullets and showed that within a single bullet, there is a significant variation in impurities on a microscopic scale. The range of concentrations of impurities in each bullet is large enough to make small fragments from different parts of the same bullet have very different chemical fingerprints.

    Some of the fragments in the JFK case are so small that the differences in antimony could be explained entirely by this microscopic variation, instead of by differences between bullets, they said. Randich and Grant’s study was published in July in the Journal of Forensic Sciences.

    One to five bullets
    “We don’t know if there were two bullets,” said Randich. “There could have been two bullets, but the lead composition data shows there could be anywhere from one to five bullets.”

    The bullet found on the stretcher is missing some lead, but not enough to account for all the other fragments. So there had to be more than one bullet. But Grant and Randich say there is no way to tell how many more, at least from the bullet lead.

    Losing Guinn’s bullet-lead evidence is a major blow to the single-bullet theory.

    That evidence “knits together the core physical evidence into an airtight case against Lee Oswald,” according to a 2004 paper by Larry Sturdivan and Ken Rahn in an issue of Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry that celebrated Vincent Guinn after his death. “It is, thus, the key to resolving the major controversies in the JFK assassination and putting the matter to rest,” the paper said.

    Rahn, an atmospheric chemist recently retired from the University of Rhode Island, stands by this statement and Guinn’s research despite Randich and Grant’s study.

    He says he believes it is possible that microscopic variation occurs within bullets of this type, but Grant and Randich can’t say for sure whether it happened in the JFK bullets because they didn’t analyze those particular fragments.

    Rahn thinks it is far more likely the fragments fell into two distinct groups, one with .06 percent antimony and the other with .08 percent, because they came from two distinct bullets.

    This fits the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald was the lone shooter, and two of the three bullets he shot hit the occupants of the president’s limousine, Rahn said.

    Grant counters that the two groups of bullet fragments might not actually be that distinct. The margin of error associated with the antimony analysis means that, statistically, the concentrations are too close to separate into groups.

    Although Randich and Grant’s research doesn’t solve the Kennedy assassination, it certainly does weaken the case for a lone gunman.

    “In recent years, the (bullet) fragment evidence has become one of the key struts supporting the single-bullet theory,” Aguilar said. “Randich and Grant have knocked this slat out from under the theory.”

  • James Earl Ray Hospitalized Before Upcoming Hearing

    James Earl Ray Hospitalized Before Upcoming Hearing


    From the January-February, 1997 issue (Vol. 4 No. 2) of Probe


    rayhead

    The weekend before Christmas, James Earl Ray, the convicted, yet disputed, assassin of Martin Luther King, was transferred from the Riverbend State Prison in Nashville, Tenn. to the Columbia Nashville Memorial Hospital. By Christmas Eve, Ray had slipped into a coma.

    Ray, 68, has been suffering from cirrhosis of the liver and kidney failure, which led to internal bleeding. Cirrhosis is most commonly associated with an abuse of alcohol (Click on this link for an explanation).

    Ray wasn’t a drinker or a smoker.

    “I think he’ll be gone in 24 hours. I really do,” said his brother Jerry. Ray’s brother, on Christmas Eve, signed a request that Ray not be given life-support if his condition should become critical. But on Christmas Day, Jerry changed his mind, attributing the change to calls from both Reverend James Lawson and William Pepper, Esq.

    Reverend Lawson, now a Los Angeles pastor, was a supporter of Martin Luther King’s who was in Memphis during 1968. Lawson has been vocal in his defense of Ray over the years, claiming Ray could not have been a lone assassin, if an assassin at all.

    William Pepper has become Ray’s lawyer. Pepper recently wrote a book detailing his own long study of the King assassination case, called Orders To Kill. The book details Pepper’s own search for the truth about King’s death, and concludes that Ray could not have been the one responsible. The finger of guilt is pointed instead toward an alliance between forces in the government and elements of organized crime. Both Lawson and Pepper convinced Jerry that he should make every effort to keep his brother alive, especially in light of an upcoming hearing.

    For years, since the time of his confession, which he retracted a few days later, Ray has professed his innocence and filed barrages of appeals to get a new trial. Finally, in 1994, it seemed he might have a chance.

    During the course of preparing a mock trial for an HBO telecast, much new evidence surfaced in the MLK case. The evidence was enough to frighten one person into coming forward to confess what he claimed was a small role he had played. Lloyd Jowers, who worked in the grill below the rooming house from which King was allegedly shot, confessed on TV in December of 1993 that he had been hired to find an assassin for King, and that he had not hired James Earl Ray. Jowers wanted immunity before telling more of what he knew. But Shelby County District Attorney General John Pierotti called Jowers’ story a hoax. According to Pepper, “Pierotti has had five witnesses under his nose…and he’s never even tried to talk to them to get their story.” Both Lawson and Pepper complained publicly that Pierotti had done little to investigate the case.

    In January of 1994, New York City attorney Jack E. Robinson, having done his own five-year investigation into the Martin Luther King assassination, went public with his findings. He had reviewed the House Select Committee records and found their investigation “very disturbing. The House investigation was sloppy and incomplete, and its findings misleading. James Earl Ray, in my view, is innocent.”

    Former HSCA Chairman Walter E. Fauntroy agreed. Referring to the HSCA’s conclusions that although there was likely a conspiracy in the MLK case, Ray was still a shooter, Fauntroy said, “both research by very competent people on the one hand and my review of my own basic data for that investigation have convinced me that we were in error on the second matter, namely that James Earl Ray, in fact, shot Dr. Martin Luther King. That, in my view, is not true.”

    Although denied parole in May of 1994 at his first hearing in 25 years, by June Ray had cause to hope. Pepper had managed to convince Shelby County Criminal Court Judge Joseph Brown, Jr. to allow a test firing of the alleged assassination rifle to see if the rifle could have fired the bullet that struck MLK. Brown had ruled in April that under state law, there was no way that a defendant could benefit from new evidence long after having been convicted of a crime. Nonetheless, the Judge recognized the historical importance and unanswered questions surrounding the case, and said he would allow Ray’s attorneys to “get it all out on the record” so that an appeals court might be able to later consider the new evidence.

    However, Pierotti got the Judge to delay the tests, saying he wanted experts of his own choosing present at the test-firing, which had been set for June 16, 1994. Pepper also wanted to conduct neutron activation tests on the rifle, but Pierotti claimed that FBI experts had said such tests were only useful with recently fired bullets. The day before the test firing was to take place, a state appeals court halted the proceedings, granting Pierotti’s request for a delay of the firing. It seemed the last chance to get at the truth was slipping away.

    In 1995, Ray filed a FOIA for classified papers that he claimed would clear him of participation in the assassination. Officials denied his request priority treatment, claiming his case had not generated “widespread and exceptional” media interest. “The politicians have a vested interest in keeping me in prison,” Ray said at the time. “For instance, if I were out, I could personally appear in Federal Court petitioning for the release of the classified Martin Luther King records.” In response to questions of his own involvement in the shooting, Ray responded,

    What I say is not worth two cents…What I’m trying to do is get these classified records released and let them make a judgment based on the records. I’ve testified to everything I know about the case. The prosecution presented certain versions of the case but they’ve kept the rest under seal.

    Undaunted, Pepper and the rest of Ray’s defense team have stuck by him. In fact, there is a hearing scheduled for February 20th of this year, in which Judge Brown will again be petitioned for permission to test the murder weapon. This time, according to Jerry, “they’re going to have Court TV down there. There is going to be too much pressure on [Pierotti] not to give him a trial, because when it comes out, that the gun wasn’t the one that was used to kill King, then they’ll know James was a setup as the fall guy.”

    Ray has come near death, just two months before this was to take place. Andrew Hall, one of Ray’s lawyers, told the press he had sued the state claiming prison officials refused to treat Ray for stomach troubles last summer. “He’s been asking for treatment for a year,” Hall lamented. “They’ve been refusing to give treatment or a diagnosis to see what is wrong.”

    Ray did come out of the coma the day after Christmas, but his health is still tenuous. For those looking for a deathbed confession, Jerry offered this:

    Let me tell you, anybody out there believes James did do it and going to give a death-bed confession, I hope they don’t hold their breath because if he wanted to confess to something he didn’t do, they offered to turn him loose in 1968 [presumably 1978]. House Assassinations Committee, Congress, and I was present when…Representative Sawyer and Stokes made the offer right in front of me and Mark Lane that they would turn him loose if he would confess to murder. He said he wouldn’t confess to anything he didn’t do….Same thing at the parole board….He told them he didn’t even want to go in front of the parole board. Because, he said, I’m not guilty. He said a parole would mean I am guilty. He don’t want no pardon, no parole, the only thing he wants is a trial to prove he didn’t kill King.”

    As we start this New Year, we hope that Ray lives long enough for this hearing to happen. “If he dies before February 20th, then the hearing is off,” Jerry told the press. We all deserve to learn the truth about this case—and no one more than Ray himself.

    – Lisa Pease

  • Nelson, Hall and Graff: The Review Board’s Public Comments


    From the January-February, 1997 issue (Vol. 4 No. 2) of Probe


    Although Probe has attempted to keep its readers informed of the actions of the Review Board, it has been awhile – Vols. 1 & 2 to be exact – since we chronicled some of the comments made for public consumption by the Board members. In 1995 and 1996, enough has seeped into the record for us to issue another report on this important aspect of the Board’s public function.

    At the recent Review Board hearing held in Los Angeles, there was an interesting colloquy between Eric Hamburg and Board member Anna Kasten Nelson. Before commenting on this interesting aside, let us review how both people came to be involved in this hearing. As no less than Kermit Hall has stated, the ARRB is a direct result of Oliver Stone’s 1992 film JFK. At the time of the film, Hamburg was working as a Democratic staff member on Capitol Hill. One of the last things he did was to work on the completion of the 1992 JFK Act, which George Bush originally agreed to and then had second thoughts about. Bush sandbagged the process by not appointing a Review Board. When Clinton took over, the Board apparently was not a top priority with him. He waited until September of 1993 to appoint a Board which was not sworn in until April of 1994. The law stated that Clinton’s choices had to be considered from lists recommended by the Organization of American Historians, the American Historical Association, the Society of American Archivists, and the American Bar Association. It is important to note that although Clinton was supposed to consider appointments form these lists, he was not bound by them completely. For instance, Henry Graff (about whom we will comment shortly) was not on any of the lists. Stone submitted a list to the Chief Executive that was totally ignored in the selection process. Nelson was chosen from a list compiled by the ABA, as was Chairman John Tunheim. Since the creation of the Review Board, Hamburg has left Washington to become, first an attorney for Stone and then the co-producer of Nixon and editor of the book that accompanied the film. Nelson is an occasional contributor to the periodical Chronicle of Higher Education. In the uproar that ensued over the release of Stone’s film, Nelson wrote an article for that publication entitled “Open the Nixon Papers”. Much of the piece is fine and well-intentioned. She basically chronicles the disputes over the collection of Nixon’s papers that have not been made available to the public and pleads the case for full disclosure.

    But in her opening two paragraphs, Ms. Nelson seemed to join in the reflexive, and as we shall see, uncalled for mugging of Stone and his film. Let us consider some of her comments. She first states that “Stone’s version” of Nixon is a “paranoid, foul-mouthed alcoholic”. By labeling this portrait as “Stone’s version”, she implies that Stone took liberties with the record to create this portrayal. This is not so. To call Nixon “paranoid” is fully justified in almost any sense of that word. Nixon called himself a “basket case” over leaks in the White House. This is, of course, what led to the creation of the so-called “plumbers”. In recently declassified tapes, the Los Angeles Times (12/8/96) has shown that Nixon pushed for tax audits of wealthy Jewish contributors to his Democratic rivals in preparation for the 1972 election. Another reveals his participation in the planned but not executed plot to firebomb the Brookings Institute in order to get files on the authors of the Pentagon Papers. As for Nixon’s drinking, this was revealed in Ehrlichman’s Witness to Power back in 1982. What Stone implies is that the drinking was intensified under the pressure of the Watergate scandal. This is backed up completely by the release of the tape of Nixon’s call to Bob Haldeman after his April 30, 1973 speech in which Nixon announced both his and Ehrlichman’s resignations. The first line of the story in the L.A. Times (11/30/96) analyzing this tape reads: “The president seemed to be sloshed”. Later the story states, “It was plain from his slurred syllables that he’d been drinking.”

    In the same paragraph, Nelson writes that “Stone wears the mantle of the historian in this movie”. This is not so. The first frame of the film reads as follows, “This film is a dramatic interpretation of events and characters based on public sources and an incomplete historical record. Some scenes and events are presented as composites or have been hypothesized or condensed.” At the end of the film, Stone’s voice-over makes the same complaint that Nelson does in the body of her piece, namely that the historical record is incomplete since very few of the Watergate tapes have been declassified. We should add here, that the debate over this film, as with JFK, helped in that process.

    Nelson also repeats a charge that many in the media unleashed at the time, when she talks about “Mr. Stone’s obsession with the idea that a government conspiracy linked Nixon to the Kennedy assassination.” Let us examine this charge as it relates to the completed film that Nelson saw. The viewer will note that at about 47 minutes into the film, Nixon is in Dallas the day before the assassination. This is a matter of historical record. At the gathering that follows, with Nixon’s political plans being discussed, there is a hint that the wealthy people there know what will happen the next day. There is no hint that Nixon knows. About two hours and twenty minutes into the film, there is a quick scene in which Haldeman and Ehrlichman discuss this “Bay of Pigs” thing that Nixon has brought up. Haldeman offers to explain it by saying that it is an encoded reference to the fact that “We went after Castro and in some crazy way it got turned back on Kennedy.” Note that this is Haldeman speaking and not Nixon. Haldeman’s words in the film are completely backed up by his passage in The Ends of Power (pp.37-40) where he discusses this idea in depth. About 18 minutes after this, Nixon is listening to a tape in which the CIA’s Castro assassination plots are being discussed. On tape, he says “Those guys went after Castro 7-10 times.” Then, in replaying the tape, he hears the words “Whoever killed Kennedy came from this thing…” This is the only clear reference to what Nelson is inferring. But the whole point of this scene is to show that Nixon, about to resign under threat of sure impeachment, is mentally deteriorating, almost delusional. This is indicated by his seeing the ghost of his mother twice in the room, and his shouting, “Go away!” Then he talks back to the tape and says, “I never said this stuff.” Stone also inserts subliminal shots, of his brother dying for example, that are run in reverse to indicate Nixon’s instability at this moment. To say that Nixon was not a divided man at this time, that his basic insecurity – which even Haldeman notes in his book – was not magnified under pressure is, I think, illogical. But for those who need proof, on another recently released tape from May 1, 1973 (Newsday 11/19/96) Nixon is heard to be seriously contemplating resigning but is talked back into staying by Alexander Haig. This is one year before he actually quit. Again, Stone was on solid ground with both the portrayal of Nixon and Haig.

    To be fair to Nelson, in the last 20 years of his life Nixon relentlessly attempted to rehabilitate his public image. After initially resisting, the media, and a large part of the public acquiesced in that campaign. This included a series of gassy and fatuous books like The Real War, The Real Peace, and Leaders, which no matter how unenlightening, sold well with the public. By the time of his death in 1994, it had succeeded to such an extent that even Bill Clinton, who worked for McGovern in 1972, spoke rather glowingly at his funeral. But in our view, there was enough in Nixon’s career before 1960 to mark him as a complete opportunist, a firm believer in polarization, and a man without enough principle to rein in his large dark side. So the 20 years of rehab didn’t take with us.

    The year before Nelson’s remarks appeared, Kermit Hall spoke for the record in Ohio State Alumni Magazine, of March 1995. Apparently, Hall’s view of the assassination had modified very little since his March 1994 remarks to Randy Krehbiel in the Tulsa World. Hall does give Stone credit for the JFK Act by saying that the law might as well have been called the Oliver Stone Law. He also adds that the Board’s mission is to make the record as full as possible, thereby giving it credibility. But he also adds comments like “Americans have a penchant for conspiracy.” He goes after the Kennedys by saying they were “playing fast and loose” with foreign governments, and that “They were engaged in doing things out of hubris.” This, of course, paves the way for him to postulate that because of the CIA’s efforts to get rid of Castro, Oswald may have seen himself as helping Fidel by killing JFK. (Interestingly, this is along the lines of what Haldeman outlines in his book in the aforementioned passage.) He furthers this argument by adding that if the government had been more open about Operation MONGOOSE, people would have had a better understanding of the assassination long ago.

    Hall goes on to give a false presentation of what the polls have said about the public’s belief in the lone gunman theory. He implies that it was Stone’s film that turned the tide in favor of a conspiracy. The tide had turned long before Stone’s film. But he adds, “I think we’re at the end of the age of secrets.” He says that the Freedom of Information Act and the ARRB will allow greater disclosure and therefore better government. He also states that the lone gunman theory is “satisfactory”.

    In the current edition of Penthouse (January 1997), Nelson, William Joyce, and Henry Graff all get on the record. In a long article by John Wallach these three plus numerous unnamed sources inside the ARRB give comments for the record about the progress of the ARRB. Much of the gist, or spin of the piece can be summed up in a quote by Nelson:

    The sense you get in reading all of these documents is that the CIA and FBI were primarily concerned with covering up other kinds of operations. Hoover helped damage the credibility of the Warren Commission to protect these operations and their [the FBI’s] general modus vivendi when the CIA and FBI operated together. It was part of the Cold War culture.

    Wallach himself says early on:

    The major reason for the cover-up was to protect the FBI’s own clandestine connections to potential suspects in the Kennedy assassination who were involved in plots to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

    Again, these comments remind the reader of Bob Haldeman. They also remind us of the articles written by Walter Pincus and George Lardner in the Washington Post, and Newsweek, at the time of the 30th anniversary in 1993 that basically tried to say that Oswald’s links to Cuba and Russia may have set off a holocaust in the context of the Cold War climate. This theme is underscored by a penultimate comment by Graff:

    I have found nothing to suggest there was anything but a single gunman. What put him up to it and whether this was just one of those random acts of history, I don’t think we’ll ever know.

    Wallach didn’t ask Nelson or Graff why, if the FBI tried to cover up something, does the FBI autopsy report show that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back – not the neck – didn’t penetrate? This fact so puzzled FBI agent James Sibert that at the time of the autopsy, he called FBI HQ to ask if these bullets were “fragmenting” type bullets (Harold Weisberg, Never Again p. 485) Why did the Warren Commission, which relied on those reports, change that finding in order to create the single-bullet theory? One may also ask, as Lisa Pease shows elsewhere (p. 27), if Oswald was a KGB or Cuban agent, why did he have a CIA file in James Angleton’s mole-hunting unit at the time of his defection to Russia? Why was the file classified “restricted” and why are there indications that the date it was opened was misleading? (See John Newman Oswald and the CIA pp. 48-51, 57-59). These hard questions go to the heart of the patent assumptions made in this article.

    We still back the ARRB. We also understand from our sources there that Kermit Hall is one of the most vociferous voices for full disclosure on the Board. We should also note that Anna Kasten Nelson wrote a good article for Chronicle of Higher Education in March of 1995, asking for further openness on the part of the CIA and more participation in that process by people other than intelligence community alumni. But as Eric Hamburg appropriately noted to Judge Tunheim, there are strictures that one should follow when one is sitting in judgment of a proceeding case so as not to indicate one’s bias. But there is also something else the members should consider. If, after disclosing all these documents and in their official garb, they make these pronouncements to the public, the underlying message is that they have read all these secret documents and it doesn’t matter. Oswald still did it. As we have noted above, that judgment does not fit the facts, or their own experience. As one familiar with the process knows, thousands of pages of documents have been declassified without Board review, i.e. voluntarily. We doubt very much that the Board has read all of these pages. Finally, Probe knows that at least some of the ARRB staff, as opposed to the Board itself, do not share their views. The ones who have voiced opinions, always off the record, are unanimous in thinking that the official versions are fiction.

    We hope the Board, like its much less lucratively paid staff, will exercise more professional discretion in the future. That can only help their standing in the research community’s mind after the Board’s mission is completed. It is that community which will be writing in judgment about the Board’s performance – and public utterances – long after the Board is gone.

    ~ Jim DiEugenio

  • Marina Oswald Porter’s Statement to the Review Board


    (Click here if your browser is having trouble loading the above.)

  • ARRB Meets First Hurdles


    From the July-August, 1995 issue (Vol. 2 No. 5) of Probe


    On July 21st the National Archives released the first set of ARRB approved documents. These were 16 CIA documents that the agency did not choose to contest. As Peter Dale Scott has written, “One of the documents . . . strengthens the impression that David Phillips . . . was directly involved before the assassination in the handling and reporting of Oswald’s visit to Mexico City.” Scott found that the temporary duty officer who picked up a special pouch related to the Mexico City episode was “Michael C. Choaden”, a name the Review Board understands, from the CIA, to be a pseudonym for Phillips.

    FBI and CIA Balk

    After the rather smooth going on the first release, both the FBI and CIA began to balk at what came next. From CTKA sources in Washington, the ARRB itself, and the AP newswire, PROBE will now outline the struggle going on in the capitol.

    When the ARRB moves to release a batch of documents from an agency’s files, that agency has the privilege to request a private conference with the Board to try to convince them of other options other than full disclosure e.g. postponement or non-release. A worst case postponement can last well into the next century. Our sources tell us that the original release pattern planned by the ARRB has been altered. The pattern originally held that another batch of solely CIA documents from Oswald’s CIA HQ file were to be released next. Then a combination of 15 FBI and 2 CIA documents concerning Oswald’s trip to Mexico City were to be third. The Board had originally agreed on this sequence. The CIA then requested another audience with the Board to request postponement on the CIA HQ release. This audience was granted. During this delay, the third release went ahead and will be uncontested on the CIA’s part. After their conference with the CIA, our information is that the Board is now reconsidering their original intent to release the documents in full. The FBI has been more overt about the scheduled release of 15 documents. They have appealed the release of 9 of these to President Clinton. According to the ARRB, the FBI contested files relate to Oswald’s stay in the Soviet Union, the Communist Party USA, and Ruby’s shooting of Oswald.

    Sources and Methods, yeah yeah yeah…

    The objections seem to be on the usual grounds of the sensitivity of “methods and sources” and damage to our intelligence relationships with foreign countries, i.e. intelligence sources and agents inside foreign countries. Since the Board has seen the documents and are well aware of the standard line on “national security” one can’t help but wonder how that antique warning could be sounded three decades later and with the Cold War finished.

    The Board’s Recommendation

    We quote from Mr. Marwell’s letter to President Clinton dated August 11th:

    Dear Mr. President:
    I have the honor of submitting to you the enclosed Reply of the Assassination Records Review Board to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s August 8, 1995 Appeal of Formal Determinations under The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.
    There are two principal points made in our Reply. First, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has failed to provide the “clear and convincing evidence” required by the JFK Act; and second, much of the information that the Bureau now wishes to redact has already been officially released by the Bureau. We respectfully request that you carefully consider the merits of the arguments raised in our Reply.
    In making its formal determinations, the Board carefully considered the assassination records in question and determined that the public interest in the release of all of the information contained in them outweighted the insufficient evidence that the FBI had offered in support of continued secrecy. The Review Board has, and will, postpone the release of information in cases where the statutorily mandated “clear and convincing evidence” is supplied and that evidence outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
    A copy of the enclosed Reply, classified SECRET, is being sumitted under separate cover to Marvin Krislov, Associate Counsel at The White House.”

    The contents page of the 26 page reply to the FBI’s appeal shows that the ARRB has come down on the research community’s side on this issue:

    Part I: The JFK Act Presumes Disclosure of Assassination Records
    Part II: The FBI’s Informant Postponements
    A. The FBI Failed To Meet Its Statutory Obligation to Provide Clear and Convincing Evidence
    B. The FBI’s “Broad-Brush” Arguments Against Release of Information About Informants Should be Rejected
    C. In the Absence of Clear and Convincing Evidence to the Contrary, the JFK Act Requires Full and Immediate Release of the Appealed Documents
    Part III: The FBI’s “Foreign Relations” Postponements

    We back the belief in total candor. In fact we think its the only tenable view today. We trust the Review Board’s judgment since it is certainly not composed of fringe, or irresponsible professionals. In fact, in Graff and Hall, it contains two former intelligence employees. Does anyone believe they would vote to endanger “national security”? It is a critical time and we are glad it came early. Here and elsewhere, we urge everyone to call or fax the White House, and FBI Director Mr. Freeh to make their voices heard on this momentous issue. Mr. Clinton must back the ARRB in this first appeal by the FBI to the White House. These appeals for secrecy and non-review have led the Bureau into suspicion on the King case, and culpability in Ruby Ridge and Waco. Let this appeal fall where the previous ones should have: on deaf ears.

    ~ Jim DiiEugenio

  • GOP Effort to Defund the ARRB


    From the July-August, 1995 issue (Vol. 2 No. 5) of Probe


    The story broke suddenly in The Wall Street Journal of June 23, 1995. The Republicans in the House were looking for funds to cut from the federal government’s operating budget. The first move was to pass a bill cutting $155,000,000 and eliminating 2,700 jobs from operations of the House and legislative agencies such as the General Accounting Office. Then Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey apparently had their legislative aides go through the White House budget and target agencies they felt were unnecessary and expendable. In the sixteenth and next to last paragraph of the Wall Street Journal story noted above, the reference to eliminating the Review Board appeared. Ironically a quote from Armey in the story read that, “I hope that we can set straight a perception of wrongdoing.” How Congress could do this by saving a whopping two million (approximate ARRB budget) from a one and a half trillion dollar budget escapes us. Precisely the opposite effect would occur. But this statement and this effort shows us even more how out of touch our Washington representatives are.

    When this story got out and circulated to the members of the ARRB and the research community, a coordinated effort took place to lobby the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. This effort was led by representatives and friends of COPA like John Judge, Dan Alcorn, John Newman, and Washington columnist Sarah McClendon. As a result of this effort, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland sponsored an amendment that restored funding in the House to 2.15 million for the ARRB. The bill was passed and then sent on to the equivalent committee in the Senate led by Sen. Shelby (R) of Alabama and Sen. Kerrey (D) of Nebraska. It was passed there also. The villain in this drama was Rep. Jim Lightfoot (R) of Iowa who originally moved the bill to cancel the ARRB in the House Committee on Appropriations. We understand that the line being sold in the House was that the National Archives could do the equivalent job that the ARRB was doing. We won’t comment on the inanity of that obvious deception.

    There was a downside in all this though. President Clinton had originally asked for an operating budget of 2.4 million. In the view of many, that was not enough. But the amount voted in both the Senate and House versions of the bill was 2.15 million. It seems the DeConcini effort of the previous year to whittle down the budget has taken a mental hold on the funding figure in Congress. Next year Probe will prepare its readership in advance to lobby the appropriate committees for the higher figure.

    ~ Jim DiEugenio

  • Raymond vs. Connick: Round One


    From the July-August, 1995 issue (Vol. 2 No. 5) of Probe

    This is not the first time that Gary Raymond has crossed swords with his former boss, Harry Connick. When Connick came into office in 1974, Raymond was an investigator on his staff. By the time he left the department in the mid 1980’s, he was his chief investigator. He then became a private investigator. Since one of Raymond’s specialties was pedophile cases, Connick asked him to check out a case he had of a local priest who was sodomizing children and young adults. Gary checked out the materials, tapes and affidavits and recommended to the DA that he prosecute the case. Gary waited and waited. Nothing happened.

    Meanwhile, Gary encountered one of the kids he had seen on the pornographic tapes, which the priest had been peddling. Raymond asked the boy if he wanted to talk for the record. He said that the priest had threatened his life if he did. Raymond then drew up a three page memo outlining the case and he forwarded it to Connick. Connick’s assistant then told Gary that the DA was very angry about the memo. When Raymond asked why, the reply was that it left a paper trail. Connick had cut a deal with the archbishop in September of 1989. Later, Raymond saw Connick at a St. Patrick’s Day parade. He asked the DA when the priest was going to be prosecuted. Connick put his finger in his chest and said, “He won’t. Not as long as I am the DA. And you can’t do a thing about it.” Gary then went to Richard Angelico and he did a continuing five day series on what became the famous Father Dino Cinel child abuse case, in which the priest was making child pornography films in the rectory of St. Rita’s Church. One of the series highlights was Angelico’s interview with Connick. He asked the DA if he had made a deal with the diocese not to prosecute. He said he had because it would have been too difficult to track down and I.D. all the kids. Angelico had to remind Connick that the DA had gone before the legislature in 1985 and had the law changed so that mere possession of the material was a contraband charge. Connick had smugly stuck his foot in his mouth.

  • CTKA Press Release

     

    Nearly a month and a half later, the public has yet to see the files. Yet Connick has allowed one select person privileged access. He is Gerald Posner, author of the 1993 book “Case Closed” which argued that the Warren Commission was correct in its 1964 finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone, deranged assassin of President Kennedy. In a 1994 interview with researcher James DiEugenio, Connick said that no one could have these files except an “official body”. The article does not explain Connick’s apparent reversal on this point. Posner also never explains why Connick is delaying the National Archives receipt of these materials.

    Mr. Posner’s article is relatively brief: 11/2 pages, or 3 magazine columns. In this short piece, Posner spends 7 paragraphs dealing with the contents of these new files. Of these, 3 deal with information not already published in books. Yet, the last people able to peruse these files, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (a true official body) made a recently declassified index to these records. The index itself is 16 pages long! From this skeleton guide much of the material ignored by Posner is new and seems to support some of Garrison’s charges, specifically about the association of Shaw with Oswald and the attempts some people made to intimidate and bribe his witnesses, which is why he wished them surveilled. This is left out by Mr. Posner.

    Finally, Posner leaves out the most important story of all. The ARRB is about to request the release of CIA HQ files on Oswald to the Archives. The CIA is resisting. If, as Posner states, the case is closed and Oswald was the sole, deranged assassin, why would the CIA a.) have voluminous files on him, and b.) not want the public to see them fully disclosed 32 years later. Posner and the Times should save their space for an article on this issue and its outcome done by an unbiased writer whose interpretations can be checked against the record. Openness, not elitist bias, is what the JFK Act was all about.