Join us for the most important annual conference on the JFK assassination!
CAPA is looking forward to seeing everyone at our in-person conference this year. The conference will be held in Dallas at the Crowne Plaza Hotel near Dealey Plaza. The dates for the conference are November 19 and 20. There will be a banquet on Saturday night.
Here are the exciting events on our program: (New information in red.)
Be among the first to see the new four-hour Oliver Stone documentary “JFK – Destiny Betrayed.”
Jim DiEugenio will be speaking about new and additional information that did not make it into the “JFK – Destiny Betrayed” film.
Jeff Meek, who writes a monthly JFK assassination column for the Arkansas Hot Springs Village Voice newspaper, will speak about new evidence he found which Jim Di’Eugenio is including in his upcoming book.
The title of the talk by Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar will be: “A Granular Account of the Last Second of the Assassination”
We will be showing the 45-minute trailer from the film by Libby Handros “Four Who Died Trying” about JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcom X.
David Montague, member of the Assassination Records Review Board, will speak about how he followed up on leads, and the difference in technology between then and now.
Russell Kent, who spoke last year about the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, will be speaking about the Clark Panel.
Paul Bleau will be speaking about how the JFK assassination is covered in the history books at schools in North America and will also chair a panel on this subject with David Denton, Andrew Kiel, and David Montague.
Steve Jaffe, the last living staff investigator of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who worked with Mark Lane to produce the revised film, “A Rush to Judgment,” and was a producer of the 1973 film “Executive Action,” will be speaking. The title will be “DA Investigator’s Notebook” and will include a few stories from his experiences working with Garrison that are not commonly known. He will also talk about meeting the head of the French Secret Service and President/General De Gaulle regarding the Zapruder film.
David Mantik will be speaking about what happened to JFK’s limousine after the assassination.
John Newman will be speaking by Zoom on Volume IV of his series on the Kennedy Presidency: Uncovering Popov’s Mole. This volume examines, to an unprecedented extent, the internal and external dynamics of the decades-long search, within CIA, for a Soviet mole who was never exposed or identified. It presents an entirely new perspective on the authority and objectives of the mole (within the CIA’s Office of Security), and a dramatic new context in relation to understanding Lee Harvey Oswald’s 1959 defection to the USSR.
Max Good will be showing his documentary “The Assassination and Mrs. Paine.”
Monika Weissak will be speaking about her book “America’s Last President – What the World Lost When it Lost John F. Kennedy.” Her book is highly recommended by Jim DiEugenio.
We will be presenting a short clip of former CAPA Board Advisor and speaker at our conferences, James Wagenvoord, who passed away on July 26th. Steve Jaffe will be giving personal remarks on collaborating with Wagenvoord on a book. He spoke several times at our conferences and was a valued friend and advisor to CAPA whom we will miss very much.
Dr. Wecht, Chairman of CAPA and author of numerous books including his latest – “The JFK Assassination Dissected” co-authored with Dawna Kaufmann – will be the keynote speaker at the banquet. CAPA has a surprise for fans of Dr. Wecht, a look back in time that will delight and inspire you – and maybe even bring down the house!
FOR CAPA MEMBERS ONLY We are having a mixer with a cash bar (6-7 pm) just before the banquet on Saturday night which begins at 7 pm. The mixer will be for CAPA members only and will provide an opportunity to meet and talk to the conference speakers, including Dr. Wecht.
We are again planning a special day for high school, college, and law school students. This will be held online, as it was the last two years, on Friday, November 18. We are planning a program that will give them the opportunity to see what President Kennedy was like as a person and a president and educate them about the truth of the assassination. David Denton will introduce the program and answer questions from the students.
To register for the conference and banquet, please follow this link.
The room rates at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, discounted for our group, are as follows: deluxe renovated guest rooms with one king or two queen beds, luxury bedding, mini fridge, one cup coffee maker, multiple USB ports, and hairdryer for $139.00 per night plus tax. Room rate including cooked to order breakfast for two in the restaurant is $159 per night plus tax. Use the link below to make your reservation. Note that the hotel is offering a discounted rate before and after the conference for people who want to come early and/or stay late. There is discounted self-parking in the attached garage – normally $18 discounted to $10 per night for our group. Booking Website: https://book.passkey.com/e/50309916 click on Attendee CAPA video ad for our conference: https://youtu.be/x1r874uYayU
We are thinking about what type of event we might have for next year’s 60th anniversary of the assassination. A suggestion has been made that we have a film festival showing the important movies, films and documentaries about JFK at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in D.C. We would appreciate your feedback. Would you travel to an event like this or would you prefer a conference with various speakers? Please send your comments to Glenda (CAPA Program Chair) at visionsoffrance@cox.net.
Thank you all for your support of CAPA and its worthy cause – Pursue the release of withheld records – Find the Truth – Seek Justice.
That afternoon Oliver, Jim, and I would be part of a panel animated by rising TV star Rafael Jacob in a small, packed venue of some 73 members of academia, assassination buffs, journalists who were there by invitation only.
The atmosphere was electric, friendly, and focused. Many in the audience had been enthralled by Stone’s movies. I believe that one question I asked the audience that helped us gauge their level of knowledge was how many of them had seen the Zapruder Film. Just over 50% raised their hands. This really helped us adjust our explanations in accordance to who was there.
The audience heard compelling evidence that there was a front shot, that Oswald was intel-linked, and that what history books were relating to students (mostly the Lone Nut scenario) was unconscionable. Rafael at first wanted to have all three of us on for fifty minutes and then only Oliver for the second half. He revised himself, the audience was so entertained by what they had heard that he announced that all three of us would be there all the way through.
During the break I had time to chat with Oliver.
Paul: How are you doing Oliver?
Oliver: There is not enough oxygen in the room.
Paul: Jim and I have your back. Have fun, they love you.
Oliver: Thanks.
The main highlight in the second half was the projection of a grainy, three-minute testimonial by Abraham Bolden, the first black secret service agent, who had been hand-picked by Kennedy and had been railroaded into jail for trying to tell the Warren Commission what he had witnessed in terms of suspicious behavior by some members of the Secret Service in and around a planned presidential trip to Chicago—something I had discussed in the documentary.
It took a while for Oliver to understand that this was Mr. Bolden until he thanked Mr. Stone for helping him get a presidential pardon one month earlier. There was an eruption of applause in front of Oliver, whom I was told was misty eyed.
The panel ended with warm applause, handshakes, and photo requests. Rafael told Jim that we should do a road show. I received a number of heartfelt congratulations. Over seventy people who would now have serious doubts when someone would call Oswald the lone assassin of JFK. The onlookers were clearly impressed, including Mr. Jean François Lépine among them.
Back in our lounges:
Oliver: Tell me Paul, who made the Bolden video.
Paul: Len did.
Oliver: Thank you so much, can you send me a copy?
Paul: You bet.
That evening Ken Hall would host us for a special supper at the Château Frontenac. Our goal to celebrate three years of making and promoting the documentary that would help cement the position of conspiracy advocates as measured, logical, and based on a solid foundation of evidence would be met. Everything was first class. We were all content but tired. We needed rest. The next day was our last one, but would be far from the easiest.
June 15
This was the day that would make or break the event. By their count, Oliver and Jim went through some eight interviews that day alone, which seem to have gone rather well according to Jim. However, the organizers were being seriously challenged by some in the media. “In hindsight, given what is raging in Ukraine do you regret hosting a Putin apologist?” was a typical question. Ouch! This was not part of the plan.
In the final analysis, as a friend of mine accurately put it, for many, the event had morphed into a political story instead of being the cultural event it was intended to be. This is what stood out in the final third of a conversation between Mr. Lépine and Mr. Stone: The 600 plus in the audience who had come to learn from one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers instead witnessed a debate about how and why Mr. Stone interviewed dictators, most notably Vladimir Putin.
Before the final event got started, many of us met on the spectacular Le Diamant terrace, where we got to chat, exchange handshakes, take pictures, and enjoy hors-d’oeuvres and refreshments. I got to shake hands with Mr. Bernatchez and wish him good luck in his upcoming career moves and he thanked me for my email message. I also chatted with a dear friend, Lynda Beaulieu, who manages both Le Diamant as well as her famous artist brother Robert Lepage. Of course, our guests would be there, as well as Mr. Lépine, whom I got to meet for the first time.
Jean-François Lépine
I cannot do justice to the distinguished, illustrious career of Lépine. (Click here for details)
Just before the interview, he talked to me about how he faced some pressures from colleagues and fought off some dis-information attempts in so many words. He asked me if I heard his Lagacé interview, where he felt compelled to correct a fellow journalist on air and whether I knew so and so who had dug up dirt on the interviewee. Very nice, well-spoken veteran. He had done his research on Oliver and looked forward to the event.
The Interview
At least in part, it was an interview. The intro was dramatic: Two empty golden colored sofa chairs awaiting the stars with music from a Stone movie in the background: beautiful lighting, 600 audience members feeling suspense. Mr. Lépine first entered the stage under a warm applause. He began by defending the event, the audience, and our guest from the criticism by some in the media. He described a legendary filmmaker in glowing terms. He was supported by a four-minute, vibrating video of Oliver`s career. Oliver arrived on stage to a standing ovation. The chemistry between the two seemed good…at first.
While I applaud the interviewer for having done his homework, I was disappointed in the format.
Let me explain: Two years earlier at our college I had the pleasure of receiving Canada’s all-time greatest adman: Frank Palmer. We organized a panel and used the screening of memorable ads: going through the decades our guest toiled away in and would have Frank analyze the commercials that marked each period, many of them his, while he would give anecdotes and provide students with life lessons. It was a beautiful evening for our college in terms of honoring, entertaining, teaching, and involving the audience.
The film lovers would have loved to hear Oliver comment on scenes from his movies that could have been projected for all to see, discuss challenges he faced, actors he directed, awards he won.
The last one third of the evening turned into a testy debate. Mr. Lépine disagreed with Oliver’s “pandering” to dictators when interviewing them. Mr. Stone answered that there would be no interview if he had used Lépine`s approach. Lépine said, “You know that you could never have made a movie like Platoon in countries run by these dictators.” Stone said that, while it is important to show empathy when producing movies or documentaries, it does not mean we agree with the subject. Lépine asked why he did not make a film about Mandela, to which Stone retorted, “because there are already fifty of those out there.” Quebec City meets Oliver Stone had been politicized.
This was not going as I had hoped: A journalist companion of mine found that the guest was always being cut off, Oliver’s wife left for a while in dismay, and an audience member walked down to admonish Mr. Lépine: “I paid to hear Mr. Stone talk, not you!”
The one thing that resonated most with the audience was when Oliver said, “that the problem right now is that the world does not need more escalation, we need diplomacy and peace initiatives which are sadly sidelined.”
The show ended with strong applause from the audience. Mr. Lépine graciously invited Mr. Stone to have a late dinner at the terrace next door. The organizing team followed. Despite the raucous debate that occurred a few moments earlier, the two septuagenarians had a cordial discussion and left one another on good terms.
I had an opportunity to ask Mr. Lépine at this time what he thought of the JFK assassination. He said that he and his colleagues in journalism school thought the Warren Commission was a joke. Another journalist colleague of his sitting beside us nodded in agreement. Mr. Lépine also asserted that the big problem with journalists today was not partisanship, but laziness!
Rafael then talked to me: “Paul you know that none of this would have happened without you!” Pretty heady stuff…a feeling of triumph and mental fatigue overcame me.
After tooting my own horn and those of the contributors during a Black-Op Radio interview with Len Osanic and Jim DiEugenio just a few days after the departures, my initial appraisal of complete success, was tempered somewhat by other reactions that were coming in and that were not so laudatory, counterbalanced by some staggering viewership metrics. The bag was a mixed one, but mostly favorable.
The Aftermath
The documentary ended its promotional tour on a high note with packed venues, enthusiastic applauses, and a visibility unheard of, emanating from a City of less than 1 Million Francophones. The clipping reports from the PR firm confirm that between the dates of June 13 and 21, excluding social media, 27 million impressions about the event were generated. I repeat: 27 million! From my estimates, if we had included social media, media exposure generated from Quebec City since December (keeping in mind that the press release was sent out in around April and that I was heavily interviewed for months), and still more media coming in. The total impressions may indicate nearly twice that number—the 27 million—as a potential audience. If we consider that articles have between 2.5 and 5 times more impact than paid ads, this number is breathtaking. Indeed, I have received congratulatory emails from all over the province.
The other element that is notable were the number of mainstream media journalists, including Mr. Lépine, who were on the record stating things like: Jim Garrison was vindicated, that there were other inquiries after the Warren Commission that indicated that there was a conspiracy, that the Warren Commission was not believable, that there had been a plot.
On Friday June 16th, Mr. Lépine was interviewed on FM 98.5 in Montreal by Alain Crête about the event, where he stated that “the movie JFK caused the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and there were government inquiries subsequent to the Warren Commission that exposed a conspiracy, that there was more than one shooter. (Click here for audio) This, my friends, is historical!
Many other journalists who were not specialized or knowledgeable about the assassination were very open to the possibility of a conspiracy. Those who saw the documentary found it very compelling. The only negative press about the documentary that I was aware of came from journalists who had not seen it and used the same tired labels to try and paint conspiracy theorists as quacks.
In Québec, we can now say that U.S. government inquirers and many in our media agree, at least to some degree, with the probability that some sort of conspiracy occurred in the assassination of JFK. At a minimum they have doubts about the lone nut version. This is a huge victory. Kudos to Oliver Stone, Jim DiEugenio, and Rob Wilson.
Where things did take a negative turn, however, was when a fast-emerging side-story became controversial, sparked by Putin’s ill-thought decision to invade Ukraine. This caused Oliver Stone’s interviews with Putin, which ended some five-years ago, to take a lot of space in the press mid-way through the event and during the last interview. Here I have to temper my opinions by the fact that I have not yet seen the interviews. I will do so soon, in order to form a better opinion.
I have however tried to piece together some of the press coverage that has taken place over time and one can note very different reactions: Press coverage varies tremendously when the interviews were first aired some 5 years ago. U.S. press tends be mixed or negative and foreign press is more positive as far as I can see. Here are two examples of coverage:
Stone’s interviews simply give voice to the man behind a country where media objectivity is mediocre at best. If we can count on Russia Today to hem and haw about Washington and the perils of fracking, then so can we count on our political media to do the same about Russia.
Stone takes Putin to task at times, saying he looks like a “fox in a hen house,” when he imagines out loud that there might already be a secret battle between the U.S. and Russia in cyberspace. “I believe cyber warfare can lead to a hot war,” says Stone. “Is Russia doing something about it? Come on, Mr. President, lay it on me…”
Putin tells him, “Maybe. For every action…there is a counteraction.”
From the Figaro:
Vladimir Putin exposed in the last episodes
If the first two episodes seem to boil down to long interviews between the two men where the geopolitics of the last seventy years between the United States and Russia is evoked with “a simple observer’s gaze” deplores the New York Times.
Oliver Stone hardens his tone towards the end of the documentary and obtains from the Russian president his position on the thorny issues of the moment: Syria, Crimea…He even reserved for the end of the documentary, a sequence where he asks him about his involvement in the 2016 US election. A feat praised by the press.
Invited this evening from France 3, Oliver Stone will be able to defend himself from all these criticisms. On the other hand, it is not certain that the “mental power” exercised by the head of the Kremlin and the “hysteria” observed in the United States by the director on the American people are strong enough in France to guarantee France 3 a large audience.
Locally, and abroad, I have not seen any negative comments about Oliver Stone coming to Quebec City before the invasion. Furthermore, the Putin interviews were shown on Showtime and advertised for broadcast on March 19, 2022 by TVQC. (Click here for details) Should these stations be vilified?
Here are some other questions we should ponder:
If you were a journalist, would you have refused the opportunity to question Putin? Even if you knew that there would be rules, constraints and a certain decorum affecting your liberties? Oliver Stone once said, “If Vladimir Putin is America’s greatest enemy, then we must at least try to understand him.”
What other current filmmaker would even say something like that? Oliver can do so based on JFK’s Peace Speech, which no president since has ever come close to.
A message from me and Oliver
Hi all,
Just wanted to thank the students, teachers, and other Sarah Lawrence College (SLC) colleagues who participated in this wonderful moment for our City.
Having spoken to the organizers, audience members, the managers of the three packed venues and the Château Frontenac (SLC partner Ken Hall), and guests, I think this was a real shot in the arm for our city and the Film industry.
While our Oscar winning VIP guest has taken positions that not all of us necessarily agree with (unanimity on issues he discusses is impossible), everyone I spoke to, including many members of academia, came away with wonderful memories of moments they will cherish forever and were especially united around Mr. Stone`s cry for diplomacy and peace.
I wanted to especially thank our own Nancie Moreau for her incredible efforts in hosting, guiding, and comforting our beautiful guests. She gained incredible friends and I believe genuine interest in her wonderful book about Tesla. Two of our SLC students/Bloom members, Amélie Caron and Océanne Côté Garand worked impeccably with the organizers in receiving audience members for a panel discussion and deserve our thanks. They really enjoyed the experience, grew their network, and added another feather in their cap.
Thank you, Ken Hall, Robert Mercure of Destination Québec, Valérie Bissonnette of Vélocité, Martin Genois of the Festival du Cinéma, SLC alumni Geneviève Doré, Rafael Jacob (super animator/interviewer), my daughter Vanessa who was with me every second, my unbelievable financial wizard and SLC friend Martin Brassard who bought 130 tickets and our guests from out west and all their team members.
Looking forward to sharing stories, some public and others behind the scenes.
On that note I wish you all a great summer.
Paul Bleau
Paul,
Appreciate your note. I did have a good time and a warm welcome from your friends. Too bad about Len, but the people I met there stood out. Thanks to Ken Hall, Valérie and Geneviève, and Martin, who was terrific with me. I don’t think I met the other Martin, but thank him, please. It was a memorable trip.
This is when I was in receipt of a letter from Oliver Stone saying that he was putting together a documentary, as he termed it, a follow-up story, to his 1991 feature film JFK. One part read as follows:
Rob Wilson, Jim DiEugenio, and I are seeking to put this information together under one roof in a documentary that will be clear to John Doe. We’re focused on examining the evidentiary findings of the ARRB and would like to interview you for the film to discuss the Tampa and Chicago assassination plots.
Lastly, as this project has not yet been announced, please keep all of this confidential.
We hope you’ll be able to be part of this film and we look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
When I got this message I knew it was genuine because the person I write articles for, Jim DiEugenio—the world`s leading JFK assassination expert—knows Mr. Stone and had talked about making such a project.
September 2019, Georgetown: First Meeting
I had been interviewed by Oliver Stone for about one hour about the prior plots to assassinate JFK for his upcoming documentary. I got to meet Jim DiEugenio in person for the first time, as well as producer Rob Wilson and even chatted with Doug Horne—one of the top guns from the ARRB. Heck they even had a make-up person for me.
Then between two sips, almost out of nowhere, Oliver Stone enters and heads to the counter to grab a bite. Opportunity knocks! I approach him.
Paul Bleau: Mr. Stone, I would like to thank you for this opportunity. It has been a great honor for me.
Oliver Stone: Thank you for coming.
PB: When it comes time to promote the documentary, you may want to come to Quebec City. I am certain you will receive a warm welcome from open-minded people.
OS: Hmmm, why not Montreal?
PB: Montreal is beautiful, but wait until you see Quebec City.
OS: It must be beautiful up there during the Autumn.
PB: Gorgeous and it is during the time of the Quebec City Film Festival.
OS: Hmmm.
2019 to 2021: Putting Together a Package
Receiving a Hollywood mogul was really not an expertise of mine. I called Louis Côté who was our recently retired mayor’s right-hand man. Oliver Stone coming to Quebec! Let me set you up with Robert Mercure, who heads our tourism association: Destination Québec. Robert and I spoke and, in very little time, he said: Let’s make it happen.
We were offered some funding and Robert himself recruited the Château Frontenac and its brilliant manager Ken Hall to host our guests. By now, it was Fall 2021.
None of us knew much about handling a cinema-related event, so I called Valerie Bissonnette. She and I go back about 25 years. Valérie founded her own production company in 1998, known today as Groupe Vélocité. She has done much to make Quebec City an international hub for film production. Having seen her incredible efficiency in documentary launches, I knew she had to be part of our team. Now, with some backing, I sent a message to Mr. Stone and his entourage in September 2020, inviting him and Jim to Quebec City.
It was followed by this answer:
Paul,
I’m not going to be able to do this for you. I’ve been doing far too much interviewing for my book and still have a ways to go with different countries.
It would be almost a year later before I would try again. This time the answer would be positive. Mr. Stone would come here in person on December 16, 2021, shortly after the North American debut of the documentary on Showtime, scheduled for November. What changed? The film had been launched and was very well received at the Cannes Film Festival in August. It was time to sell it in North America, where anything about the assassination has been greeted with crossed arms compared to markets abroad.
Mr. Stone and Jim DiEugenio were to spend three days with us. Then disaster struck: COVID reared its ugly head again and travel costs skyrocketed. We did not have enough funds and could not face the pandemic risks.
Winter 2022: The calm before the storm
The documentary aired on Showtime on November 22, 2021. Everyone I know who saw it became convinced there was a conspiracy. I received kudos for how I explained that there was a template that could be observed in prior attempts to assassinate JFK. This led to a call from Peter Black of the Chronicle Telegraph and this created an appetizer story that took flight locally: how did a Quebecker ever make his way into an Oliver Stone documentary?
I also teased that we were trying to get Oliver Stone to come and visit us in the Spring. Really! That would be incredible for our city.
By February, thanks to Valérie, the Quebec City Film Festival joined the fray as well as private sponsors. After two years of COVID forced hibernation, the Festival was planning a new format: Instead of living solely on a ten-day Festival in the Fall, it would remain visible year-round by inviting industry legends to our City. What better way to kick it off than with Oliver Stone?
By late February, Oliver and Jim agreed to come. Everyone was hard at work getting organized: a galvanizing shot in the arm for our tourism industry that would kick off our summer season with a blast. The coverage was massive and widespread and even included the foreign press. Quebec City’s film industry would be on the map. The venues were filling up quickly. Things were looking up. And then Russia invaded Ukraine.
The Build Up
Oliver Stone is easily one of the top five filmmakers of his era. He and his movies have been winners of numerous Oscars, Golden Globes, and other prestigious awards. He is also a multi-medaled Vietnam War veteran. Among his movies that most influenced me were Platoon, Wall Street, and JFK.
His book Chasing the Light is a must-read for anyone interested in movies or examples of courage and determination. Mr. Stone also is candid about his mistakes. When he interviewed me, I was struck by his genuine interest in what I had to say, his jovial nature, and his professional approach.
Accompanying him would be Jim DiEugenio, my editor, and mentor. He, of course, was the writer of the documentary.
They would be joined by the famous leading JFK assassination interviewer, Len Osanic. Len is the producer of the long running Black Op Radio series, the best JFK radio show there is. It was through Len and Jim that I was in a position to start this adventure. Without them, I would not have been interviewed by Mr. Stone.
On the hosting side of things, Martin Genois put together a dream team of drivers, guides, photographers, aides, PR specialists, pundits, animators, etc. He worked up a perfect itinerary and lined-up mesmerizing venues. I was able to contribute interns, sponsor contacts, and I recruited my daughter and my colleague Nancie Moreau from our college, who wrote a fine book about Nikola Tesla and had the perfect personality to cement new friendships.
The problem we were facing was that because of the Ukraine invasion, and the fact that our VIP guest had interviewed Putin some five years earlier, media interest in Mr. Stone`s visit began shifting from his JFK documentary and his legendary moviemaking to his relationship with Putin. This put the organizers in a tricky situation: How could we roll out the red-carpet for someone who was now being labeled a Putin apologist?
Having spoken to Mr. Stone, he is probably the last man on Earth who would agree with Putin`s tragic, ill-thought decision. He has even said so. None of us were for this. The practice firm I supervise at the college had even developed a Vodka for Peace campaign for a local distiller.
The PR team came up with an effective strategy: Mr. Stone and DiEugenio, after the showing of the documentary, would only field questions about the film. The second event would be a panel discussion focusing on the assassination in general and during the marquis event, a seasoned journalist would talk about Stone’s career, including his controversial interview/ exchanges, as could the press during interviews that were lined up. This way no one could be accused of mindless stargazing.
Behind the scenes, pressure was mounting on one of Quebec’s larger than life journalists, Jean-François Lépine, to take on Mr. Stone aggressively during his interview at Le Diamant. The stage was set for two septuagenarians to lock horns during Mr. Stone’s final evening with us in front of a packed house of 600 people.
Pre-arrivals
Things got off to a rocky start. A few days before our guests arrived, I received an email from Oliver. He wanted to talk. “Please let this not be a last-minute cancellation,” I thought!
The phone rings:
OS: Tell me what will happen when I arrive. Can we get a lift?
Oliver’s secretary was on the line also: Oliver, do not worry, Maxime will pick you up, he’s the guy who drove Paul McCartney around.
OS: Paul McCartney, oh OK. Paul, what kind of clothes should I bring up?
PB: Be certain you have a windbreaker.
OS: What will we do during our first day?
PB: It’s an open day for you to just relax…talk to Maxime and Geneviève (the lead hostess), they can feed you full of ideas…or I can have Nancie meet up with you. In the evening, you can come to my cottage, 40 minutes away in the wilderness, for a BBQ.
OS: That sounds good.
PB: I must tell you, there are bugs this time of year.
OS: Bugs, I must say I hate bugs.
PB: Oliver, I read your book, if you can handle Vietnam, I think you can handle a mosquito.
And so on…
Thinking back…what a lousy quip. Vietnam, to a veteran of that mindless war was nothing to slight. When Oliver Stone comes to our city, show some respect.
On the positive side: Two Montreal dailies interviewed Jim and Oliver before their departures.
June 10-11
Because of COVID related staff shortages at our airports, it took Oliver 12 hours to get here from L.A. instead of 7 or 8. Jim, for reasons out of our control, arrived a day later.
June 11th was when Len and his wife arrived at the airport and I enjoyed a coffee and croissant with them in the old town along the riverside, before dropping them off at the Château.
The six out of towners headed to the cinema after a late supper to see the Top Gun sequel.
June 12
Our guests used this day for touring and discovered the hidden gem that is our Provincial Capital: beauty, history, culture, nature, the Château, the Riverside…all done by a very pleasant and erudite tour guide.
In the meantime, I was interviewed by a curious and knowledgeable radio host. It went very well and I invited him to the panel discussion.
June 13
JFK: Through the Looking Glass
The CLAP Cinema reserved its largest room for the showing of the documentary. Its 260 seats sold out in a matter of days, without even promoting the event. We were not able to secure any added rooms, because of the blockbusters opening that week, otherwise we could have tripled the attendance rather easily.
There was a buzz that evening rarely seen for a movie in our city. The combination of COVID-free leisure and the presence of Oliver Stone was magically palpable. The cameras were rolling and some people were in disbelief that the famous director would address the crowd.
I was accompanied by a lawyer friend of mine, plus family and work companions. Their reactions to the JFK case, as written for the screen by Jim DiEugenio and presented by countless experts, charts, and archive footage left them bewildered and shocked. The documentary’s closing was followed by a standing ovation.
The crowd assimilated devastating facts about broken chains of custody, a Keystone Cops quality autopsy performed by three manipulated pathologists with almost no experience in gunshot wounds, powerful evidence of a front shot, strong witness evidence that cast doubt on Oswald even having been in the sixth-floor sniper’s nest, destruction and manipulation of evidence, Oswald’s intelligence file manipulation, bullying and intimidation of witnesses, proof of altering of photo and autopsy evidence, countless examples of how and why Kennedy had powerful enemies. This was the two-hour version. Imagine what the reactions would be had they seen the four-hour, even more detailed version called JFK: Destiny Betrayed.
One thing that was perhaps difficult for the audience to comprehend was the formidable status of some who we hear talking in the film, both as experts and in archive footage: Warren Commissioner Senator John Cooper; Sen. Richard Schweiker of the Schweiker-Hart subcommittee to the famous Church Committee hearings; the House Select Committee on Assassination’s (HSCA) lead initial counsels Richard Sprague and Robert Tanenbaum; Doug Horne, one of the chief investigators on the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB): all attacking the Warren Commission fairy tale. And these represent a small fraction of most inquiry insiders who sound a lot more like the conspiracy advocates than the Warren Commission acolytes.
At the end of the documentary, audience members were given the chance to ask questions answered by the tandem of Oliver Stone and Jim DiEugenio. Oliver giving the big picture, Jim following up with fine details, sources, and added insights.
At one-point Mr. Stone underscored my participation, which led to applause for a local contributor and my taking a bow. Based on reactions of the crowd, friends of mine, my lawyer companion, it is doubtful that even one person left that evening believing that the assassination of JFK was committed by a lone nut. Two young history students thanked me and looked enthralled by what they had just seen. Even one of my brothers, who has an immediate reflex of dismissing conspiracy theories—which by the way tends to be my own attitude towards the conveyor belt of endless anti-establishment yarns—stated: “There is no way that bullet (the magic bullet) caused all that damage.” Marquis event number one was an unqualified success. In the background however, resistance to Oliver’s presence and an attack on his credibility were building.
June 14
Before this date, I had been interviewed over a dozen times about the event and the assassination. All positive, focused on the good news for our city, tourism, our film industry, and genuine interest about the assassination and the documentary. My interview on this morning at French CBC Radio with a well-respected morning man would be different.
Mr. Bernatchez, a gentleman with a distinguished career, came to shake my hand before I was on air. He had an all-business air about him that foreshadowed what would be his skeptical tone during our 12-minute talk. This was further confirmed when a poker-faced assistant of his asked me if I believed all this stuff involving intelligence in the conspiracy. I responded yes, when I really should have pointed out the complexity of the case.
For example, when he asked what I based my affirmation about there being prior plots on, I answered that the plots I discuss in the documentary were about Chicago and Tampa during the month that preceded Dallas. I explained that there were FBI files (I should have added HSCA) about Tampa and that the Chicago plot was based on Edwin Black’s research as well as Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden’s witnessing of the goings-on. He seemed surprised. When he said that the conspiracy was not acknowledged by the media, I talked about how five government investigations that succeeded the Warren Commission and revelations from these as well as from the investigators/insiders themselves presented a very different account from what is concluded by the obsolete Warren Commission—which is what seems to be the basis on which Lone Nut scenario believers continually turn to.
At one point I answered a question about press complacency on this issue by stating, “You would have to ask the press why they are not pouring through the declassified files.” He said, “Now you are accusing us of cooperating in the conspiracy,” and I replied, “Perhaps it is just a lack of interest.” That is how it ended.
I came out worried that I sounded hesitant, confused, and lacking in credibility. When I listened to myself later, I was OK with how I answered: calmly and factually. If I had to redo it, I certainly would have been better documented, ready with French wording, and I would have tried to understand the nature of the skepticism. Nonetheless, I sent Mr. Bernatchez a friendly email thanking him for his time, congratulating him on his excellent career, and offering to have coffee some time to further discuss this.
Other things were happening that day at a frantic pace: some good, some not so good. In the not so good category, Montreal’s La Presse published an article blasting Stone, calling him an apologist for Putin and a conspiracy theorist with a plea to not go to the Le Diamant finale event. (Too late, it was almost sold out). According to this journalist, Stone was Putin’s friend and vocal chord as well a teller of wild tales. The organizers were pandering to a controversial loose cannon and so on and so forth. The writer had not seen the documentary: a common denominator of many of the critics.
On Montreal’s CBC morning show Jean François Lépine was interviewed by the CBC’s Patrick Lagacé and Catherine Beauchamp (click here for audio). Mr. Lagacé, referred to the blistering La Presse article about Stone calling him an apologist and a conspiracy theorist whose movie JFK was revisionist, full of a mish mash of baseless claims. What happened after the intro left me positively dumfounded: Mr. Lépine retorted that Oliver Stone was a great film-maker whose story about Kennedy was so misunderstood. It constituted the chronicling of D.A. Jim Garrison, who despite his defeat was later vindicated when it was confirmed that Clay Shaw, the defendant, was in fact CIA attached. He added that other government inquiries proved that Garrison was spied upon and that there was a plot (more than one shooter). The film JFK was responsible for the creation of the ARRB and the declassification of hundreds of thousands of document, many vindicated Garrison and proved there was a conspiracy. He said that the Warren Commission was discredited and defended researchers like myself and Jim DiEugenio.
As a prelude, he did express strong disagreement with Mr. Stone’s “pandering” to dictators.
Mr. Lagacé seemed somewhat taken aback. He too had not seen JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. He asked Mrs. Beauchamp, who had seen the film, what she thought. Among other positive comments, she said how she enjoyed the way they linked Oswald to intelligence, how the CIA had files on him despite claiming to the Warren Commission that he was not on the radar and that he was removed from a watch list just a few weeks before the assassination. She also described how the documentary discredited the single bullet theory and revealed destruction of documents. This to me was historical! A Quebec media Golden Boy saying that there was a conspiracy re-enforced by a CBC journalist on mainstream media. I wish I had been aware of this before my interview with Mr. Bernatchez.
In the meantime, some media began challenging the organizers on why they had invited Oliver Stone given his relationship with Putin.
[Allen Dulles] joked in private that the JFK conspiracy buffs would have had a field day if they had known…he had actually been in Dallas three weeks before the murder…and that one of Mary Bancroft’s childhood friends had turned out to be a landlady for Marina Oswald, the assassin’s Russian born wife.
James Srodes, Allen Dulles, pp. 554–55
In Part One of this review, I noted how director Max Good draws parallels in the escorting of Marina Oswald by a trio of persons who seemed to arrive out of the blue in 1963. One of the circumstances that is notable is that all three—George DeMohrenschildt, Ruth Paine, and Priscilla Johnson—spoke Russian. Again, could this be a strange accident? I, for one, have never met anyone in my life who spoke Russian. Yet, in the space of about ten months, three people entered into the lives of the Oswalds who all happened to speak Russian. And as each one left, another replaced the former, almost as if each was being managed by an off-stage supervisor as to when to take over.
Part of The Assassination and Mrs. Paine centers on the mystery of Naushon Island. Naushon Island is the largest of the Elizabeth Islands in southeastern Massachusetts. It is very much an exclusive area, having been owned by the Forbes—Michael’s family—for a century and a half. Some of the wealthiest and most powerful members of the Eastern Establishment have vacationed there, for example former Secretary of State John Kerry, as did Michael and Ruth Paine. As Barbara LaMonica wrote in Probe magazine, the FBI found out that Michael’s grandmother, Elise Cabot Forbes, took out a $300,000 trust fund for her grandson Michael. (Probe, Vol. 5 No. 5, p. 6) That would translate to about 3 million dollars today. The logical question is: what was someone with that kind of money doing living in a suburb of Dallas/Fort Worth chumming around with an alleged Marxist agitator? And, as noted in Part One, engaging with local college students on the merits of Castroism—and taking Castro’s side while doing so.
As we know, George DeMohrenschildt—aka the Baron—was the route through which Ruth and Michael first met the Oswalds in early 1963. (James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 168) The Baron was intimately involved with the White Russian community in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area. The late Philip Melanson established that this group:
…received financial assistance from the CIA. Most of the White Russians had fled Communist persecution and had been brought to the United States by the Tolstoy Foundation, an anti-communist lobby that received yearly subsidies from the Agency. The Russian Orthodox Church, a centerpiece of the very conservative and religious White Russian Community, also received Agency philanthropy. (Spy Saga, p. 79)
George Bouhe was a prominent member of this expatriate community. Bouhe was Marina’s English tutor. (Probe, Volume 7, No. 3, p. 3) When Jim Garrison told Marina that Bouhe was also a neighbor of Jack Ruby, the man who killed her husband, Marina said she was aware of that. How? Because Bouhe visited her to tell her about it. He said it was just a coincidence that he happened to live next door to her husband’s killer. As researcher Steve Jones noted, was this not a possible connection between Oswald and Ruby? Did the Warren Commission ever explore it? This reviewer has never seen any evidence they did.
II
In Max Good’s film, Ruth Paine tries to imply that she only met George DeMohrenschildt once, in early 1963.
As Steve Jones mentioned in 1998 in Probe magazine, this is not accurate. In her appearance before the New Orleans grand jury, Ruth admitted to Jim Garrison that she and Michael met up with the Baron in 1967. It turns out they were dinner guests of his and they discussed, among other things, a copy of the infamous backyard photo which was recently found amongst the Baron’s belongings after the assassination, upon his return from Haiti. (Probe, Vol. 5 No. 3, p. 9)
As Carol Hewett noted, in May of 1963, Michel Paine returned a record player and some records to Everett Glover, which Marina had borrowed from the Baron. (Probe, Vol. 5 No. 1 pp. 16–17) Glover took the items to George’s storage unit. When the Baron returned from Haiti, they discovered another version of the infamous backyard photographs in that storage unit.
As the late Jim Marrs wrote, there are some notable aspects about this version of the backyard photo; but we will focus on the discovery of the picture. First, as described, it was not unearthed until George returned to Texas from Haiti. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 287) The Baron’s widow told Marrs that they had never seen the picture before then. She was also convinced the photo was planted, while in storage. Although Everett Glover later had placed the Baron’s things in storage, Ruth Paine also had access to the storage space. (ibid) George later wrote that he only discussed the photo with his closest friends, which apparently included the Paines. (Op. Cit. Probe, p. 17)
But, with the Paines, there is always a capper. Here it is: Michael Paine told Dan Rather in 1993 that he saw one of the infamous backyard photographs in April of 1963! He told CBS that Oswald proudly showed him a photo as he picked him up for a dinner engagement. As Ms. Hewett asked: if this is true, why did Michael never say anything about this to the FBI or the Warren Commission? (Probe, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 16)
As mentioned in the first part of this review, Sylvia Hyde—Ruth’s sister— refused to talk to Max for his film. Jim Garrison was curious about Sylvia, since he could not find out who she worked for. Garrison questioned Ruth before the New Orleans grand jury about this. To be mild, Ruth is rather unhelpful. Even though she spent over a week with her back in 1963, she cannot figure who she worked for. But what makes it even more puzzling, she cannot even say where she lived! Recall, she had driven down to the central Atlantic coast to visit her and she does not recall where she drove to? (Transcript, 4-18-68, pp 58–62). She ended up insinuating to the DA that Sylvia lived in Virginia, most likely Falls Church. But a listener to Len Osanic’s Black Op Radio program later found out that she lived in Maryland.
An aspect that Sylvia Meagher insinuated about Ruth Paine was her predisposition against Oswald. On more than one occasion, Ruth has said she was taken aback that Oswald would call her about contacting attorney John Abt. If one can comprehend it, she was surprised he was also presuming of his own innocence. As Joseph McBride later pointed out, in an article written by Jessamyn West for Redbook in July, 1964, Ruth went further. She told West she was glad that Ruby killed Oswald. This surprised the author. She gave Ruth a chance to repair the damage and this is what Ruth said: “I thought Lee’s death this way would be so much easier for Marina.” (Warren Commission Vol. 22, p. 856) Recall, Oswald never had an attorney while in custody, the Warren Commission never allowed any legal counsel for him, and their hearings were closed to the public. Ruth Paine, the kindly Quaker lady, somehow thinks that due process and right to counsel can go to Hades in regard to Oswald. And let us not forget, John Kennedy.
III
Max Good has structured his film as a kind of point/counterpoint dialogue between the critics of the Warren Commission and its stalwarts. From the latter side we hear from, in addition to Ruth, Max Holland, and Gerald Posner. I cannot see how anyone can complain about their treatment and/or the balance of the film. To give just one example, Posner says that Oswald’s last two calls were to Ruth about an attorney and about Marina, but that is not really the whole story. Oswald tried to make one other call on Saturday night and the Secret Service would not let it through. It was to a former military intelligence officer named John Hurt in North Carolina. How Oswald ever knew this man, or his phone number, is a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes. (Click here for details) It furthers Senator Richard Schweiker’s concept that Oswald had the fingerprints of intelligence all over him.
Ruth gets plenty of speaking time. And the film shows that she is a standard bearer for many Establishment-backed TV specials which support the official story, for example the London trial which featured prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi and defense attorney Gerry Spence. About that one, she says that it was like a regular trial. This reviewer spent a large part of a book showing that such was simply not the case. (See, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 3–70) She then mentions the Peter Jennings special on ABC in 2003, which she calls one of the best.
Recall, this was the program in which Dale Myers prepared a computer simulation which proclaimed that the Magic Bullet—about which so much controversy has swirled for so long—should not be titled the Single Bullet Theory. That title denotes the facts that one bullet went through two men, causing seven wounds, smashing two bones, and emerging pretty much intact. Dale said this should not be called a theory. With his trusty computer, he renamed it: the Single Bullet Fact. That very questionable computer graphic has been effectively attacked at least five times: by Bob Harris, by Pat Speer, by Milicent Cranor, by Dave Mantik and by John Orr. (For the Harris demonstration, click here and for the Speer version, click here)
Around the same time in the film, Holland tells the audience, well the Warren Commission was not perfect and we should be skeptical. But saying the murder of Kennedy was a coup d’etat, that is just going too far. This from a man who was responsible for one of the very worst documentaries ever assembled on the JFK case. One which was not even supported by some of the backers of the Commission. And according to Speer, Holland likely knew the main thesis was faulty before the show aired. (Click here for details)
Oliver Stone gets mentioned, for instance by former Motion Picture Association of America president Jack Valenti, who violently objected to the film, calling it a “monstrous charade.” Michael Beschloss says that Stone created myths. Since everything Stone presented about the Vietnam War in 1991 turned out to be accurate, those two statements are understandable, for Valenti was in the White House working for LBJ as he implemented the first escalations after Kennedy’s death. In 1997, Beschloss tried to dispute Stone on the Vietnam War in his first book on LBJ called Taking Charge. Unfortunately for him, at the end of that year, the Assassination Records Review Board declassified 800 pages of documents which proved Stone was correct on this issue. (New York Times, 12/23/97, “Kennedy Had a Plan for Early Exit in Vietnam”) And as Stone shows in the film JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, LBJ was fully aware of Kennedy’s exit plan, disagreed with it, and consciously worked to reverse it.
Ruth mentions Stone again and says that celebrated film director never tried to talk to her during the making of the film JFK.
Stone seems to contradict her in the film. And when I asked him about this, he stated he did try and talk to her and later added, “You can take that to the bank.” (Email and phone conversations, 6/6 and 6/8/22)
IV
The film closes with three tantalizing areas of controversy. The first is the so-called “Walker note.” This was allegedly a set of directions left by Oswald for his wife in the wake of his attempted shooting of General Edwin Walker. There is a big problem with this: the shooting happened in April. Oswald was never even considered a suspect until after the Kennedy assassination, over 7 months later. At that point, as if by magic, two things happened.
First, the FBI turned the original bullet, a steel colored 30.06, into a copper coated 6.5 mm projectile. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 49; DPD General Offense report of 4/10/63) Needless to say, that 30.06 projectile would not be fired with the Oswald Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 rifle. Secondly, Ruth Paine transported the Walker note to Marina through a book she sent via the Secret Service. This is the note the Secret Service was so suspicious of that they thought she wrote it. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 203)
But it’s even worse than that. The best witness in the Walker case that summer was Kirk Coleman. Coleman said he ran out when he heard the shot. He saw two men escaping the scene in their cars. Neither of the men looked like Oswald and, according to the Warren Commission, Oswald could not drive. (McKnight, p. 57) Coleman was never called as a witness by the Commission. That is how important the Walker note was.
As mentioned above, both Ruth Paine and Priscilla Johnson produced evidence that Oswald had been in Mexico City. This was after the official searches of the Paine household. In fact, with Johnson, this went on until September—10 months after the first searches. (Mark Lane, Plausible Denial, pp. 66–67) Even members of the Commission—like Richard Russell—felt this was over the top and it raised more questions than it answered. In fact, there is an internal problem with the “Oswald letter” that Ruth took from her desk secretary. Namely, Oswald likely would not have known that a certain person in the Cuban embassy had been rotated out and replaced by someone else, which is what he wrote about in his alleged letter. (Click here for details) In fact, due to some very good work by David Josephs, among others, many critics do not think Oswald went to Mexico City. (Click here for details)
One last point about the Mexico City letter. Carol Hewett wrote that it was when Ruth Paine decided to move her furniture that Ruth actually took the letter. (Probe, Vol. 4 No. 3, p. 27) Ruth appears to say that in the film also. Chris Newton, due to some insightful observations, raises the most fundamental questions about this story, namely, that the furniture was not really moved. That, in reality, it stayed where it originally was. If Chris is correct about this, at a minimum, what it seems to mean is that Ruth wanted a pretext and landmark to pick up that letter. I cannot begin to describe Newton’s work in a synoptic form. I can only advise the interested reader to please go through this attached thread. (Click here for details)
Finally, the impression left by Ruth about her picking up Marina from New Orleans and taking her to Irving, was that it was more or less made by serendipity. Yet, during her cross country trip, the FBI discovered that she had talked about it well in advance to others she had visited, presenting it like a fait accompli. (Probe, Vol. 3 No. 4, p. 15)
And related to this, in some very interesting work by Tom Gram, it appears that Oswald was getting mail at Ruth’s Irving address in late July of 1963. (Email communication of June 22, 2022) And, in fact, Marina had also signed a transfer document to Ruth’s home in May. Gram writes that Ruth likely encouraged this on the grounds that it would ensure she would not miss anything. (Click here for details)
Max Good has done a creditable job in making this film. He has raised the correct questions and raised them in a fair and adroit way, giving both sides time to mount their arguments. He has done it all in a skillful manner, considering the budget constraints he worked under. He deserves kudos for his difficult travail and the public should extend him the courtesy of watching his film. It is overdue, but still it is the first of its kind. If you were unaware of the questions, you will be surprised. If you were aware, you will be pleased that someone finally placed them in the pictorial public domain.
Film-maker Max Good has spent several years working on a film about Ruth and Michael Paine and what their precise relationship was to the assassination of President John Kennedy. Although I have some reservations about it, it is worth watching and I encourage our readers to do so.
One of the most puzzling aspects about it is this: Why did it take almost 60 years for anyone to make a film on such a rich, relevant, and interesting topic? Perhaps because there are no references to either Paine in the indexes of Harold Weisberg’s book Whitewash, Edward Epstein’s Inquest, or Josiah Thompson’s Six Seconds in Dallas.
Of the first generation of critics, Sylvia Meagher’s book devotes by far the most pages to the Paines. Perhaps, we should quote her overall impression of Ruth Paine in order to place Max’s film in perspective:
Ruth Paine…is a complex personality, despite her rather passive façade…Some examples from her testimony show a predisposition against Oswald and a real or pretended friendliness toward the FBI and other Establishment institutions, which should not be overlooked in evaluating her role in the case…Mrs. Paine is sometimes a devious person, and her testimony must be evaluated in that light. (Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 217)
But it was really Jim Garrison who first tried to place the Paines under the microscope. For example, he was interested in the family ties of Ruth, specifically who her sister Sylvia worked for. In fact, he questioned Ruth about this point during Ruth’s appearance before the New Orleans grand jury. To put it mildly, Ruth replied in a rather non-responsive manner, a point we shall examine later.
Ruth and Michael Paine spent, by far, the most time on the witness stand for the Warren Commission. According to Walt Brown, the combined total questions they answered was over six thousand. In fact, Ruth was so eager to answer questions, she even volunteered areas of examination that she thought the Commission had bypassed. For instance, as Albert Jenner was about to close his questioning of her on March 21, 1964, Ruth interjected with:
Ruth: You have not asked me yet if I had seen anything of a note purported to be written by Lee at the time of the attempt on Walker. And I might just recount for you that, if it is of any importance…
Jenner: Yes, I wish you would…Tell me all you know about it. (WC Vol. 9, pp. 393–94)
As we shall see, a major problem with the Paines is this: they surfaced evidence of things Oswald did which were in fact, dubious acts. One would be the supposed Walker shooting, another would be Oswald’s alleged journey to Mexico City. Looked at with the perspective, we have today—after the work of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)—the implicative nature of these events is rendered suspect. Therefore, the fact that the Paines were part of finding evidence that incriminated Oswald—in events that perhaps did not occur—this should merit some notice. In fact, 5 days after she delivered the Walker Note to the Secret Service—in Marina Oswald’s book—Ruth was visited by two Secret Service agents. They were actually returning her the note, since they thought it was from her. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 203)
It is surprising to juxtapose the star billing the Commission gave the Paines with the fact that neither the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) nor the ARRB called them in for questioning. It is, perhaps, a bit disturbing. For during and after the days of the ARRB, a whole wave of information created a new data plateau on the Paines. The parties who were largely responsible for this new information were author George Michael Evica and researchers Carol Hewett, Barbara La Monica, and Steve Jones. Evica wrote a book, A Certain Arrogance, which dealt with the Paines and their religious background. Before that, Hewett, LaMonica, and Jones wrote a series of essays on the couple for Probe magazine. We will be referring to both in this review.
II
The way this reviewer got involved with the matter was that I was the publisher of Probe magazine when Hewett, LaMonica, and Jones wrote their essays. I thought their work was new and interesting. Author Thomas Mallon was so dismayed by their work that he wrote a book contesting it. (Mrs. Paine’s Garage, 2002) The writing trio began their series with a truism: “Ruth and Michael Paine…are among the most significant, yet least studied, of the figures surrounding the Kennedy assassination.” (Probe, Vol. 3 No. 4 p. 14) After reading their work, this was an understatement. The three were responsible for a set of eight essays which one can reference on this site.
A provocative point Carol conveyed dealt with Ruth’s so-called discovery of Lee Oswald’s letter to the Russian embassy, which he wrote at her home over Memorial Day weekend, 1963. In her testimony before the Commission, Ruth tried to explain why she took the rather remarkable step of picking the letter up, hand copying it, and eventually giving it to the FBI. She said that as she glanced at the letter, the first sentence contained a lie and she was insulted by Oswald using her typewriter to do such a thing. But if one buys the official story, which Ruth does, the first line of the letter, about Oswald visiting a Russian diplomat in Mexico City, was not a lie. Commission lawyer Albert Jenner understood that this made for a serious problem. He (wisely) decided to go off the record. Jenner knew they had to patch over Ruth’s story. (Probe, Vol. 4 No. 3, p. 17)
Throughout that series, the authors exposed things like this to the light of day. One more example will suffice. There had always been a question as to why the relationship between Ruth and Marina Oswald ended after the assassination. When Marina testified before the New Orleans Grand Jury, she addressed this. As we know, Marina was detained by the Secret Service for weeks afterwards. She told the jury, “I was advised by the Secret Service not to be connected with her (Ruth Paine)…She was sympathizing with the CIA.” When assistant Andrew Sciambra pursued that line, he asked her, “In other words, you were left with the distinct impression that she was in some way connected to the CIA?” The one word reply was, “Yes.” (Probe Vol. 7 No. 3, p. 3) Was this the reason the Secret Service returned the so-called Walker Note to Ruth? (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 203)
The separation of Ruth from Marina after Kennedy’s murder is a good way to introduce one of the most intriguing and compelling aspects of Max Good’s film. Because as we know, prior to Ruth Paine becoming so inseparable from Marina, the person who escorted the Oswalds around Dallas/Fort Worth was George DeMohrenschildt. As Max asks Ruth in the film: Why would a White Russian be so interested in a Communist? Ruth replies that this is a good question.
We actually know why. Near the end of his life, DeMohrenschildt stated that, on his own, he would have never come near the Oswalds. J. Walton Moore, chief of the CIA station in Dallas, asked him to do so. (DiEugenio, p. 194) George, sometimes called the Baron, arranged a gathering of the White Russian community with the Oswalds in late February of 1963. From that gathering, Ruth arranged a one-on-one meeting with Marina. Approximately three weeks after that meeting, April 7th, Ruth composed a letter asking Marina to move in with her. Kind of fast? (Probe, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 14)
As described in the film by myself and Peter Scott, around this time, George left for Haiti, had a briefing in the DC area with the CIA and military intelligence, and then had about $300,000 deposited into his account. (James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 168) As I ask in the film: Was this for services rendered? We will never know, since after he was subpoenaed by the HSCA, the Baron was either killed or took his own life by shotgun blast.
One of the strongest parts of the film is the segue from DeMohrenschildt to Priscilla Johnson. Because after the (likely) forced cut off between Ruth and Marina, Johnson entered the picture—and she stayed there for a long time, like 13 years. Priscilla always denied she was with the CIA. She even threatened to sue Jerry Policoff over this. It’s a good thing she did not, because as Max shows in the film, the ARRB pretty much sealed the deal on her. He shows the documents which categorize her as a “witting collaborator,” meaning that she did not need to be employed by them; they could rely on her to write sympathetic stories anyway. (See also, John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pp. 279–82)
As the film shows, you have one CIA asset—the Baron—escorting the Oswalds around Dallas/Fort Worth upon their return from the USSR. You had another—Johnson—picking up Marina after the assassination and becoming her personal escort. And when Priscilla finally wrote her book about the Oswalds, Marina and Lee, it completely backed the Warren Report.
In the interim, you had Ruth and Michael Paine. Further, both Ruth and Priscilla were producing evidence Oswald was in Mexico City, when, in fact, Marina initially insisted to the Secret Service he was not. (DiEugenio, p. 203; Armstrong, p. 696, Secret Service report of Charles Kunkel, 12/3/63) And many researchers today—including the authors of the HSCA’s Mexico City Report—agree he wasn’t.
The film makes this point about parallels rather subtly; I have made it more bluntly.
III
Although it is not part of his ostensible subject, Good does a nice job in penciling in the background to his story: namely the presidency of John Kennedy. As many have, he notes that some of JFK’s policies fostered opposition from people in high places, for example the Bay of Pigs and the Missile Crisis. But people like the Paines and Priscilla Johnson have always used the old standby that, for those examining the case, it is hard to accept that a little man like Oswald could single handedly erase a great figure like Kennedy. The subtext being that this is what fulfilled Oswald as a large figure in history, for example Michael voices this mantra early in the narrative. But if that was so, then why did Oswald never claim credit for the assassination? On the contrary, as the film shows, he loudly stated he was a patsy.
At this point, Ruth says that the Warren Report always made sense to her. Priscilla tops this with an astonishing comment: she says that conspiracy theories have done more damage to the country than the death of JFK did. In the film, it is made clear that when the police arrived at the Paine household, looked for a weapon, and did not find one in the rolled up blanket Marina thought it was in, this shocked Mrs. Paine. It started her down the road to incriminating Oswald in the press.
But it was Ruth who picked up Marina from New Orleans, packed the car, and drove her to Irving to stay with her, thus now accomplishing what she was trying to do since April. If there was a rifle amid the belongings, why did neither she nor her husband notice it while packing and then unpacking the station wagon? They missed it twice?
One of the valuable contributions the film makes is the outlining of the curious family ties that the Paines had. (For a good summary see Evica, pp. 364–65) As noted, Ruth’s father, William Avery Hyde, and her brother-in-law, John Hoke, worked for US AID, which was closely tied to the CIA. As Greg Parker discovered, her sister, Sylvia Hyde Hoke, worked on a joint CIA/Air Force project. (Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War, pp. 266–68) One of the most pungent moments in the film is when Max calls Sylvia and asks for an interview. She instantly hangs up on him. Michael Paine’s mother, Ruth Forbes Young, was best of friends with Mary Bancroft. Bancroft was both an agent and girlfriend of CIA Director Allen Dulles. As author Bill Simpich notes in the film: could Mary have noted to Allen the utility of the Quaker/ Unitarian couple in performing surveillance duties on the left?
In fact, this is the theme of Evica’s book: how Allen Dulles used these religious groups—Quakers and Unitarians—for espionage work, for example Noel Field. And Bancroft knew about this. (Evica, p. 116) Evica ended his book by suggesting that Allen Dulles may have helped secure for the Paines a sterling character recommendation from a wealthy couple at the beginning of the FBI’s inquiry into the JFK murder. This was from Frederick Osborne Jr. and his wife Nancy. (A Certain Arrogance, pp. 250–58) Allen had worked with Frederick’s father in the National Committee for a Free Europe and also in the CIA’s Crusade for Freedom. And there are examples of surveillance activities by the couple.
Sue Wheaton appears in the film. She met Ruth in Nicaragua in 1990, after the election of Violetta Chamorro. Ruth was with Pro-Nica, a project out of St. Petersburg. This was a more conservative strain of the Quaker movement. Wheaton said that Ruth told her that their Quaker group was funded primarily by “6 wealthy, conservative individuals from the Southeast.”(Probe, Vol. 3 No. 5, p. 9) Wheaton also noted that Ruth’s group ran a sawmill project on the east coast of Nicaragua, a Contra holdout and nexus of CIA based activities. Ruth showed up at Wheaton’s council meetings of the anti-Contra group, of which Pro-Nica was not a member. Wheaton got the distinct impression Ruth was taking down information about individuals and groups in attendance. Ruth “studied the bulletin board there, copying everything on it…Also she made reference to people she knew in the U. S . Embassy.” (ibid) Wheaton later added that Ruth would show up with two cohorts and these two men would make tape recordings and take pictures. Ruth’s plea was they were authorized by the Nicaragua Network to take photos, but when this was checked, the claim turned out to be ersatz.
In the spring of 1963, Michael Paine was engaging students from Southern Methodist University in debate and discussion “about communism in general and Cuba in particular.” During these debates, it was Michael who took the role of a Castro advocate. He even bragged about being familiar with an actual communist, “an ex-Marine who had recently returned to the States with a Russian wife,” an obvious reference to Lee Harvey Oswald. Michael also encouraged these students to go to local commie cell gatherings. (Probe, Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 14)
This last point leads us to one of the most provocative pieces of evidence concerning the Paines. Did Detective Buddy Walthers find the notes Michael kept of these meetings? These would be the file folders found at their home with information on communist, Castro sympathizers. They were picked up by Walthers on the weekend of the assassination and he made a contemporaneous report about them. (Armstrong, pp. 879–80) Over time, they were made to disappear, until they ended up in the Warren Commission “Speculations and Rumors” section. One of the most interesting parts of the film is that it appears that Ruth has employed, or is good friends with, a veteran of the Defense Investigative Service. Max talked to this gentleman and he tracked down one of the (now) empty file folder boxes. He informs Max that Ruth does a lot of studying on the Kennedy case.
There is one other example of this possible activity that could have been used. Cliff Shasteen was a barber who cut Oswald’s hair a few times in the fall of 1963. Cliff said that Oswald was accompanied twice by a 14 year old boy who did not get his hair cut or say anything. But strangely, this boy appeared by himself a few days before the assassination. Once there, he began to rant about the benefits of one world government and the plight of “have nots” in society. Shasteen was taken aback, because he knew he was not a local kid. The youth never returned. (Click here for details)
Greg Parker did a fine job of inquiring into this odd, but notable occurrence. Greg deduced that the description fit future actor Bill Hootkins perfectly. Who had access to both Hootkins and Oswald? Ruth Paine tutored Hootkins in Russian that fall. Bill’s mother told the Bureau that Ruth would pick her son up and take him to St. Mark’s—an upper class, private school where Ruth worked at—for lessons. Hootkins’ contact information was in Ruth’s address book. Did Ruth take young Bill to Irving instead?
Robert Buzzanco is a history professor at the University of Houston. He is also a co-host—along with Scott Parkin—of a podcast called Green and Red. On January 12, 2022, Buzzanco had the 94-year-old Noam Chomsky—looking every year of his age—on his show to reply to the treatment of Vietnam in Oliver Stone’s documentary JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Chomsky could not help but make some general comments about Kennedy. In this regard, the linguist was his usual pompous and somewhat ludicrous self. At one point, he compared President Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. If Chomsky can show us where either of the latter supported Medicare, universal healthcare, and equal rights for African Americans in the sixties, I would be curious to read about it, because Kennedy did all three. The program then slipped into Rocky Horror Picture Show low camp: Chomsky tried to parallel Kennedy’s success to the conditions existing in Germany in the twenties. I wish I was kidding, but I’m not. The only way there is any resemblance is that the assassinations of that decade—JFK, Malcolm X, King and Robert Kennedy—led to the election of Richard Nixon, the premature end of an era of hope and aspiration, and a continuance of the war in Vietnam. I wish I could add that Buzzanco pointed out these absurd exaggerations. He didn’t. (For more on Chomsky, click here and here)
As the program went on, it became clear that Chomsky and Buzzanco had done zero research on the new evidence about the subject of Vietnam adduced by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) and presented in JFK Revisited. The pair was largely relying on what Chomsky had written, if you can believe it, back in the nineties in response to Stone’s film JFK. The pair actually ended up being worse than the MSM on the subject.
How? Because back in December of 1997, the Board declassified the records of the May 1963, SecDef meeting in Hawaii. This was a regular meeting that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had with representatives of each branch of the American government in Saigon: State, CIA, Pentagon, etc. Those declassified documents were so direct and compelling they convinced the New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer that, at the time of his death, Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam. (Probe Magazine, Vol. 5 No. 3, p. 19) It should be noted that the NY Times story was written by MSM stalwart Tim Wiener. But yet, Chomsky was still using his old excuse that Kennedy was only getting out if Saigon was winning. This was ridiculously illogical back in the nineties, because, as John Newman pointed out in his book JFK and Vietnam, Kennedy understood that the Pentagon was rigging their numbers in order to make it appear Saigon was winning. Newman demonstrates this awareness in the book. He even named the two men who cooked the books: General Paul Harkins and Air Force Colonel Joseph Winterbottom. (pp. 185–245, 2017 edition)
The thesis of Newman’s book is that Kennedy was going to use this optimistic information to hoist the Pentagon on their own petard. Revealing on this point is that Kennedy told McGeorge Bundy’s assistant Michael Forrestal that America had about a hundred to one chance of winning in Vietnam. He then said that when he returned from Dallas:
I want to start a complete and very profound review of how we got into this country, what we thought we were doing, and what we now think we can do. I even want to think about whether or not we should be there. (James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 183)
The other point that is important in this regard is that, after it became clear what JFK was doing—and also what the new president wanted—the intelligence reports began to change. They now became pessimistic and also backdated to early November, and even before. (Click here; see also The Third Decade Vol. 9 No. 6 pp. 8–10; Newman, 2017 edition, p. 438)
Is not the point made with those two pieces of data? In fact, as historian Aaron Good has stated, when one combines the evidence, this “profound review” suggests the genesis of the Pentagon Papers. By 1967, it was fairly clear that President Johnson’s escalation and direct intervention was not going to work. Robert McNamara was still Secretary of Defense. Realizing that Johnson’s strategy of air and infantry escalation had failed, he had become quite emotionally disturbed. In 1966, fearing he was going to be attacked at Harvard, he escaped a hostile crowd through a tunnel. His son had draped a Viet Cong flag across his bedroom. He would rage against the war’s futility and then turn to the window and literally cry into the curtains. As his secretary said, that happened frequently. (Steve Sheinkin, Most Dangerous, p. 98, p. 121, p. 126) It’s a logical deduction that McNamara realized what had happened between Kennedy and Johnson and he was now expiating his guilt by exposing the secret history of the war through the Pentagon Papers, which is likely why he kept this 18-month effort a secret from Johnson. And he had no objection to Daniel Ellsberg giving the papers to, first, the New York Times and, then, the Washington Post.
In fact, in JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, Stone plays a tape from February of 1964 in which Johnson admits that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was implementing Kennedy’s withdrawal policy. Johnson states that he knew this and he stewed in silence, because as Vice President he could not do anything about it, at least at that time. Somehow both Chomsky and Buzzanco missed this.
But that is not what I really wish to address here. On that podcast, near the end, Buzzanco implies that somehow, there was no information in the documentary about Lee Harvey Oswald that was not in the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) volumes. I could barely believe what I was hearing, but I really think he meant it. If that is so, then Buzzanco:
Could not have read the HSCA volumes
Did not pay any attention at all to the documentary.
This from a man who pontificates to the listener that he knows what he is talking about and can be trusted to set the record straight.
One will search in vain through the 12 volumes of the HSCA for any annex on Oswald’s relationship with the CIA and/or FBI at any time in his career. In the film, we have John Newman and Jeff Morley talking about this issue. To mention just four things they brought up that are not in those volumes:
That the liaison for the HSCA with the CIA also secretly handled the Cuban exile who tried to frame Oswald after the assassination for killing Kennedy for Cuba.
That the FBI scraped off the address of 544 Camp Street from the Oswald flyers before they were sent to HQ. That address housed the offices of Guy Banister and also the CIA-backed Cuban Revolutionary Council.
The FBI took Oswald’s flash warning off his file in the first week of October 1963. This meant the Secret Service was unlikely to remove him from the motorcade route. That warning had been on the file for 4 years prior.
A similar thing occurred at CIA, in order to lower Oswald’s profile in advance of the assassination.
In fact, one will only see the last point in the so called Lopez Report. This was the HSCA’s classified report on Oswald and Mexico City, which was only released by the ARRB, a body which Buzzanco refers to only in passing, discounting it as he does. The middle two points were also only discovered as a result of that Board’s work. So just what is Buzzanco talking about in regards to the HSCA? He clearly has not done his homework on the subject.
In fact, the only systematic, direct work done on Oswald and the CIA by the HSCA was not declassified until after the Board went out of existence. This was in 2005. I am referring to the scintillating work of HSCA researcher Betsy Wolf and it was discovered by British researcher Malcolm Blunt. (I would like Buzzanco to prove to me he knew of either person before he opened up his mouth on the subject.) Back in 1977–78, Wolf was the main HSCA researcher on the Oswald file at CIA. She discovered that there were two odd things about this file. First, there was no 201 file opened on Oswald for 13 months after his defection, even though the CIA knew about the defection within days, and had accumulated many papers on the man in just one month.
The second thing she discovered was that the documents on Oswald did not go to the place where they should have gone, namely the Soviet Russia Division. Instead, they went to the Office of Security, which, as Malcolm found out, almost guaranteed there would be no 201 file opened on him.
These anomalies disturbed Wolf. She decided to interview officers in the CIA who would know about such matters. She discovered that there was an unofficial Agency rule which said, once there were five documents on a subject, a 201 file should be opened. This was clearly and blatantly disregarded in the Oswald case. But it was not until late in 1978, when the HSCA was about to close down, that she found her Holy Grail about the Oswald file and its weird path. At that time, she interviewed Robert Gambino, who was the present Chief of Security at CIA. He told her that it did not matter how many documents came in on a subject or if they were stamped to a certain division. If someone had already arranged with the Office of Mail Logistics, those papers would go to the agreed upon destination. (Click here for that information) I would like for Buzzanco to show me where Gambino’s information is located in the HSCA volumes. I think I will have a very long wait, since, from what I can see, Wolf’s memos were not typed into memoranda form.
When one combines the above information with what JFK: Destiny Betrayed reveals about another ARRB discovery, then we learn much, much more about who Oswald was. The four-hour version of the film, released this month, has an interview with ARRB Military Records Analyst Doug Horne. He revealed to Stone that in Oswald’s last quarter in the Marines, he was not being paid by that organization, but likely by someone else. The combination of these two new important pieces of information—the bizarre file routing, and the source of funds—would all but clinch the fact that Oswald was an intelligence project before he left for Russia. Buzzanco will not find that information in the HSCA volumes.
I won’t go into all the incredibly important data that Oliver Stone unveiled to millions of people around the world in his film and which directly impacts on the facts of Kennedy’s death. How else does one explain that CE 399, the Magic Bullet, got to FBI HQ before it was delivered there. But on top of that, the FBI declared that the agent who dropped it off placed his initials on that bullet. The film proves they are not there.
The film all but proves that CE 399 was never fired in Dealey Plaza that day and would never be admitted into a court of law since, as Stone said on the Joe Rogan Show—in front of 2.5 million people—it has no chain of custody. Buzzanco and Chomsky ignored this key evidentiary issue, because, as David Mantik states in the film, in all previous inquiries CE 399 was foundational to the case against Oswald.
As Doug Horne says in the two-hour version of the film, the official autopsy photographer John Stringer denied under oath that he took the pictures of Kennedy’s brain at the Archives. He did this on at least five grounds. The first two being that he never used the type of film utilized in the photos. Second, he never used the optical processing method to produce the photos, which was a press pack. (For more details see Horne’s Inside the ARRB Vol. 3, p. 810) With Stringer’s denial, these official autopsy photographs would not be admitted into court. And they also indicate, as we show in the film, that the brain in evidence today cannot be Kennedy’s. The fact this subterfuge took place at a military controlled medical center, with many generals and admirals in control, betrays a high-level conspiracy—without even dealing with the mysterious flight plan of General Curtis Le May that day, which is also described in the recently released long version of the film.
How can men who attest to be leading intellectuals of the left do such incredibly sloppy and irresponsible work? This critique could have easily been twice as long as it is. And it would have been just as pungent and pointed. Buzzanco and Chomsky remind me of what psychologists term a folie a’ deux. It spiraled into a collapsing domino effect, since neither man made any attempt to check the other. There was never one ounce of effort placed on fact checking on matters they knew nothing about, which was a lot.
This has always been my problem with what I call the doctrinaire/structuralist left. In an odd way, their aims meet the MSM; and the underpinnings of both are exposed as being built on quicksand, because they both value expedience over facts, but for different aims.
Addendum: In another program one week later, Buzzanco apparently could not get anyone to interview him, so he had Parkin act as his line reader for what amounted to an Orwellian “60 Minutes Hate” against President Kennedy. Like Buzzanco with Chomsky, Parkin did not cross check his colleague once. Buzzanco did issue a debate challenge, which I accept, but not on his program, since that would help aid his viewership. He can contact me and we can arrange an agreed upon venue with an agreed upon agenda that follows the subject lines of JFK Revisited.
In a previous essay, I tried to summarize the worldwide reaction to Oliver Stone’s documentary JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. (Click here) By far, it is the widest and strongest reaction to any documentary ever made on the JFK case. The fact that it created such a hubbub clearly disturbed certain past critics of Stone, for example, Noam Chomsky and Gerald Posner. It also disturbed certain mainstays of the MSM, like Tim Weiner and Max Boot. I ended that discussion with what may be the worst outburst about the documentary yet, the one by James Kirchick at the digital zine Air Mail.
As I noted in that overall review, it’s clear that none of these writers wish to deal with the specific points of new evidence made possible by the Assassination Records Review Board in the film. This evidence had never been presented to a worldwide audience in broadcast form. Weiner, Boot, Chomsky, Posner, and Kirchick never even mentioned that body. Yet this was the reason for the making of the documentary! Which is why it features interviews with three employees of the Board: Chairman John Tunheim, Deputy Chair Tom Samoluk, and Military Records analyst Doug Horne.
Weiner and Kirchick dodged the problem of confronting the declassified evidence in the film by using two escape routes. First, they ignored the matters addressed, like official photographer John Stringer denying he took the photos of Kennedy’s brain at the National Archives. The second means of escape was to use discredited writers to smear the documentary and not reveal why they had earned derision in the critical community.
As I noted at length, both Weiner and Kirchick utilized the discredited work of Max Holland to somehow impute that JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass was based on some sort of KGB disinformation campaign. This is so stupid it is actually ludicrous and I showed why. (For a lengthier reply, click here)
The real reasons that New Orleans DA Jim Garrison formed his ideas about Oswald as an intelligence agent were his Russian language test in the service—suggesting he was being groomed as a false defector—and the address stamped on his New Orleans pro-Castro flyers, which was 544 Camp Street. (See Garrison’s On the Trail of the Assassins, pp. 22, 24) This had been the home of both the CIA’s Cuban Revolutionary Council and the FBI/CIA connected Guy Banister, who had been involved in both the Bay of Pigs project and Operation Mongoose. (William Davy, Let Justice be Done, pp. 25–28) In his book, the DA clearly depicts both these events occurring way before the arrest of Clay Shaw who, as Bill Davy notes in his volume, Garrison had first called in for questioning in December of 1966. All of these events—the discovery of the Russian test, Garrison visiting 544 Camp Street, the suspicions about Shaw—occurred months before the Paese Sera article about Permindex, and Shaw’s service on the board, was published in Italy. Garrison was correct on his ideas about Bansiter, 544 Camp Street, and Oswald. In JFK Revisited, we have Jeff Morley and John Newman discuss the attempts by the CIA and FBI to disguise the provocative activities going on in New Orleans that summer. Holland’s redbaiting dodge of this evidence shows another reason why he is not credible inside the JFK critical community. But that does not disqualify him from being used in moments of desperation by the MSM.
Another discredited source, used especially by James Kirchick, was Fred Litwin. Litwin has been taken over the coals so many times it’s kind of embarrassing, but somehow, with a straight face, Kirchick trotted him out. Kirchick then criticized JFK Revisited for something that is not in the film , namely the homosexuality of Clay Shaw and David Ferrie. What we did was show the connections of these men to the CIA and how Shaw lied about that connection. This Kirchick diversion is inherited from Litwin (and his partner Alecia Long). And, like Weiner with Holland, Kirchick ignored past demolitions of Litwin that clearly show he is not credible on the facts of the case. (Click here for one and here for another)
This practice of using sources with serious journalistic and academic liabilities would not be allowed in any advanced historical studies or journalism class. But ever since the MSM decided to side with the Warren Commission back in 1964 and when CBS violated all of its Standards and Practices for its 1967 four part special, it’s par for the course in the JFK case. (Click here for that CBS story)
For Kirchick to use Litwin as a source is simply inexcusable for any journalist or historian. In addition to the exposures noted above, this author has shown in detail why the Canadian alt/right media maestro should never enter into any debate on the subject. (Click here and here and here and here and here)
Litwin’s self-admitted role model is the rather lamentable David Horowitz. Litwin tries to run away from this fact today, but it is there to see in his first book, Conservative Confidential. Does Kirchick know this? Would it matter?
In the essays I noted above, we can see the factual havoc that Litwin’s admiration for Horowitz leads to. Some examples among a universe of them:
Quoting Sylvia Meagher, Litwin writes that Kennedy’s motorcade route was not altered.
This has been disproven by Vince Palamara in his book Survivor’s Guilt. (pp. 104–05)
Litwin writes that the motorcade had to turn on Elm Street to take an exit on to the Stemmons Freeway which would take it to the Trade Mart.
This was disproven by both Palamara and the House Select Committee on Assassinations. (HSCA, Volume 11, p. 522; Palamara, p. 109)
In his first book on the JFK case, Litwin wrote that Jim DiEugenio had no testimony or paperwork to prove fraud with CE 399, and its chain of custody can be proven.
This is not just false but it’s a case of Litwin practicing libel, since he had my book right in front of him which showed, with testimony and paperwork, the opposite. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today pp.89–92, 247–49)
Litwin writes that Clay Shaw’s lawyers got no help from the CIA or FBI.
This was completely disproven by the ARRB declassifications. Shaw’s lawyers lied about this until the end of their lives. (See James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, pp. 264–65, 269–83, 293, 294)
In his book on Jim Garrison, Litwin features a picture of Harry Connick Sr., the DA who succeeded Jim Garrison and he says he used him as a source.
What Litwin leaves out is shocking. According to investigator Gary Raymond, Connick failed to indict Father Dino Cinel for child abuse when Gary had the evidence to do so. Gary had to go to the media to force Connick to act. (Probe Magazine Vol. 2 No. 5)
Litwin praised Hugh Aynseworth in the most fulsome terms for his work on the JFK case in his book on Jim Garrison.
Aynseworth is a proven FBI informant. According to Joan Mellen Aynesworth tried to bribe Shaw trial witness John Manchester with a CIA job. Sheriff Manchester replied, “I advise you leave the area, otherwise, I’ll cut you a new asshole.” (Destiny Betrayed, pp. 249–55)
In his chapter on the Clay Shaw trial in his Garrison book, Litwin never mentioned the testimony of Kennedy autopsy physician Pierre Finck.
This is astonishing, because, for the first time, Finck’s testimony showed that Kennedy’s autopsy was not controlled by the pathologists, but by the military men there in the gallery, who guided them in doing what some have called the worst autopsy in history. (Ibid, pp. 300–04)
Litwin implies that Garrison was allowed to pick his own grand juries.
More nonsense. As anyone can find out by reading a law journal, in Louisiana grand juries are chosen from voter rolls. (Louisiana Law Review Vol. 17, No. 4, p. 682)
In his book Conservative Confidential, Litwin attempts to hold up as praiseworthy the reactions of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and President George W. Bush, after the 9–11 attacks.
That book was published in 2015. By this time, everyone knew that Giuliani had placed the city’s emergency response headquarters in WTC Building 7, and that W’s reason for the Iraq invasion, WMD, was false. Yet 650,000 innocent Iraqis had died because of that lie.
Perhaps the worst thing that Litwin ever penned was in his first JFK book. There he wrote that the authors of the Warren Report were honorable men who conducted an honest investigation.
In this day and age to write or imply that the likes of John McCloy, Allen Dulles, Jerry Ford, and J. Edgar Hoover were honorable men is just this side of science fiction. For one example, just read Kai Bird’s book on McCloy. Anyone who could help the Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie escape to South America and then deny it or never feel any remorse for his pushing through the Japanese internment in World War II, that person is anything but honorable. And therefore would have little difficulty in covering up the death of President Kennedy.
This could go to an endless length. That is how bad a writer and scholar Litwin is, but evidently Kirchick did not give a damn about Litwin’s credibility. In fact, Kirchick even threw Joe Rogan under the bus for having Oliver Stone on his show. Stone did not say one thing about CV 19 while he was on the program.
When one understands all that, plus the fact that JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass does not deal with anyone’s sexuality, one begins to understand what Kirchick is up to and why he borrows from Litwin. By creating a smoke and mirrors distraction, Kirchick can sidestep what does exist in the film. That is the revelations of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) which completely overturn the verdict of the Warren Commission. The film leaves no doubt that the Commission was wrong in its rogue prosecution of Oswald. A prosecution which did not even grant the defendant a lawyer. What the film deals with are the forensic facts of the JFK case, for example, Kennedy’s autopsy and the ballistics evidence, which is how one determines guilt in a homicide. As former prosecutor Bob Tanenbaum says in the film, because of all the problems with the evidence, one could not convict Oswald in any court in America.
The murder of President Kennedy had a tremendous impact on the course of history, both in the USA and abroad. As we show in this film—and will show even more completely in the four-hour version, Destiny Betrayed—Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam at the time of his murder. We present evidence that Lyndon Johnson knew this and he consciously reversed Kennedy’s policy. LBJ then lied about what he had done. In the four-hour version, we make it clear through Professor Bradley Simpson and author Lisa Pease that Johnson also reversed Kennedy’s policy of friendship and aid to President Sukarno of Indonesia.
Those two Johnson reversals had horrendous effects. The latest tallies of total dead in Vietnam under American influence are at around 3.8 million. (See British Medical Journal 2008 study by Ziad Obermeyer) If one throws in the genocide that took place in Cambodia due to Richard Nixon’s invasion of the country, which one must, you can add in about 2 million. (Click here for details) The minimum who perished during the massacre of the PKI in Indonesia under Suharto is pegged at 500,000. (William Blum, The CIA: A Forgotten History, p. 217). JFK Revisited: Destiny Betrayed shows with authority that none of this would have happened under Kennedy.
Most people would find this information rather interesting. James Kirchick did not. He chose to write about an issue not in the film. It is then fair to characterize his article as a distraction from these important, some would say, epochal matters.
But this is what one expects from the MSM on the Kennedy case. About three months after the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission were published, in March of 1965, the first combat troops landed in Vietnam. By the end of the year, there were 170,000 of them in theater.
Under President Kennedy, there were none.
That is a pretty hefty issue to sidestep, but Kirchick does so with a completeness that is astonishing.
Post Script: I now extend to Kirchick the same offer I did to another unfounded critic of the documentary, namely Gerald Posner. I will offer to debate Mr. Kirchick at any venue in Los Angeles or San Francisco on the merits of the JFK case, the Warren Report, or either version of Oliver Stone’s documentary. We can arrange for the sponsors, the format, and recording apparatus. He can even bring Tim Wiener. I await his reply.
I’m enclosing the letter Jim DiEugenio and I wrote in response to Rolling Stone’s attack on our film, “JFK Revisited.”
—
Tim Weiner’s review of “JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass” suffers from “Russiagate” paranoia, as do many of his colleagues embedded in our Government-Media world, wherein the malevolent Russians seem to be responsible not only for the election of Trump, but the continuing sabotage of our cyber-infrastructures. Supposedly wanting their glorious Communist Empire back, they are prepared to invade both Ukraine and NATO countries. Good vs. Evil scenarios seem to work for most American people. But Weiner goes far afield when he includes “JFK” in his contempt for so-called “tinfoil-hatted fabricators” who have no reason to believe the Warren Commission cover-up.
Weiner has failed to update his tired angle on the assassination. In fact, the Russians were working successfully at a détente with JFK, leading to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. When he was killed, Russian hopes—and the hopes of many liberated regions of the world (Egypt, India, Indonesia, and Africa)—were smashed as the hardliners in our Government once again protected their interests.
He accuses Jim DiEugenio, the writer of the documentary, and myself of falling for Russia’s trickery in using an Italian newspaper to blame Allen Dulles for his involvement in a military coup to overthrow Charles de Gaulle in ’61. But we did not use this Italian newspaper. We used David Talbot’s books, “The Devil’s Chessboard” and “Brothers,” The London Observer, and Weiner’s employer at that time, The New York Times—as well as French newspapers L’Express and Le Monde and sources close to de Gaulle like André Malraux and Alain Peyrefitte to pinpoint the enmity of Dulles, working with the mutinous generals against the policies of de Gaulle in Algeria.
Nor did Jim Garrison base his ideas about Kennedy’s assassination on that same marginal Italian newspaper. He did so by investigating the things Lee Harvey Oswald did in the summer of ’63 in New Orleans and the people he associated with. Authors like Jeff Morley (“The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton”) and John Newman (“Oswald and the CIA”) have taken those discoveries further, and we interviewed both men in our film. Weiner does not mention either interview.
We largely relied on the database of documents that was released by the Assassination Records Review Board (1994–1998), which Weiner covered as a reporter for The New York Times, but did us no favors with his tepid interpretations of their work. We interviewed three technical experts who worked for that Board. And we display many documents the Board declassified. “JFK Revisited” is the first documentary to do this. We are not mystical or faith-based. We are data-based.
