Category: John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Original essays treating the assassination of John F. Kennedy, its historical and political context and aftermath, and the investigations conducted.

  • Creating the Oswald Legend – Part 5

    Creating the Oswald Legend – Part 5


    1. TIPPIT AND LBJ PREVENTED A WAR

    In the fall of 1963, President Kennedy had established back channel communications with Castro through journalist Lisa Howard and William Attwood, in order to open a secret dialogue with the Cuban leader. Kennedy used a second back channel, the French journalist Jean Daniel introduced to Kennedy by Attwood. When the CIA learned of these back channels, some officers felt Kennedy had excluded them from his decisions and that he was betraying their efforts and work. The word was passed down in Miami that Kennedy was preparing to begin talks with Castro. One of the first CIA officers who would have learned about it was James Angleton, who would have been alarmed. Angleton likely would have alerted CIA officers like Dave Morales and David Phillips, who would have spread the rumor in the exile community.

    Gaeton Fonzi interviewed Cuban exile Rolando Otero, who told him that there was a rumor circulating in certain areas of the exile community that “Kennedy was a Communist, he’s against us; he’s messing up the whole cause.”[1] Another exile, Felipe Vidal Santiago, had made similar remarks when interrogated by Cuban Intelligence, according to Fabian Escalante, Chief of Cuba’s G-2.[2] Escalante had also revealed that Cuban Intelligence had infiltrated a CIA connected exile group and a CIA officer had said to them in a secret meeting that took place in a safe house that “You must eliminate Kennedy.”[3]

    There is no way that foot soldiers like Santiago and Otero would have known about this sensitive information, originally known only to Kennedy, Castro, their confidants, and, perhaps, Dick Helms. Larry Hancock believes that they learned it from exiles like John Martino and Bernardo De Torres who had links to the CIA officers and their operations.

    John Martino was an exiled Cuban who worked in a Havana Casino owned by Santo Trafficante Jr. back in 1956. He was imprisoned in Cuba between 1959 and 1962. When he returned to the States, he became involved in the anti-Castro cause. He took part in the notorious Operation Tilt, he had both Mob and CIA connections. Later in life, he admitted to his business partner Fred Claasen that the anti-Castro Cubans put Oswald together and tried to frame him as a Castro assassin in a plot to murder President Kennedy. Those Cubans posed as Castro agents and it is more likely that Oswald played along to reveal their agenda as part of his mission to smoke out subversives and pro-Cubans. The plan was to fly him out of the country and kill him en route, possibly on his way to Cuba, in such a way that would prove Castro and Cuba were pulling Oswald’s strings.[4] Are there any evidence or indications that the anti-Castro Cubans were really planning to fly Oswald out of the States?

    Wayne January was a charter air service operator at Red Bird airport. On November 20, 1963, he was visited by a young couple looking to hire a small aircraft to fly to Mexico. January thought that the pair was asking peculiar questions and acting suspiciously, so he decided not to charter the plane to them. He also observed that there was a young man that stayed in the car the whole time. Later, he identified him as Lee Harvey Oswald.[5]

    The late Antonio Veciana described a plot to assassinate Castro in Chile that he thought was very similar to the Kennedy assassination. Veciana revealed that the plan involved planting fake documents and manipulated photographs on the assassin, to make him appear to be a Moscow Castro agent turned traitor. He would then be killed after Castro’s assassination.[6]

    If the plan to incriminate Oswald and Castro was so well planned, then what bungled the effort and prevented a military invasion of Cuba to avenge Kennedy’s death?

    There were two wild factors that the planners had not anticipated that neutralized their scheme. The first wild factor was officer J. D. Tippit’s murder, which made sure that Oswald would not be leaving the country as planned.

    The assassination of officer Tippit will not be explained in detail, since this is not the purpose of this essay. Joseph McBride’s book Into the Nightmare and James DiEugenio’s essay “The Tippit Case in the New Millenium” are two good sources to get a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding that murder case. However, this essay would concentrate on three police officers who were involved in the Tippit case and had probable CIA connections. These officers were Captain W. R. Westbrook, Sergeant Gerald Hill, and reserve officer Kenneth Croy.

    Croy’s actions that afternoon were bizarre. He was near Main Street and asked a policeman outside the Courthouse if he was needed to assist them with the investigation of the President’s murder. Croy claimed that the policeman replied that he was not needed; so he decided to go home. He heard on the radio that an unidentified officer was shot at 10th and Patton. Croy was likely the first policeman to get to the crime scene, the first to talk to a witness, and he also ”discovered” a wallet allegedly given to him by a civilian. Strangely enough, he never filed a report and never asked the name of the witness he talked to or the name of the person that gave him the wallet.[7]

    Captain Westbrook, the Chief of the Police Personnel Department, was at the TSBD when he heard on the radio that a police officer had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. He decided to go there to investigate a murder; which was odd since he was a personnel officer and not a homicide detective. In 1995, James Hosty revealed in his Assignment: Oswald a piece of very important information that was withheld from the Warren Commission and kept under wraps prior to Hosty revealing it. Hosty said that his colleague, FBI Agent Bob Barrett, who was present at Tippit’s murder scene, told him that Captain Westbrook asked him: “Have you ever heard of a guy named Lee Harvey Oswald?” Barrett said no. Westbrook then asked him, “How about Alek Hidell?”[8] Then Barrett said that he saw Westbrook holding and searching a wallet, which was supposed to be Oswald’s wallet. This wallet would link Oswald to Hidell and to the weapons that killed both Tippit and Kennedy. However, the Warren Commission gave a different version concerning the wallet: that it was found on Oswald after he was arrested at the Texas Theater. Westbrook’s “personnel” work was not over, since he heard on the radio that a suspect was seen entering the Texas Theater looking suspicious, without paying a ticket. So the personnel officer went there and witnessed the arrest of Oswald. He then gave the order to drive the suspect to the police station. So, the Chief of Personnel had managed to be present at the three major crime scenes: Dealey Plaza, 10th and Patton, and the Texas Theater. It was a remarkable work of sleuthing for a Personnel Officer.

    The third Officer who had the privilege to also be present at the three major crime scenes was Sergeant Gerald Hill, a member of the Patrol Division that was temporarily assigned to the Personnel Office, which meant that Hill was working under Captain Westbrook on November 22, 1963.

    Hill was the man who first reported on a radio call at 13:40 that the shells found at the Tippit crime scene were fired from a 38 automatic, not a 38 special. Later when testifying for the Warren Commission, he denied under oath that he made such a call; but twenty years later he admitted to Dale Myers that he made the call after all.[9] Hill had instructed Policeman J. M. Poe to mark the shells at the scene of the Tippit murder. But when the shells that Poe had marked, allegedly corresponding to Oswald’s 38 special, had no markings, Hill was nonplussed. He said the DPD was so clean that he could not imagine who could do something so dishonest.[10]

    When Hill returned from the Texas Theater, he sat down to write a report regarding Oswald’s arrest. Captain Westbrook informed him that Oswald was not just the suspect in Tippit’s murder, but also for President Kennedy’s assassination.[11]

    For a more detailed analysis about Gerald Hill’s actions during November 22, 1963, one should read Hasan Yusuf’s excellent essay “Gerald Hill and the Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald.”

    If patrolman Tippit had not been murdered, the police would probably not have gotten to Oswald so soon and if he had managed to escape in the manner John Martino described on his way to Cuba, then the plot to blame Cuba could have succeeded.

    As Officer Jim Leavelle told Joseph McBride, the murder of Kennedy was, to the police, something that happens every day; but the killing of a cop was very personal and a matter of honor to the Police, so they had to catch the culprit.[12] It was then up to people like Captain Westbrook to connect a cop killer to the President’s killer.

    The second factor was the swift swearing in of LBJ as President inside Air Force One in Dallas before returning back to Washington. As Jim Bishop described in his book “The Day the President Was Shot,” a strange phone call was received by the White House Communications Agency (WHCA)—located in the Dallas Sheraton hotel—after the assassination that:

    Officials at the Pentagon were calling the White House switchboard at the Dallas-Sheraton Hotel asking who was now in command. An Officer grabbed the phone and assured the Pentagon that Secretary of Defense Robert MacNamara and the Joint Chief of Staff were now the President.[13]

    This was not something abnormal but, in case of the President being incapacitated or missing the authority for nuclear strike, the responsibility would have passed first to the Secretary of Defense and then to the Deputy Secretary of Defense. In such a scenario, the Pentagon would have been able to authorize an attack on Cuba, if the evidence after the assassination had pointed that Castro or the Soviets were the driving forces behind Oswald.[14]

    As researcher Bill Kelly explained in his essay “The Swearing in on AF1 Re-evaluated,” the two most important things that LBJ did after the assassination were, first to go to Air Force One because it had a superior communications system, and second to take the oath aboard the plane before leaving Dallas. This gave him the power to stop a military invasion of Cuba. President Kennedy’s decision to give LBJ a special role in the event of nuclear war was crucial. So, LBJ knew exactly how to act to secure the continuity of Government, as LBJ was privy to the secret planning and protocols to be used under a nuclear attack.[15]

    1. CIA POLICE TRAINING and THE CIS

    Coming back to Captain Westbrook, a most astonishing revelation was that after he retired from the Dallas Police Department in 1966, Westbrook became a Police advisor in South Vietnam. As researcher Greg Parker found out, Westbrook was employed as a security advisor in Saigon by the U.S.A.I.D. (United States Agency for International Development).[16]

    The CIA was running a police program. Its purpose was to train friendly overseas police and to allow CIA to “plant men with local police in sensitive places around the world.” Also, to bring to the United States “prime candidates for enrollment as CIA employees.”[17]

    In 1962, Kennedy wanted to separate USAID’s economic programs from the CIA’s police training programs, but staff members of the National Security Council (NSC) had managed to convince him otherwise. Kennedy decided to set up a task force to evaluate CIA’s police program and a result was the creation of the Office of Public Safety (OPS) under USAID’s authority but actually run by the CIA.[18]

    John Gilligan, director of USAID under Jimmy Carter, said that “At one time, many USAID field offices were infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people. The idea was to plant operatives in every kind of activity we had overseas, government, volunteer, religious, every kind.”[19] John Hannah, Nixon’s director of USAID admitted publicly that the USAID had funded CIA operations in Laos and that both organizations had co-operated in Ecuador, Uruguay, Thailand, and the Philippines.[20]

    In 1974, the CIA released the “Family Jewels” report. There was a folder included on pages 594–609 that had to do with the CIA’s Counter Intelligence Staff, Police Group (CI/PG). This CI/PG would be in constant liaison with the OPS of USAID and its training facility, the International Police Academy (IPA) in Washington. The CI/PG would exchange daily information with USAID on training programs with IPA and tours for foreign police/security representatives sponsored by the CIA’s Area Divisions.[21]

    James Angleton wrote a memo explaining how USAID cooperated with CIA in law enforcement training and operations:

    ■■■■■ [redacted, but likely “The CIA”] does not maintain direct contact or liaison with any law enforcement organization, local or federal at home or abroad. When the need arises, such contact is sometimes made on our behalf by ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ [likely “USAID”] has such contacts at home and abroad because of the nature of its activities (training of foreign police/security personnel at home and abroad), and its Public Safety programs around the world.

    ■■■■■■■ has such contacts at home —local and federal level —because its personnel are personally acquainted with law enforcement officers throughout the United States. Members of the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ have appeared as guest lecturers at such federal institutions as the U.S. Park Police, IPA, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Treasury Enforcement Division.[22]

    Recommendations about Police Training were given by the CIA Inspector General in his final Report to a working group on organization and activities, drafted in April 1962:

    We are convinced the United States Government support to the Police in friendly nations can provide great benefits…will assist CIA in its work…We recommend the Police Group in the CIA staff receive such augmentation as is necessary, and that project [24] be transferred from NE Division to CI Staff.[23]

    CI means counterintelligence, Angleton’s domain.

    It is plausible that Captain Westbrook had secured his new job with help of the CIA and we can at least suggest that he had been recruited by the CIA during 1963 or even before that. Westbrook would have been useful to them, since he was the Chief of Personnel and that would place him in a unique position not only to influence police staff but also to hire policemen on CIA’s directions. It is also plausible that Westbrook was in liaison with CI/PG that would have bring him indirectly in contact with Angleton or even the Domestic Operations Division (DOD) which, as we shall see, was also involved in Police training.

    We have shown that CIA had been training police forces around the World. But do we have any evidence or indications that they were training policemen domestically?

    CIA’s 1947 chapter forbade any “Police or Subpoena power” and only the FBI had the right to legitimately train the domestic Police forces. Through the Freedom of Information Act, the late Phillip Melanson acquired documents showing that the CIA provided training to Metropolitan Police. This ranged from seminars, briefings, workshops in bugging, clandestine action, disguise techniques, lock picking, equipment loaning, and explosives detection.[24] One of the documents revealed that CIA agents posed as cops and had received police badges and ID cards as early as 1960 to pursue “foreign intelligence targets”, as the CIA claimed.[25] The CIA would also contact “friendly” police departments to ask for discreet handling of CIA personnel when in trouble and also to check on CIA employees and other people.[26]

    Some of the police departments having received training and equipment were New York, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, Miami, San Diego, and Minnesota. Dallas was not in those documents, but the name of some police departments was blanked out and Melanson believed that one of them was Dallas. He reasoned that Dallas would have not refused the CIA’s generous offer of training., especially when Mayor Earle Cabell was a CIA asset and his brother was a CIA Deputy Director and the force was full of right wingers and anti-Communists, who were always eager to unmask subversives and spies.[27]

    Another document revealed that there was a CIA-Dallas Police project in 1967 to infiltrate peace groups and Black power organizations and plant false evidence linking their leaders to drug involvement. But Melanson believed that this relationship existed prior to that, probably since 1963.[28]

    The CIA would usually establish contact with the intelligence units of a police department. And there was such a unit in Dallas at the time JFK was assassinated. It was the Criminal Intelligence Section (CIS). This unit was also involved in Presidential protection by helping to identify and neutralize potential dangerous local threats. But the Warren Commission did not report this. The excuse was to protect Secret Service methods. A Dallas Police memo stated, “This section had previously (before beginning work on protection for the President’s visit) been successful in infiltrating a number of these organizations; therefore the activities, personalities, and future plans of these groups were known.”[29] Considering all these, it would have been very unlikely that the CIS would have not been aware of an ex-Marine Russian defector living in Dallas, or the animosity and threats of right wingers and anti-Castro Cubans towards the President.

    The official story holds that Oswald became a suspect when it was reported that Oswald had left the building. The CIS had compiled a list of twelve TSBD employees who were unaccounted for. There was a black employee named Charles Givens who had a criminal record and was also missing. A Dallas Police APB went out for Givens: “he has a police record and he left (the depository).” However, the CIS list had put on top the name of Harvey Lee Oswald.[30] Melanson believed that a common CIA practice was to keep two files on certain individuals, an overt file and a covert file that usually had the first two names transposed.[31] Givens was the same person who changed his testimony and placed Oswald on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

    As we described earlier on, it was L. D. Stringfellow, a CIS officer who provided the 112th MIG the incriminating information that Oswald had defected to Cuba in 1959 and was a card-carrying member of Communist Party. CIS was not only aware of Jack Ruby’s gun running activities, but withheld this information. They also investigated Ruby’s shooting of Oswald and found nothing sinister.

    In 1963, it was one of the three sections of Police’s Special Services Bureau, along with Vice and narcotics, and their offices were not located at the City Hall, but at the Dallas Fair Grounds, where Jack Crichton’s underground Emergency Command and Communications bunker was located.[32] In the force were officers George Lumpkin, Jack Revill, Stringfellow, and W. P. Gunnaway.

    Colonel Jack Crichton, was the head of the 488th Army Reserve Intelligence unit in Dallas. According to Russ Baker, Crichton revealed “in a little-noticed oral history in 2001, there were about hundred men in that unit and about forty or fifty of them were from the Dallas Police Department.”[33]

    Crichton was the man who, through Lumpkin, arranged for his friend Ilya Mamantov to translate Marina’s testimony and, as we have shown earlier, to falsely connect Oswald to a dark and scopeless rifle. Researcher Bill Kelly believes that Crichton’s 488th Army Reserve Intelligence unit was connected to ACSI-Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, U.S. Army Reserves and that Captain Lumpkin and Army Reserve Colonel Whitmeyer were ACSI officers.[34]

    This seems to be a bit contradictory and it might raise the question as to whether the Dallas Police officers were linked to the CIA or to Army Intelligence, but being one does not exclude the other. As Bill Simpich found out, the CIA and Army Intelligence worked together to form the Caribbean Action Center (CAC) for collecting intelligence from Cuban refugees. One of the major participants in this group was Dorothe Matlack, Assistant Chief of Staff of Intelligence (ACSI) for Army Intelligence and Liaison to the CIA.[35] Matlack had joined the Interagency Defector Committee (IDC) in 1953. This involved State, DIA, Army, Navy, Air Force, FBI, and CIA. She also cooperated with Tony Czajkowski of the CIA’s Domestic Contacts Division and CIA Defector Coordinator George Aurell and worked with the CIA in analyzing reports made by notorious defectors such as Anatoly Golitsyn.[36] On May 7, 1963, Matlack and Czajkowski met with George de Mohrenschildt and his wife Jeanne.[37]

    In 1973, CIA’s John Maury said to a congressman that “less than fifty police officers all told, from a total of about a dozen city and country police forces, have received some sort of Agency briefing within the past two years.”[38] The truth is that the CIA did more than a simple briefing. Richard Helms testified in a secret session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Chicago Police had received training from the Agency. The Chicago Police had taken part in CIA training both at Langley and the “Farm” in Virginia at least since 1967.[39]

    As we shall see, the CIA continued training police forces during the Nixon years. The main force in charge of this task was the Domestic Operations Division.

    1. DOMESTIC OPERATIONS, AIR PROPRIETARIES AND THE DRUG TRADE

    During the Nixon Presidency, the CIA had been involved in a spying scandal against anti-war movements. Angleton and his Counter Intelligence Staff were the main suspects for conducting these illegal domestic operations. Angleton played a major role in the CIA training of foreign law enforcement personnel and, as we saw earlier, his Counter Intelligence Police Group (CI/PG) was cooperating with USAID for that purpose. It was only natural to be singled out as the culprit. Tad Szulc revealed that the main force behind these illegal domestic activities was another component of the CIA, the Domestic Operations Division (DOD). Which was assisted by the Technical Services Division, the Foreign Intelligence Division D, home to Staff D, William Harvey’s ZR/RIFLE; and the Records Integration Division (RID).[40]

    Between 1969 and 1972, Nixon ordered the CIA to train and assist police departments, especially the Washington one, in the methods of intelligence and communications. Division D was responsible for intelligence gathered by communications for the local police forces, the RID helped with computer read outs from files kept by CIA’s Counter Intelligence, the FBI, and Military Intelligence, while the Technical Services Division provided highly sophisticated devices that were unknown to the Police personnel.[41]

    It is worth noting that Division D had shown an interest in Oswald. Chief Counsel Robert Blakey of the HSCA had wondered why Division D had opened a file on Lee Harvey Oswald.[42]

    The CIA did not deny their involvement in training domestic police forces. It claimed it acted in accordance with the 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, whose purpose was to reduce urban riots and lower the crime rate. The act allowed the use of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping, so the CIA thought that spying on US citizens was within the limits of this act. Although the above revelations of CIA Police training had to do with Nixon years, as we have seen, the CIA were training policemen before 1968.

    The DOD was very similar to an Area Division, but operated inside the US and not in foreign countries. The HQ was not at Langley, but in a Washington office near the White House and had stations or a network of offices in at least fifteen US cities.[43] One of the DOD’s largest offices was the one in Las Vegas, which is strange since that particular city was not a known center of espionage.[44] However, Las Vegas was the home of the Nevada Casino crowd connected to Meyer Lansky and his money laundering network from illicit drug trade.

    The DOD was created in 1962 and Tracy Barnes was in charge of the newly created division. According to Malcolm Blunt, “it was set up by Wally Lampshire and Tracy Barnes and evolved from the Domestic Operations Branch which focused its attention on ‘refugee problems’ pertaining to those individuals arriving from Eastern Europe, in the early 1950’s.”[45]

    In 1962, CIA’s Inspector General proposed its creation and strongly urged that “the new Domestic Division utilize the Contact Division of OO, which is to be transferred from DD/I to the DD/P, as the nucleus of field work inside the United States.”[46] The Division’s “OO” offices had the task to debrief American travelers (business men and ordinary people alike) returning home from overseas, especially from countries like Latin America or the Soviet Union.

    The CIA’s Deputy Director for Plans (DDP) during 1963

    The DOD was a functional division of the DD/P, like Division D, Special Operations, Operational Services, Records Integration, and Technical Services, that would assist the area divisions and Staffs in various aspects and covert operations. (see CIA DD/P chart above)

    Angleton’s Counter Intelligence was obliged to ask the FBI to assist tracking Soviet illegals, moles, and spies entering the US. But with the creation of the new division, he could conduct his operations with the DOD without having to inform Hoover about it. Malcom Blunt believes that “DOD would have been ripe for exploitation purposes. And of keen interest to Angleton for positive counterintelligence usage. In other words DOD was somewhere other agency elements could drop personnel into and thus be a vehicle for disguised operations: such as Howard Hunt’s PCS/DOD in 1962 when he turned up in the Soviet Russia Division.”[47]

    1. ANGLETON AND HOWARD HUNT

    Malcolm Blunt met with Pete Bagley in a little restaurant in Brussels. They had a conversation about his CIA years and were discussing E. Howard Hunt. Bagley dropped a bomb about Hunt being in the Soviet Division in 1962. Blunt asked “Oh, you mean James Hunt who worked for James Angleton?” Bagley replied matter of factly, “No, Howard Hunt, the Watergate guy. Nobody could figure out what he was doing there.”

    Understandably, Blunt almost fell off his chair. If one reads Hunt’s files, there is no sign he ever worked in Soviet Russia Division. So Blunt obtained the HSCA Subject file on Howard Hunt and discovered that as part of the mole hunt, Bruce Solie of the Office of Security/Security Research Staff (OS/SRS) handed over Security and Personnel files to the FBI on various suspected moles. One of these was CIA staffer Peter Karlow. Those files contained the explosive information that Hunt was attending parties with, amongst others, the Karlows.

    Blunt is of the opinion that Hunt was spying on his own colleagues and that this would explain his sudden appearance in the Soviet Division. He also suspects that Hunt could only have been there under the instructions of Angleton, although Angleton always denied any relationship with Hunt.[48] We do know that it was Angleton’s personal favorite, Soviet defector Golitsyn, who had pointed out that a supposed KGB agent inside the CIA had changed his Polish name. Anatoliy Golitsyn finally revealed that the mole’s Polish name was Klibanski. The CIA found out that Klibanski was CIA agent Peter Karlow, the son of German immigrants and a veteran of the Berlin Base. In 1962, CIA’s Office of Security following Golitsyn’s accusations, destroyed Karlow’s professional life and forced him to resign.[49]

    But Angleton’s connections to Hunt did not end there. Years later, Victor Marchetti wrote an article in The Spotlight. He claimed there was a 1966 memo from Angleton to Helms saying there was no cover story to hide Hunt’s presence in Dallas the day of the assassination. Therefore, Hunt did not have an alibi. Marchetti also stated that the CIA was planning a limited hangout to expose Hunt’s involvement. However, this did not happen and Marchetti had not actually seen the memo.[50]

    In 1978, Joseph Trento said that he had seen the memo and the person who gave him the memo was Angleton himself. Trento told Dick Russell that Angleton had revealed to him: “Did you know Howard Hunt was in Dallas on the day of the assassination?” Angleton added that Hunt “had possibly been sent there by a high-level mole inside the CIA.” Trento believed that Angleton was trying to hide his own connections to Hunt and that it was him that had sent Hunt to Dallas.[51]

    Angleton was likely using the DOD and its staff to do his devious work inside the States. Angleton had claimed a Soviet mole had betrayed the U-2 secrets back in 1959. He was certain that the same mole had betrayed a CIA operation in Mexico involving Oswald and post-assassination he was accusing a mole of having sent Hunt to Dallas the day of assassination. It seems that it had become a habit for Angleton to blame all these on a Soviet mole inside the CIA. One that nobody ever found.

    One must understand that, at this time, 1975–79, both the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations had deposed Angleton for their JFK investigations. In fact, Senator Richard Schweiker himself had questioned Angleton for the Church Committee. And it was not just Angleton. They were deposing people who worked very close to Angleton, like Ann Egerter who handled the Oswald file at CIA.

    As we saw in the last installment, the HSCA’s Betsy Wolf was figuring out the riddles of Oswald’s 201 file and how it had been diverted around the existing system so no one would have access to it. Far from having little interest in Oswald, she was finding out that there was extraordinary interest in Oswald, even before he had defected, to the point that someone had interfered with the normal file dissemination system.

    Testifying in public, with reporters and cameras on hand, this was something new to Angleton. He had worked in secret for decades. Under this exposure, he blurted out a most unforgettable utterance: “A mansion has many rooms, I’m not privy to who shot John.” That memorable phrase indicated to Lisa Pease that Angleton was concerned that perhaps the investigations were closing in on him. He was trying to show that he had not acted alone, but with the approval of Richard Helms.[52] The late Gordon Novel wrote a letter to this effect to Mary Ferrell in the seventies, one which Jim DiEugenio has seen. The significance of Novel’s knowledge was that Angleton was not going to take the fall alone. Interestingly, the correspondence by Gordon occurred before the controversy over Marchetti broke out.

    1. THE DOD, HUNT AND THE DRUG TRADE

    The DOD would recruit anti-Castro Cuban exiles with the purpose of breaking into foreign embassies and United Nations missions that were suspected of being friendly and sympathetic to Castro’s regime. In one instance, the DOD agents raided the house of a Latin American diplomat in New York in search of finding diplomatic codes, but instead found $300.000 in stock certificates in his safe.[53]

    Another important aspect of the DOD was his affiliation with the CIA proprietary organizations. The CIA’s Inspector General proposed that the DOD take over the functions of the Cover and Commercial Staff that included the commercial managerial aspects of proprietary organizations and contacts with businesses and foundations inside the States.[54] The Air Proprietaries Branch of the Development Projects Division (DPD) was transferred to the DOD and this branch had the responsibility of “managing commercial organizations which have acquired to serve as cover for air crews and aircraft used in clandestine activities; to recruit and supervise the training of these crews; to keep these crews and equipment in a state of readiness to enable quick response to operational needs; and to provide guidance to overall agency air requirements on a world-wide and long range basis.”[55] The Air Proprietary Branch as part of the DOD took over the management of the Civil Air Transport (CAT) from the DD/S.[56]

    One such proprietary was the PR firm of Robert Mullen Company in Washington. This company employed E. Howard Hunt after he retired from the CIA. It was Richard Helms who recommended Hunt get a job in that company.[57]

    It was later discovered that the company was a CIA front organization from its first organization in 1959. When E. Howard Hunt retired from the CIA in 1970, Richard Helms suggested he should go and work for Robert R. Mullen.

    The most infamous and most important CIA proprietary company was the Pacific Corporation Holdings, located in Washington D.C., that was incorporated in Dover, Delaware, a State with a friendly tax law that allowed companies formed in Delaware but not operating there to not pay state corporate tax.

    Pacific Corporation was the parent company of the CIA air proprietaries, Civil Air Transport Co., Ltd., CAT Inc., later renamed Air America Inc.; Air Asia Co., Ltd.; the Pacific Engineering Company; and the Thai Pacific Services Co., Ltd.[58] Air America took over all the operations in South East Asia, while Air Asia operated from Taiwan.[59]

    Another air proprietary linked to Pacific Corporation was Southern Air Transport (SAT), incorporated in Miami and operated in both the Far East and Latin America. SAT had received a loan of $6.7 Million from Actus Technology, another CIA proprietary that was acting as conduit between Air America and SAT. One third of its fleet was leased from Air America and it also depended on Air America for maintenance and ground handling services. SAT had obtained a loan of $6.6 Million from two banks and the loans were guaranteed by the Pacific Corporation.[60] As we showed in part 2, Percival Brundage, the Unitarian who had links to the Schweitzer College that Oswald had applied to attend, was holding SAT stock as nominee for the real owners, the CIA.

    Most importantly, the air proprietaries like CAT/Air America not only provided their services to facilitate the opium trade in the Golden Triangle, which included Laos, Vietnam, and Thailand, but also were involved in the replacement of elected governments in Laos, Cambodia, and Indonesia.[61] Air America did not only operate for the CIA, but they were doing contract work for large oil companies in the Southeast Asia.[62]

    The CIA drug trafficking in Southeast Asia is not within the scope of this essay. Anyone interested in that topic should read Alfred McCoy’s book The Politics of Heroin and Peter Dale Scott’s book The War Conspiracy. What is interesting though, is the involvement of Cuban exiles from Miami, Dallas, and New Orleans in drug trafficking; some of whom were probably in contact with Lee Harvey Oswald. Santo Trafficante’s main areas of influence were Florida and the Caribbean, operating casinos in Cuba. After 1959, large numbers of anti-Castro Cubans moved to Florida and Trafficante used them to take control over Florida’s bolita lottery, a Cuban numbers game. This worked as a cover, since these Cubans became Trafficante’s new group of heroin couriers and distributors, who were unknown to American law enforcement agencies.[63] They used drug smuggling to finance their operations—trafficking cocaine from Latin America and later heroin from Marseille. Manuel Artime, E. Howard Hunt’s protégé and head of the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC) in Miami, was involved in drug trafficking to finance his war. The DOD under Barnes and Hunt would protect the Cuban drug network and Angleton was aware of it. Another CRC member of New Orleans, Sergio Arcacha Smith, who was associated with Hunt, Phillips, and Banister, was involved in contraband operations from Florida to Texas, specializing in drugs, guns, and prostitution.[64]

    In 1968, Trafficante visited Hong Kong and Southeast Asia to examine the possibilities of importing heroin from those regions to the US via Mexico and Latin America.[65] Later, according to Henrik Kruger in The Great Heroin Coup, Hunt employed Cubans from the Trafficante drug trafficking network to eliminate French smugglers and the old French Connection by redirecting the heroin trade from Marseille to South East Asia and Mexico to supply the US.

    In part 3, we entertained the possibility of Oswald being handled by the DOD. This would bring Oswald in contact with a nexus of Cuban exiles involved in the drug trade and the DOD operations involving CIA air proprietaries.

    Go to Part 1

    Go to Part 2

    Go to Part 3

    Go to Part 4

    Go to Part 6

    Go to Conclusion

    Go to Appendix

    References


    [1] Hancock Larry, Nexus, JFK Lancer Productions and Publications Inc. 20011, p. 114.

    [2] Hancock Larry, Nexus, JFK Lancer Productions and Publications Inc. 20011, p. 115.

    [3] Hancock Larry, Someone Would Have Talked, JFK Lancer Productions and Publications Inc. 2006, p. 233.

    [4] Hancock Larry, Someone Would Have Talked, JFK Lancer Productions and Publications Inc. 2006, pp. 16–17.

    [5] Hancock Larry, Someone Would Have Talked, JFK Lancer Productions and Publications Inc. 2006, p. 383.

    [6] Hancock Larry, Someone Would Have Talked, JFK Lancer Productions and Publications Inc. 2006, pp. 384–385.

    [7] DiEugenio James, https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium

    [8] DiEugenio James, https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium

    [9] Simpich Bill, https://jfkfacts.org/jerry-hills-lies-heart-tippit-shooting/

    [10] DiEugenio James, https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium

    [11] DiEugenio James, https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium

    [12] https://ourhiddenhistory.org/entry/james-dieugenio-the-j-d-tippit-murder-case-in-the-new-millennium-an-our-hidden-history-interview

    [13] Kelly bill, http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-swearing-in-on-af1-re-evaluated.html

    [14] Kelly bill, http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-swearing-in-on-af1-re-evaluated.html

    [15] Kelly bill, http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-swearing-in-on-af1-re-evaluated.html

    [16] Yusuf hasan, http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-few-words-on-former-dpd-captain.html

    [17] https://pando.com/2014/04/08/the-murderous-history-of-usaid-the-us-government-agency-behind-cubas-fake-twitter-clone/

    [18] Colby & Dennett, Thy Will Be Done, Harper Perennial, 1995, p. 398.

    [19] Blum William, Killing Hope U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Zed Books, 2004, p. 235.

    [20] Colby & Dennett, Thy Will Be Done, Harper Perennial, 1995, p. 743.

    [21] Price David, Cold War Anthrpology, Duke University Press, 2016, pp. 130–131.

    [22] Price David, Cold War Anthrpology, Duke University Press, 2016, p. 131.

    [23] https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10118-10427.pdf pp.12–13.

    [24] Melanson Philip, Dallas Mosaic: The Cops, The Cubans and the Company, The Third Decade, Vol 1, No 3, March 1985, p. 10.

    [25] Melanson Philip, Dallas Mosaic: The Cops, The Cubans and the Company, The Third Decade, Vol 1, No 3, March 1985, p. 11.

    [26] Melanson Philip, Dallas Mosaic: The Cops, The Cubans and the Company, The Third Decade, Vol 1, No 3, March 1985, p. 11.

    [27] Melanson Philip, Dallas Mosaic: The Cops, The Cubans and the Company, The Third Decade, Vol 1, No 3, March 1985, p. 11.

    [28] Melanson Philip, Dallas Mosaic: The Cops, The Cubans and the Company, The Third Decade, Vol 1, No 3, March 1985, p. 11.

    [29] Melanson Philip, Dallas Mosaic: The Cops, The Cubans and the Company, The Third Decade, Vol 1, No 3, March 1985, p. 12.

    [30] Melanson Philip, Dallas Mosaic: The Cops, The Cubans and the Company, The Third Decade, Vol 1, No 3, March 1985, p. 13.

    [31] Melanson Philip, Dallas Mosaic: The Cops, The Cubans and the Company, The Third Decade, Vol 1, No 3, March 1985, p. 13.

    [32] Kelly Bill, http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2019/01/following-acsi-colonels-around-board-dp.html

    [33] Baker Russ, Family of Secrets, Bloomsbury Press NY, 2009, p. 122.

    [34] Kelly Bill, https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster76/lob76-powers.pdf

    [35] Simpich Bill, https://aarclibrary.org/the-jfk-case-the-twelve-who-built-the-oswald-legend-part-8-the-cia-army-intelligence-mambo/

    [36] Simpich Bill, https://aarclibrary.org/the-jfk-case-the-twelve-who-built-the-oswald-legend-part-8-the-cia-army-intelligence-mambo/

    [37] Simpich Bill, https://aarclibrary.org/the-jfk-case-the-twelve-who-built-the-oswald-legend-part-8-the-cia-army-intelligence-mambo/

    [38] Marchetti V. and Marks John, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, Coronet edition, 1976, p. 253.

    [39] Marchetti V. and Marks John, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, Coronet edition, 1976, p. 253.

    [40] Szulc Tad, How Nixon Used the CIA, New York Magazine, January 20, 1975 p. 32.

    [41] Szulc Tad, How Nixon Used the CIA, New York Magazine, January 20, 1975 p. 32.

    [42] CIA files, 104-10147-10432, from from Dealey Plaza UK/Malcolm Blunt/CIA Documents

    [43] Szulc Tad, How Nixon Used the CIA, New York Magazine, January 20, 1975 p. 31.

    [44] Szulc Tad, How Nixon Used the CIA, New York Magazine, January 20, 1975 p. 32.

    [45] Blunt Malcolm in private correspondence to James DiEugenio.

    [46] https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10118-10427.pdf, p. 9.

    [47] Blunt Malcolm in private correspondence to James DiEugenio.

    [48] Blunt Malcolm in private correspondence to James DiEugenio.

    [49] Trento Joseph, The Secret History of the CIA, Basic Books, 2001, pp. 288–289.

    [50] Di Eugenio James & Pease Lisa, Assassinations, Feral House, LA, 2003, p.195.

    [51] Di Eugenio James & Pease Lisa, Assassinations, Feral House, LA, 2003, pp.195–196.

    [52] Di Eugenio James & Pease Lisa, Assassinations, Feral House, LA, 2003, p. 197.

    [53] Szulc Tad, How Nixon Used the CIA, New York Magazine, January 20, 1975 p. 33.

    [54] https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10118-10427.pdf, p. 9.

    [55] https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP33-02415A000800320002-5.pdf

    [56] https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10118-10427.pdf, p. 10.

    [57] https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbennettRF.htm

    [58] Szulc Tad, How Nixon Used the CIA, New York Magazine, January 20, 1975 p. 32.

    [59] Marchetti V. and Marks John, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, Coronet edition, 1976, p. 167.

    [60] https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp75b00380r000400050057-5

    [61] Scott, Peter Dale, The war Conspiracy Marry Ferrell Foundation Press, 2008, p. 57.

    [62] Scott, Peter Dale, The war Conspiracy Marry Ferrell Foundation Press, 2008, p. 229.

    [63] McCoy Alfred, The Politics of Heroin, Lawrence Hill Bokks, 2003, p. 75.

    [64] DiEugenio James, Destiny Betrayed, 2nd edition, Skyhorse Publishing, 1992, p. 329.

    [65] McCoy Alfred, The Politics of Heroin, Lawrence Hill Bokks, 2003, pp. 250–253.

  • The Evidence IS the Conspiracy – WCD 298

    The Evidence IS the Conspiracy

    Warren Commission Document (WCD) 298:

    FBI Letter from Director of 20 Jan 1964

    with Visual Aides Brochure

    Part 3: The Evidence Itself

    Positions of presidential car when shots one, two, and three were fired, as viewed from the south side of the parkway looking toward pergola (line of fire indicated by string leading to each car).

    The last “string” or shot, according to the meticulous work of the FBI, hits JFK in the limo as the front of the limo reaches the stairs, while the “2nd string/shot” hits JFK in the limo at the spot we all know as Z313.

    The inescapable truth offered by this model and its corroborating evidence is that at least one other shot was fired at the limousine after the infamous headshot seen in the existing films and photos.”  DJ, Part 1

    The “truth” mentioned above refers only to the model and its math.  The “corroborating evidence” being the statements of Altgens and Hudson who place a shot further down Elm than what z313 shows and the math, which illustrates what and where the levers are as well as how they were manipulated to produce a result.

    Without the work of Chris Davidson and his grasp of the math involved this evidence portion of my paper could not be possible.   In turn, Chris stands upon Tom Purvis who knew Surveyor West and his notes personally. 

    The speed of the limo, the FBI derived frame-rate of Zapruder’s camera, the incline and the angles on Elm have to work in the real world of physics, not simply on the drawings offered as evidence. 

    The FBI ultimately misrepresents WCD298 and scraps most of the work for what becomes the Commission Exhibit.   The FBI delivers yet another needle in a haystack.   

    In the real world, time x speed = distance.  A precise angle has only one terminating point.  A triangle has 3 precise angles.

    Part III – The Evidence itself – WCD298 – and what came after

    Details offered in the Document

    From a variety of angles – yet all using the same measurements and showing the same results – Warren Commission Document 298 clearly puts a shot fired and hitting JFK (“3 shots – 2 hit JFK”) farther down Elm than any film or photo shows. 

    More important to us even than this image are the measurements offered within this amazing document.

    The following is a 2d measurement superimposed on 3d space.  While never a reliable process for measuring distance within a photo, the difference here is that these measurements are provided by the FBI within WCD298.  You will notice these measurements are extremely precise, while at the same time being completely in conflict with the known info and images to this point in the story.

    We are to remember that JFK sat about 15 feet behind the front bumper of the limo and depending on the need, the FBI’s measurements could be based on the front bumper location, JFK’s location or the back bumper of the limo.

    NOTE: In the above graphic I believe we see for Shot #1 the measurement is to the BACK of the limo, Shot #2 appears to depict JFK’s location while Shot #3’s measurements appear to suggest the location of the front bumper of the limo.  This remains important due to the rifle’s firing speed limitations.  The constant speed of 11mph (page 3 WCR) claimed by the Warren Commission equates to 16 feet per second.  The difference between the 2nd and 3rd shots based on the FBI’s data was approximately 36 feet.  The FBI claimed it took 2.2 seconds to fire, reacquire the target and fire again with the bolt-action Carcano.  By changing the measurements from JFK’s position to the front bumper of the limo, the FBI was able to remove those 15 feet.  Instead of traveling 51 feet between those 2 points resulting in the limo’s front bumper being well beyond the stairs, the FBI played games with the measurements making it virtually impossible to recreate the event without these keys.

    Once again, there is no denying that these measurements not only put a shot past Z313 but also allow us to compare this data with any other data offered related to these three shots.

    Leo Gauthier

    The evidence discussed above is compiled at the same time as West’s survey for the Secret Service which was “supposedly” presented to the WC during Gauthier’s testimony.  (Gauthier WC testimony)

    Mr. GAUTHIER:
    Located on this plat map are street lights accurately located, a catch basin, certain trees, location of trees, the delineation of the concrete pergola, which you see here on the photograph, the outer boundaries of the pericycle, and the reflecting pool–locating exactly the window in the Texas School Book Depository Building, in the southeast corner, and also a tabulation of the measurements and angles that the surveyor has compiled from certain positions identified for him on the street by an observation from this window, an observation from the position of Mr. Zapruder—-Mr. GAUTHIER. The survey was made on May 24, 1964, by Robert H. West, county surveyor, a licensed State land surveyor, located at 160 County Courthouse, Dallas, Tex.
    Mr. SPECTER. Have you brought the tracing of that survey with you today?
    Mr. GAUTHIER. I have; yes.
    Mr. SPECTER. And have you brought a cardboard reproduction of that?
    Mr. GAUTHIER. A copy made from the tracing; yes.

    Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the cardboard copy made from the tracing for the inspection of the Commission at this time, please?
    Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes.
    Mr. SPECTER. Would you produce the tracing at this time, please?
    Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes; the tracing is wrapped, and sealed in this container.

    Mr. SPECTER. Without breaking the seal, I will ask you if the cardboard which has been set up here–may the record show it is a large cardboard. I will ask you for the dimensions in just a minute.
    Does the printing on the cardboard represent an exact duplication of the tracing which you have in your hand?
    Mr. GAUTHIER. Yes
    .

    Let that one digest a minute as well.  The original survey, done in December, is NOT the one that FBI Agent Gauthier has in the container but one done in May.  One has to wonder how the FBI can use a survey from MAY to produce a model in January.

    Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon.
    Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map. It contains certain positions marked as frame numbers. It indicates elevations and a column dealing with angle of sight from the frame positions to the window and to a horizontal line.
    It also contains angels of sight the degree of sight and distances from these positions to a point on the top of the bridge, handrail height.
    Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, that concludes the description of the general setting.  I would like to move now at this time for the admission into evidence of Exhibit No. 884, which completes all of the exhibits used heretofore.
    Mr. McCLOY. It may be admitted.

    And it was that easy to enter CE884, an uncorroborated May 1964 copy of the detailed measurements gathered in December 1963.  This Evidence IS the Conspiracy.

    The Multiple Robert West Surveys, Notes and Tabulations

    Robert H West was a Dallas County Surveyor at the time of the JFK assassination who was called upon to quantify the information from and for the various entities looking to discover what occurred in Dealey Plaza.   He was called upon repeatedly between Nov 1963 and June 1964 to REWORK his survey.

    NOTE:  In and around 2011 Tom Purvis contacted and became close with Mr. West.  Tom became the recipient of documents and notes created by Mr. West for each of the surveys he performed.  These documents are not presented anywhere in the official documents and were instead entrusted to Tom.  I was able to acquire copies from some of Tom’s online posts as well as directly from him.  The information providing the Evidence IS the Conspiracy in this subject could not be possible without these critical documents. (From info gathered by Tom Purvis in direct discussions with surveyor Robert West as published by the George County Time, Lucedale, MS.)

    Re-enactments, Surveys, Models and Lies

    A quick timeline is in order related to the WEST surveys and reenactments:

    • Nov 26, 1963 Time/Life performed their own survey and reenactment with the help of Robert WEST, Dallas County surveyor
    • Dec 2,3,4 1963 the FBI’s SA Gauthier is in Dealey Plaza gathering the data necessary to produce a model of the assassination.
    • Dec 5, 1963 the Secret Service performs an assassination reenactment and takes photos from both Zapruder’s location and the 6th floor TSBD window.
    • January 20, 1964 the FBI presents the WC with WCD298
    • February 7, 1964 the FBI stages a reenactment, survey notes are made and WEST creates a survey plat (diagram)
    • March 27, 1964 Melvin Eisenberg leads an analysis of the Zapruder film
    • April 27, 1964 WC lawyer Redlich tells WC lead lawyer Rankin that the info related to the Zfilm and shooting offered by the SS & FBI is “totally incorrect”
    • May 24, 1964 the FBI/SS perform yet another reenactment with Robert WEST completing yet another survey plat.
    • May 31, 1964 the WEST survey plat is completed and is claimed as the data used for the Dec 5 SS reenactment
    • June 4, 1964 Leo Gauthier testifies before the WC
    • June 25, 1964 the FBI tells WEST to omit the impact location for shot #3from the new survey and does so

    The “Original” shown is part of CE585, the Dec 5 WEST Secret Service survey results.

    Zapruder film Analyzed

    So, Time/Life had in their possession, prior to Nov 26th the “Camera original” and Zapruder’s “best 1st day copy” of his film.  Zfilm Chronology

    November 23, 1963
    8:00 a.m.
    Stolley arrived at Zapruder’s office an hour early and waited.  (Stolley was the LIFE representative)9:00 a.m.
    Zapruder screened the film for Secret Service agents, then met with Stolley and agreed to sell only print rights of the film to Life. He expressed concern that the film not be exploited. Stolley left with the original film, which was couriered to Life‘s editorial office and printing center in Chicago (Zapruder kept the remaining print). Life personnel examined the film to decide which frames to publish. At some point, they accidentally damaged the original film in two places, and six frames were removed, leaving visible splice marks.November 24, 1963
    A second color home movie, made by Charles Bronson—from one block away and showing the fatal shot to Kennedy—was dropped off at Kodak with a note that the film included the assassination. FBI agents watched the film with Bronson the next afternoon but found nothing of importance to their investigation.November 25, 1963
    Life publisher C.D. Jackson, after viewing a copy of the Zapruder film in New York, instructed Stolley to purchase remaining television and movie rights for a price that eventually reached $150,000 plus royalties; the purchase included Zapruder’s copy of the film made in Dallas the afternoon of the assassination.

    This film as we know it today captured virtually all of the motorcades travels thru Dealey Plaza after the limo turns onto Elm.  More importantly, LIFE, the FBI and the Secret Service have access to these images by Nov 26th and most surely by Dec 5th when the WEST survey is done.

    This is a stitched together panorama of the Zapruder film frames in evidence.  We can see the headshot at Z313 as well as the post which lines up with WCD298’s 3rd shot location.

    The Zfilm itself can and will be the subject of another Evidence IS the Conspiracy article which will trace the films and copies thru the weekend.  Suffice to say the board offered here represents the SECOND set of boards created Sunday evening by Homer McMahon and team as opposed to the set of boards created by Dino Brugioni Saturday evening.  (to read more NPIC – Doug Horne)

    NPIC Analysis and Briefing Panels

    Over the weekend of the assassination the National Photographic Interpretation Center NPIC created briefing boards of this film for presentation to President Johnson.  Please remember that the Secret Service and FBI had this film as early as late Saturday night November 23rd.    The board shows the “last shot” occurring at Z313 (although at this point they had yet to number the frames).

    Years later during the Church Committee CIA investigations in 1975,six sheets of paper were turned over from the NPIC related to work done analyzing the Zapruder film.  The following note explains that these are

    1. Xerox copies
    2. They are the only papers related to the CIA/PNIC handling of the Zfilm that weekend
    3. They are the basis of the above briefing board as well as the three which accompany it

    (All pages will be included in an Appendix to this paper)

    LIFE magazine concluded the shots were fired at Zapruder frames 190 – 264 – 313.

    The NPIC study which produced the briefing boards concluded that prior to 313 there were a number of frames that MAY show shots fired including: z206, Z213 & 242.

    The following is a collage of these frames on which the NPIC suggests shots fired – according to the viewing and analysis of the premier photographic analysis center in the USA. 

    One thing very obvious here is that 242 and 264 are shots to John Connally.  The Silly Bullet Theory refers to frame 224 when JFK is already reacting while JC is sitting unaware.

    Briefing Panel #2 covers these frames.  The tiny triangles were added to designate shots which “appear” to have be fired or hit their mark.

    It certainly appears as if John Connally is hit at least once prior to Z242 yet more importantly, all of these analyses stop at Zframe 313.

    Next is the Dec 5th re-enactment performed just after the FBI

    CE884 is a COPY of a tabulation that appears on a survey plat which was given to the WC in a sealed container.  The WC lawyers then confirm the tabulation is accurate by having the same person testify to it being a copy of the sealed survey’s info.  Trust us, we’re the FBI – he seems to imply.  The Warren Commission lawyers are only too happy to comply.

    Below is the supposed copy of the sealed survey tabulation which tells us the following:

    • The location of Z313 is 4+65 (65 feet past station #4*)
    • The elevation in DP at that spot is 421.75 feet above sea level
    • Between Z161 and Z313 the elevation has dropped from 429.25’ to 421.75’
    • Between Z161 and Z166 the limo moves only 9/10th of a foot while between z185 and z186 it moves 1.5 feet
    • The assumption is that THIS GRAPHIC represents the information on the revised WEST SURVEY of June 25, 1964 with a shot at 210-225 & 313.

    *Station locations were created every 100 feet from a fixed point at the top of Elm Street and photos were taken at different Zframe locations which correspond to the station #’s in the tabulation above.  CE875  informs us that for the Secret Service the REAR BUMPER is at the position described.  We will see how CE875 is the corroboration for the FBI’s third shot.

    This is CE882 – a tracing of the West Survey and the basis for CE883, the cardboard copy Gauthier offered the WC.  As you can see, there is really no way to check the info in this tabulation against what is offered in evidence.

    Also please notice the diagram in the upper left corner above the tabulation.  This time we see only shots #1 & #3 offered.  As the WCR attempts to explain: WCR p.111

    Melvin Eisenberg, in an attempt to explain the shooting process and leading a moving target provided the following elevations for shots # 1 & 3 at 423’ and 418’ on March 27, 1964.

    Shot #1 – fired at Z224 according to the FBI model, equates to an elevation around 426’ based on the “copied tabulation” of the WEST survey.  Eisenberg offers an elevation of 423’ and a distance of 175’ to the TSBD.  According to the yet to be offered as evidence  MAY 1964 tabulation, that elevation occurs between Zapruder film frames 255 and 313.  As for the 175’ to the TSBD, this equates to a 188’ distance to the window which equates back to frame 220 in the Zfilm.

    Shot #2 – by March 1964 the Single Bullet Theory due to the missed shot and being constrained to only 3 total shots must have been discussed since this drawing only has two hitting shots.  According to this evidence, shot #2 hits 273.6 feet from the window at an elevation of 418 feet.

    It’s hard to imagine from where Eisenberg’s information comes.  At this point in time at the end of March the model was done, the surveys were done (before they were changed in June).   It would appear to most of us that the Eisenberg information must have come from the available info at this point created after SS and FBI reenactments and at least two passes by WEST at creating an accurate survey.

    To reiterate one of the biggest clues jumping off the page – the Survey plat offered was completed at the end of May per Gauthier himself.  Sometime between the Dec 5, 1963 SS re-enactment and the June 25, 1964 presentation of the 2-shot FBI survey data all the information contained in this tabulation appears to have changed pushing the shot at elevation 418 and distance of 273.6 back up Elm to the Z313 spot.

    Eisenberg’s March 27 document offers measurements which are not contained in any current survey document yet if we look at the diagram in CE585, the Dec 5 SS survey results, we begin to get an idea of what the SS and FBI’s work revealed.

    According to the official tabulation for the WEST survey from Dec 5, 1963 for the Secret Service Shot #1 is 175 feet from the TSBD at station 3+60 at an elevation of 423.07’.  Shot #3 was 294 feet from the window at station 4+74 at an elevation of 416.83’. 

    It would appear that Eisenberg used this survey data for placement of his first shot and some other data between shots #2 and #3 to place the second shot.  More important to our discussion is CE884, the “official” survey tabulation COPY offered by Gauthier DOES NOT REPRESENT the survey results from the Dec 5th data.

    An elevation of 416.83’ represents a point well past the June 1964 reworked 2-shot tabulation showing an elevation of 421.75’ for frame 313.

    The Evidence Available – After-the-Fact

    What could the FBI have used at the beginning of December 1963 to establish that shot #3 occurs when the front of the limo reaches the foot of the Grassy Knoll steps? 

    The Witnesses

    Mr. Altgens

    Mr. LIEBELER – You also testified that you were standing perhaps no more than 15 feet away when the President was hit in the head and that you are absolutely certain that there were no shots fired after the President was hit in the head?
    Mr. ALTGENS – Yes, sir; that’s correct.

    As the following illustrates, z313 and Altgens at 15 feet from JFK are nowhere close

    Mr. LIEBELER – Now, the thing that is troubling me, though, Mr. Altgens, is that you say the car was 30 feet away at the time you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 [z255 Altgens photo] and that is the time at which the first shot was fired?
    Mr. ALTGENS – Yes, sir.
    Mr. LIEBELER – And that it was 15 feet away at the time the third shot was fired.
    Mr. ALTGENS – Yes, sir.
    Mr. LIEBELER – But during that period of time the car moved much more than 15 feet down Elm Street going down toward the triple underpass?
    Mr. ALTGENS – Yes, sir.
    Mr. LIEBELER – I don’t know how many feet it moved, but it moved quite a ways from the time the first shot was fired until the time the third shot was fired. I’m having trouble on this Exhibit No. 203 understanding how you could have been within 30 feet of the President’s car when you took Commission Exhibit No. 203 and within 15 feet of the car when he was hit with the last shot in the head without having moved yourself.
    Now, you have previously indicated that you were right beside the President’s car when he was hit in the head.Mr. ALTGENS – Well, I was about 15 feet from it.

    Mr. Brehm

    What Altgens is trying to say but doesn’t can best be illustrated by the FBI’s report on what Mr. Brehm says:

    BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President’s car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brehm.htm

    Mr. Newman

    Mr. Newman’s affidavit (both Newman and Brehm were not called to testify!)Today at about 12:45 pm I was standing in a group of people on Elm Street near the west end of the concrete standard when the President’s car turned left off Houston Street onto Elm Street. We were standing at the edge of the curb looking at the car as it was coming toward us and all of a sudden there was a noise, apparently gunshot [sic]. The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought he had realized it. It was just like an explosion and he was standing up. By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head. Then he fell back and Governor Connally was holding his middle section. Then we fell down on the grass as it seemed we were in direct path of fire. It looked like Mrs. Kennedy jumped on top of the President. He kinda [sic] fell back and it looked like she was holding him. Then the car sped away and everybody in that area had run upon [sic] top of that little mound. I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I was right on the curb. I do not recall looking toward the Texas School Book Depository. I looked back in the vacinity [sic] of the garden.

    /s/ William E. Newman, Jr. 

    Newman affidavit

    Ms. Muchmore

    Some of the most clear and detailed images come from a film whose owner claimed she did not take any images of the shooting.

    The image below reinforces the location of these two key witnesses and give amazing credibility to their corroborative statements.

    And below here is the moment of impact of the infamous Z313 frame.

    The FBI report on the next page must serve as Muchmore’s statement as she was not called to testify by the Warren Commission despite her film capturing a headshot at the same point as Zapruder places it.

    Where then did her film and the above image come from?

    Even though the limo’s rear end finally reaches the FBI WCD298 location at Z375, Altgens’ testimony and recollection conflicts with that location as well suggesting that a few more than 3 shots were fired and found their mark that day. 

    So what did the FBI use to determine the location of the shots?

    Mr. SPECTER. And what model reproduction, if any, did you make of the scene of the assassination itself?
    Mr. GAUTHIER.
    The data, concerning the scene of the assassination, was developed by the Bureau’s Exhibits Section, including myself, at the site on December 2, 3, and 4 of 1963. From this data we built a three-dimensional exhibit, one-quarter of an inch to the foot. It contained the pertinent details of the site, including street lights, catch basin, concrete structures in the area, including buildings, grades, scale models of the cars that comprised the motorcade, consisting of the police lead car, the Presidential car, the follow-up car, the Lincoln open car that the Vice President was riding in, and the follow-up car behind the Vice-Presidential car.

    Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a schedule which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 884 and ask you what figures are contained thereon. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 884 for identification.)
    Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a
    copy of a tabulation which appears on the plat map.

    And here we have yet another of the FBI agents not telling the truth to the WC.

    CE882 and CE883 are images of the plat which surveyor West did and whose legend is completely unreadable.  CE884 is supposedly a blow-up of that legend.

    CE875 – Secret Service locates the headshot at 5+04 and CE884 – SS Plat legend which locates the final shot at 4+65 indicates a 39 foot discrepancy between locations.

    CE875 is “Property of the Secret Service”.  CE884 is part of the survey commissioned by the FBI.

    4+65 is the location of the “X” on the street for Z313… when in fact the EVIDENCE puts the shot at a variety of locations.  The following shows that not only does the information not match – it conflicts greatly and adds further support that a shot or shots occurred much further down Elm than the FBI or SS wanted to admit.  Yet, in the form of WCD298’s model, that exact conclusion is presented to the Commissioners in mid-January 1964.  Suffice to say, the information from WCD298 does not see the light of day in the manner it was presented.

    The Line of Sight determined by Surveyor WEST at Shot #3 is 294 feet
    Except the line of sight on
    the legends above is 265.3 feet, a 39 foot difference which equates to the 39 foot difference for the location the SS places the headshot in CE875: 5+04 (504 feet past a fixed point versus 465 feet; 504 – 465 = 39 feet).

    Furthermore, the elevation of 416.83’ (below the “#3” intersection) is much further down ELM than the elevation attributed to Z313 at 421.75’.  As Elm winds down towards the Triple Overpass the elevation drops slightly at a 3 degree decline which equates to approximately a 18:1 rise over run meaning that for every 18 feet of forward travel the elevation should drop about 1 foot.    

    Shot #2 is placed at 232 feet and 419.07 elevation in WEST’s work.  The lowest point on the legend is at Z313 at 421.75 feet, almost 2 ¾ feet higher up.  When multiplied by the 18’ rise per 1’ run we get a location 48 further down Elm than the Secret Service and FBI’s reenactment and calculations.

    while the FIRST SHOT elevation of 423.07’ places it PAST z255’s 424.46’ by 25 feet if the 3 degree decline is fairly uniform. Shot #2 at 419.07’ is at a point which is lower in elevation (further down Elm) than z313’s 421.75’ – these charts of data not only contradicts each other but they give credibility to the hug discrepancies we see when comparing WCD298 to the films, photos and evidence actually offered.

    As WC lawyer Norman Redlich wrote to Rankin on April 27, 1964


    “…the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect… ”

    The EVIDENCE is the CONSPIRACY.

    Mr. LIEBELER – So, you were standing about where I placed the “X” on photograph No. 18 of Commission Exhibit No. 875.
    <snip>
    Mr. HUDSON – Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired – somewhere right along in there. (photo #18 of CE875)

    Based on seeing the base of the lamppost in the background of z375 and the best guess estimate of the line of sight thru the car modeled as the LAST shot, I estimated z375 give or take some frames.

    These two exhibits are the only ones from WCD298 that are included with the Exhibits and Hearings.  As you can see, the “shot strings” have been removed as the cars themselves are not in a position that relates to the shots being fired:

    CE 878/879

    If a shot really was fired at that point, 30-40+ odd feet down the road as illustrated by the other photos of the model in WCD298, one begins to see how and why the FBI and WCR stopped their analysis at z334…

    Using the FBI’s WCD298 measurements – the following shows what the shot trajectories looked like and their distances…

    And finally we get an idea of the trickery used from the outset. 

    The following is an overlay of the Altgens photo reenactment supposedly at frame 255 of the Zapruder film.  Not only did they not use the same type of vehicle but it is obvious the photographic location is also wrong given the differences in the street lane lines and the lack of similarity in the location of the branches in the tree behind the limo and in front of the TSBD.

    One still wonders why a reenactment was needed at all given the FBI and Secret Service had in their possession all the ORIGINAL films and photos from which to analyze anything they want.

    That reenactments were even done, and then done as incorrectly as possible suggest to many that the original films and photos may expose some error in coordination.    We find these duplicates created with the Paper Bag, the Rifle, the Tramps, the Pistol, Oswald himself and a whole host of duplicity that exists when one looks deeply enough into the evidence.

    Rather than using a similar car and placing the stand-in at the correct height, the FBI decides to use a different car with a 10” height difference – and then use math, approximation and eye-balling it.  It is within this math and the fraudulent presentation of what would have been accurate information of the location of the 3 shots they chose to illustrate which leads researchers to pull out their hair. 

    Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President Kennedy’s stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in which each rode?
    Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting 10 inches higher and. the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and we took this into account in our calculations.
    Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the back of the coat of President Kennedy’s stand-in before passing under the oak tree?
    Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. And we rolled the car then sufficiently forward to reestablish the position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame 166 of the Zapruder film

    The films and the data do not match – The Evidence IS the Conspiracy.

    Adams mentions the SS agent breaking for the limo after the SECOND SHOT – Z313… with another shot to follow:  http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/15/1524-001.gif  box 5 folder 6 item #49

  • Vincent Salandria: In Memorial

    Vincent Salandria: In Memorial


    In October of 1964, Arlen Specter was invited to speak at the Philadelphia Bar Association about his work on the Warren Commission. Since Specter was assigned by the Commission to work on the medical and ballistics evidence, that is what they wanted him to speak about. There were about 150 spectators in a City Hall courtroom.

    After Specter was done with his address, a high school history teacher stood up and said he had some questions, except they were not really questions. The teacher essentially declared that every point Specter made that night was wrong. He especially reserved his ire for the Commission’s sine qua non, the Single Bullet Theory. He said it was a forensic fraud. He also added that if such a thing did occur then the Commission should have done a live demonstration with Oswald’s alleged rifle on moving targets, which they had not done. (Philadelphia Magazine, 2/27/14, article by Robert Huber)

    That high school teacher was Vincent Salandria. Salandria was also an attorney who had graduated from the University of Pennsylvania law school, an Ivy League member. Unlike every other person in the audience, he had read the entire Warren Report in about two weeks. But prior to that, he had visited Dallas that summer to do his own inquiry. So he was ready for Specter.

    After the event ended some people approached him and said he should write up his critique into an essay. Salandria did so. That first article was published in Philadelphia’s Legal Intelligencer about two weeks later. It appeared in their November 2, 1964 issue. (Almost of all Salandria’s work is available online here)

    From there, he went on to compose two landmark pieces. These appeared in the magazine Liberation, in January and March of 1965. They were entitled, “A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes the Shots, Trajectories and Wounds.” The difference between this and his first article was that the Commission volumes had been published in the interim. Therefore, Salandria had more material to analyze and impugn the Commissions’ record with.

    There had been critiques of the Commission before this one. For example, Mark Lane in The Guardian in December of 1963 and “Seeds of Doubt” by Staughton Lynd and Jack Miniss on December 21, 1963 in The New Republic. In early 1964, Salandria’s brother in law, Harold Feldman, had done a piece in The Nation on Oswald’s possible relationship with the FBI. But Salandria’s effort was singular in the sense that it took on what was supposed to be the strength of the Warren Report, that is, the forensic case in medical and ballistic terms against Oswald as the killer. In rather stark terms, Salandria was saying that the Warren Report was a charade. The only essay that even came close to it at that time was Leo Sauvage’s “The Oswald Affair” in Commentary in March of 1964.

    I still recall reading the Liberation articles today. At the time, I was writing my first book, the first edition of Destiny Betrayed. (Please don’t buy it, as the second edition is much better.) Salandria’s work was not easy to find. I had to drive over to UCLA from my San Fernando Valley apartment at night. And even at that, they had the magazines archived. I had to wait about 20 minutes for their retrieval from a storage area. It was worth it. Even in 1992, the articles had an impact. They were well-written and cut to the quick of the Commission’s case against the lone assassin. What made them even more remarkable was that they were almost completely composed from the Commission’s own evidence. In other words, Salandria had sliced and diced the Warren Report using its own evidence. At that time, no one had rendered the alarming illogic of the Single Bullet Theory—to the point of rendering it a comedy—as Salandria had done.

    He went on to repeat that performance for Minority of One in March and April of 1966. This time he used frames from the Zapruder film to illustrate the Commission’s violation of Newton’s Laws of Motion. He also pointed out that it was hard to accept that the bullet that proceeded through Connally’s chest then hit his wrist on the dorsal side and proceeded through to his palm side. He concluded with the absurdity that Commission Exhibit 399 could have done all the damage it did—slicing through two people, smashing two bones, and bursting seven layers of skin—and emerged with almost none of its mass missing and in almost perfect condition. In the second part of the essay, he persuasively argued that Governor John Connally must have been hit by a second bullet. In other words, there was no Magic Bullet. It was a myth created by the Commission for political expediency.

    Again, one must note that virtually all of his information came from the Commission itself. Yet Salandria wrote that, not only did the Warren Commission ignore its own evidence, they frequently misrepresented their own evidence—by writing that it agreed with their conclusions, when it patently did not.

    Another Philadelphian, Gaeton Fonzi, had noticed Salandria’s work. After reading it, he wanted to interview Specter. Before he did that, he talked to Salandria. (Click here for details) In this discussion, Salandria was either the first, or one of the first, to note that Life magazine broke its presses twice in order to conceal the true impact of Z 313, the violent back and to the left movement of Kennedy’s body. (Click here for details) As the reader can see, after viewing the Zapruder film at NARA, Salandria became adamant on this point. He was sure that Specter and the Commission were aware of what the Zapruder film showed, as was Life, and everyone involved deliberately chose to ignore it. As the reader can also see, he is sure there was an assassin on the Grassy Knoll and he uses Feldman’s other essay, “51 Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll”, to support his case. (Click here for details) He also uses the Moorman film to locate where an assassin could have been. It was this discussion with Salandria that Fonzi used to disarm Specter in his meetings with him in 1966. (Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation, pp. 18-27; or click here for the Specter-Fonzi tapes themselves)

    At this time, 1966, Edward Epstein’s book Inquest had been published, so Salandria understood there was a difference between what the FBI thought about the case and the Warren Commission version of the bullet strikes. The Bureau did not buy the Single Bullet Theory. By visiting Dallas for two summers in a row now, he also understood how the James Tague bullet strike created all kinds of problems for both the FBI and the Warren Commission. It also appears that, through Marguerite Oswald, he discovered Acquilla Clemmons, a crucial witness to the murder of Dallas policeman J. D. Tippit. Vince also tried to talk to Helen Markham, the Commission’s key witness on the Tippit case, except that after speaking to the FBI, the Secret Service, and Dallas Police, she would not be interviewed. When Vince tried to go back to her home, it was cordoned off by a fleet of Dallas Police cars. He said elsewhere that he felt he had to visit Dallas, since the Commission’s hearings were closed in 1964.

    Salandria also revealed his knowledge of history during this conversation with Fonzi. He compared the assassination of JFK with the murder of Italian socialist Giacomo Matteotti back in 1924. He added that Mussolini did everything but admit his complicity in the murder and then defied the authorities to prosecute him. When they did not, he went on to declare himself dictator.

    Salandria was involved with the JFK inquiry by New Orleans DA Jim Garrison. He had two major achievements as Garrison’s consultant. He had heard Bill Boxley—the alias of William Wood—speak to the staff. He immediately asked to see his work product. After reviewing it, he asked for a meeting with Garrison in his office. He told him to read a section of a small book he had brought on the issue of double agents against Lenin and Trotsky during the Russian civil war. Garrison did so. Salandria then gave him several examples from Boxley’s work. Vince chose these to point out that, in each example, Boxley would conclude that the assassination came from a different direction: the Minutemen, Naval Intelligence, the Texas oil barons. In other words, Boxley was serving up his version of the disinformation tract, the Torbitt Document, before it was actually written. As I wrote in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, Salandria was correct on this. Boxley did not show up when Garrison called him that night. He then, apparently, left town. When Garrison visited his alleged apartment, it was empty except for one shirt hanging in the closet. (pp. 283-84)

    Vince had some practice on the issue of infiltrators. In my first discussion with him, back in February of 1992, he told me about a woman named Rita Rollins. In late 1966, she had approached him and told him she was a nurse for a wealthy family in Texas and New Orleans. She said that on their ranch in Texas, they had practiced “dry runs” of the Kennedy assassination. She had read his work and she wanted him to accompany her to Canada, where she would produce witnesses to what she saw. Vince called in another prominent critic, Sylvia Meagher. They both questioned her about her experience and the JFK case. She had answers for all their questions. As she was getting ready to leave, Sylvia said that they should ask her questions about her alleged occupation, nursing. They did and she was stymied. Her cover was blown.

    Six months later, Vince discovered her real name was Lulu Belle Holmes. She was an FBI agent who had infiltrated the peace movement. Vince told me that the story she was trying to sell him and Sylvia was that Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover had arranged for the assassination through their Texas friends. After Salandria visited Canada, the idea was that the “witnesses” would then recant leaving the critics looking like suckers.

    There was another achievement Salandria had with Garrison in New Orleans. He was the principal advisor at the Clay Shaw trial to Alvin Oser. At the trial, Assistant DA Oser had responsibility for the examination of Kennedy pathologist Pierre Finck. Finck was a witness for the defense. He had been called by Shaw’s lawyers because Dr. John Nichols, a pathologist at the University of Kansas, had been such an effective witness for the prosecution as to the existence of an ambush in Dealey Plaza. The defense thought they could counter Nichols with Finck. But Salandria had worked with Oser, coaching him on the key points he should ask the doctor about. Therefore, the cross examination of Finck turned out to be a debacle for not just the defense, but for the Warren Commission and the Department of Justice, which was monitoring the trial in real time through their local attorney Harry Connick.

    It is almost impossible to underestimate the legal and forensic importance of Finck’s two days on the stand. In its simplest terms, it showed just what an illicit cover up Arlen Specter had achieved with the Warren Commission. He had avoided all the relevant issues that Oser and Salandria had brought up in court. It also showed how much Specter had coopted the pathologists. For the first time, Finck admitted that the autopsy was not controlled by chief pathologist James Humes. It was being controlled by the military brass in attendance. To the point that Humes had to ask, “Who’s in charge here?” He also admitted that the doctors had been stopped from dissecting Kennedy’s back wound. Finck’s testimony turned out to be such a disaster that the Justice Department sent fellow pathologist Thornton Boswell to New Orleans to try and discredit him, but at the last minute they decided he should not. (For a complete chronicle of this crucial episode see Destiny Betrayed, second edition, pp. 299-306)

    During one of their first meetings, Salandria had told Garrison that he did not think he would achieve what he was attempting to do. That is, the flushing out of the lower level of the conspiracy and then building a pyramid of trials leading to the top level of the plot. He thought that the significance of his effort would lie in the efforts of certain groups to obstruct and to halt his efforts, which, of course, is what happened.

    It was during this futile effort that Salandria now began to turn his endeavor into elucidating the Big Picture of Kennedy’s murder. One of this first efforts at this was a speech he gave in Central Park on June 9, 1968. He did this on the occasion of Bobby Kennedy’s death and the mad escalation of the Vietnam War. During this speech, he pointed out some of the foreign policy reversals that occurred after Kennedy’s murder. In fact, he said that the Pentagon had fired President Kennedy. Therefore, it was not at all surprising that the enemies of JFK likely killed RFK. In private, he once told me that he suspected that if Bobby won the California primary he would be assassinated.

    After the Shaw trial, Salandria did not do much more of the micro analysis that had made him a pioneer. In fact, he actually ridiculed researchers, like Harold Weisberg, who did. During one of my meetings with him at his home in Philadelphia, he took out a copy of Josiah Thompson’s Six Seconds in Dallas. By rote, he immediately turned to page 246. He then pointed to the underlined passage there which said that what the previous pages had done was not prove there was a conspiracy. Vince said words to the effect that this was preposterous. Yes, they had. He had known Thompson since he had him released from jail one night after the then Haverford professor had been part of a demonstration against the Vietnam War. The ACLU had contacted him and he had Thompson and some cohorts discharged. The two struck up a friendship. In fact, in the introduction and acknowledgements to Six Seconds in Dallas, Thompson profusely thanks Salandria for his groundbreaking work. Therefore, that page 246 quotation stung Vince, as it did Ray Marcus. Having spoken with both men, they considered it the equivalent of a Sandy Koufax curveball, except it was thrown at Sandy’s teammates. In fact, in 1977 Vince wrote an essay entitled “The Design of the Warren Report: To Fall to Pieces.”

    As I said, Salandria centered on the Big Picture for the rest of his life. As Fonzi notes in his fine book, Salandria was not encouraged by Gaeton’s decision to work for the Church Committee in 1975. He thought he would just be spinning his wheels. (The Last Investigation, pp. 28-29) This attitude was epitomized by his speech at the COPA Conference in 1998, which began with the USA acquiring an empire after the Spanish American War. Vince was so wound up in this view, that he had a tendency to look askance at new work e.g. John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA. Many years later though he wrote a letter to John in which he said he was wrong to write what he did about him. That endeared me to him even more.

    Perhaps his last significant achievement was his cooperation with John Kelin on that fine book Praise from a Future Generation. Kelin’s book began when Vince gave him a couple of boxes of letters between the early Commission critics (e.g. Sylvia Meagher, Shirley Martin, Ray Marcus, Marjorie Field, and Vince, among others). Kelin supplemented that source material and then fashioned it into an utterly fascinating and memorable volume. That book was published in 2007 and, if the reader has not read it, then he or she should at least look at this You Tube series on it.

    As I wrote about John’s book, it showed in detail a David and Goliath confrontation. It described how a small circle of friends and colleagues, with almost no power or assets, toppled a terrific fraud constructed by the CIA, the FBI, and a select group of lawyers and then promoted by the media and Washington D.C.

    And that is, perhaps, a fitting way to give a final salute to Vince Salandria. In one of his later essays, he compared himself to Mark Lane. He thought Lane was standing up for civil liberties and the rule of law, whereas he was trying to expose the overthrow of the government. Lane was more popular than he was back in the 1963–66 period, since Vince did not think that the public was ready to digest his underlying message. He told me that it was only after the end of the Cold War that Americans would be ready to see that Kennedy’s murder was not really an assassination but a coup d’état. In that judgment, like many things in this case, he was correct and prophetic.

    Note: Almost all of Salandria’s work can be accessed at Dave Ratcliffe’s web site, just click here.

  • Murder on the Towpath: Soledad O’Brien’s Mess of a Podcast

    Murder on the Towpath: Soledad O’Brien’s Mess of a Podcast


    I listened to all 8 parts of Murder on the Towpath. This was Soledad O’Brien’s four hour podcast about the death of Mary Meyer. It was a difficult experience for someone familiar with that case and does not have blinders on about what happened.

    O’Brien did something that no independent journalist should do, but which I knew she would do when I read the interviews she was giving to drum up publicity for her project. She decided to turn Mary Meyer into something she was not, that is, an advocate for world peace along with her former husband Cord Meyer during his days as a world federalist movement advocate. To be specific, Cord was president of United World Federalists. In his book, Facing Reality, there is no evidence that Mary shared his interests on the subject. (Cord Meyer, Facing Reality, p. 39) As I noted previously, in that book Cord wrote that his position in the group actually created a distance between him and his family, so he resigned and went to Harvard on a fellowship. (ibid, pp. 56-57) While he was there, Mary did take classes, but in Design rather than in Political Science. This is where she discovered her aptitude for painting. Further, in 1951, when Cord was about to join the CIA, she did not object to this. She encouraged him to do so. (ibid, p. 65) Their divorce was not over the nature of his work, but the fact that he spent too much time on it. (ibid, p. 142)

    In the first part of this podcast, none of this is presented. In fact, O’Brien actually tells us the contrary was the case:  Mary and Cord came together over the subject of world federalism. The problem is that this deduction is made, not from the evidentiary record, but in spite of it. Not only is there no evidence of Mary’s interest in the subject while she was married, there is no evidence of it before or after. After Harvard and their divorce, Mary got custody of the children. She had an affair with art instructor Ken Noland. She was interested in painting. Before she was married, she did some freelance writing for UPI and Mademoiselle. She wrote on things like sex education and venereal disease. (New Times, July 9, 1976) So where is the evidence for her powerful belief in a world governmental organization, a supranational one, one more powerful than the United Nations? In the more than half century since her death, nothing of any substance or credibility has surfaced to fill in this lacuna. So, the idea of Mary Meyer being some kind of a non-conformist, in either her informed political ideas or some kind of women’s liberation model like Betty Friedan, this simply lacks foundation. Yet, in that first segment, O’Brien does mention Friedan in relation to Mary. To me, this whole opening segment which attempted to aggrandize Mary Meyer was mostly bombast. It served as a warning about what was to come.

    In the second segment, the warning lights began flashing red. Here, O’Brien introduced her co-heroine, Dovey Roundtree. Roundtree was the African-American female attorney who chose to defend Ray Crump. Crump was the African-American day laborer who was accused of shooting Mary Meyer on October 14, 1964. As with Mary and Betty Friedan, O’Brien now attempts to aggrandize the Crump case: she mentions it in regards to the murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till.

    O’Brien actually said this and tried to place the Meyer case in the same context, on the rather simplistic grounds that Crump was African-American and he was accused of killing a Caucasian woman, while Till had allegedly been flirting with a Caucasian woman.

    Emmett Till was killed in 1955 on a visit to relatives in Mississippi. He was beaten to the point that his face could not be recognized by his mother, who made the identification by a ring on the corpse’s finger. Even though everyone knew who the two kidnappers and killers were, they were acquitted by an all-white jury in one hour. Till’s mother demanded an open casket funeral at their home in Chicago. In five days over 100,000 people paid their respects. Pictures of the funeral and the corpse were picked up by the magazine Jet. This, plus the fact that the two killers confessed in Look magazine for money, turned the case into a national scandal and a milestone in the civil rights movement. (Click here for more details)

    Anyone can see the difference in these two cases. There is and was no question as to who killed Till. They were identified as the kidnappers and they later confessed. There was also no question about the motive: it was simply white supremacy. There was no question about why the killers got away with the crime: it was 1955, Mississippi, and an all-white jury. The Meyer case was ten eventful years later; after the passage of John Kennedy’s epochal civil rights bill in congress, during the era of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. In the Crump case, the murder scene was not deep south Mississippi, but cosmopolitan, upscale Georgetown. Because of all this, the jury in the Crump case was not all white, it was mixed. (New York Times, May 21, 2018, obituary for Roundtree by Margalit Fox)

    As the reader can see, by relating Mary Meyer to both idealistic world peace and government advocates, and as an equivalent to Betty Friedan, and doing the same to the case of Ray Crump and the milestone murder of Till, O’Brien is inflating her subject beyond any legitimate boundaries. To me, someone who is familiar with the Meyer case, that inflation is so overdrawn that it amounts to sensationalism.

    II

    In part 2 of the series, O’Brien got to Roundtree and her advocacy for Crump. On the day of the Meyer murder, the case had been called in by witness Henry Wiggins. The official exits to the crime scene, the C&O towpath and park area, were sealed off within five minutes. Crump was found dripping wet, without his shirt and cap, hiding in the spillway near the canal and the Potomac. He was also covered with grass and twigs. When he pulled out his wallet for identification, that was dripping water also. (op. cit. New Times)

    Crump said that he was there because he was fishing. He had fallen asleep on the river bank and woke up when he slid down the bank and into the river. At the scene, while Crump was showing the arresting officer where he was fishing, Wiggins shouted at the officer, “That’s him!” And he pointed at Crump. (ibid)

    When the suspect was brought to Detective Crooke, the supervising officer on the scene, he asked him why his fly was open. Crump accused the police of unzipping it. This was enough for Crump to be brought back to the station for questioning. While there, an officer brought in a windbreaker jacket found at the park. It fit Crump perfectly. A witness had seen Crump leave his house that day with no fishing pole, but with a cap and windbreaker. As Lisa Pease has noted, the description of these articles of clothing was similar to what Wiggins said he saw the assailant wearing. And Crump’s fishing bait and pole were later found at his home. (Click here for details) Yet Crump had told his arresting officer that he had not been wearing these articles of clothing. (Nina Burleigh, A Very Private Woman, p. 234)

    O’Brien understands the import of the above, so she skips over some of it and then brings up the subject of “Vivian.” I have dealt with this angle in a previous installment posted last month. Vivian was supposed to be the person who was with Crump at the time of the shooting of Mary Meyer. (Click here for details) I was not surprised that O’Brien brought this whole issue up, simply because of the enormous spin she was putting on the whole story. In its simplest terms, it gives Crump an alibi. But even with a small amount of research, O’Brien’s fact checker could have discovered that the whole Vivian story makes Roundtree look worse, not better. It shows she had overcommitted herself—as lawyers often do—to her client. If one reads the above brief link, the phantasm of Vivian contains so many holes, so many inconsistencies—not just by Crump, but by Roundtree—that it smacks of being a fabrication (e.g. Roundtree couldn’t keep her story straight about if she knew where Vivian lived). Further, as one reads that linked synopsis, there are indications that Roundtree cooperated in the creation of “Vivian”.

    In sum, there was no fishing pole or tackle, and in all likelihood, there was no alibi. With the disintegration of the fishing pretext, it made it harder for Crump to explain his bloody hand, which he said he had cut on a fishhook. (Burleigh p. 265) In other words, there was plentiful probable cause to arrest Crump for the crime. The questions become: What was Crump doing there? And why was he lying about it? In fact, when the clothing was produced, Crump started weeping and muttered, “Looks like you got a stacked deck.” (Burleigh, p. 234) O’Brien does not really have to explain much of this because of “Vivian.”

    III

    In court, Dovey Roundtree did not present an affirmative defense. There was no opening statement and she called only three witnesses in the eight-day trial. She got an acquittal for her client due to three major issues in the case. As Roundtree stressed in her summation, even though there was an extensive search, which included draining the canal, the .38 handgun used in the shooting was never recovered. She asked the jury, “Where is the gun?” (Washington Daily News, July 29, 1965, story by J. T. Maxwell) Secondly, the prosecution presented huge photographs of the park to stress that the killer could not have escaped due to the quick closing off of all the entries and exits. But Roundtree stated that in visiting the park she had found other ways out of the area. Also, when measured by the police, Crump was 5’ 5 ½”. Wiggins said the man he saw attacking Meyer was 5’ 8”.

    The prosecutor, Alfred Hantman, tried to counter the last two points in his summation. Concerning the former, he said that in order to escape, the assailant would have had to swim across a sixty foot canal and then scale an eight foot embankment. To counter the second, Hantman produced the shoes Crump was wearing the day of the shooting. They were elevated, meaning they added as much as two inches to his height. He implored the jury during his rebuttal, “Do we quibble over a half inch?” (ibid)

    Roundtree had raised a reasonable doubt with the jury. After several hours, they told the judge they were deadlocked. He insisted that they continue to deliberate. After a total of eleven hours, they came in with a verdict of not guilty. (New Times)

    O’Brien uses this verdict to go into the whole reputed relationship between Mary Meyer and President John F. Kennedy. Here she grabs onto just about every piece of flotsam and jetsam that has ever been floated in the Meyer case. She even brings up Kennedy’s alleged “affair” with Marilyn Monroe. A notion that Don McGovern has virtually demolished. (Click here for details) And like the ludicrous notion that Monroe was part of some key decisions in JFK’s administration—when McGovern shows she was never at the White House—O’Brien says in segment five that Meyer was a part of the Oval Office furniture.

    This is utterly farcical. No cabinet officer or advisor has ever said any such thing in any kind of memoir or essay that I have ever encountered. Why would Kennedy be so stupid as to do such a thing? What would she be there for anyway? Was she doing a portrait? O’Brien actually says that Kennedy wanted her there intellectually. As I have explained previously, there is no way in the world that Kennedy ever needed Mary Meyer to make any kind of serious political decision, especially in the foreign policy area. This is as silly as O’Brien saying that she came across a mash letter that Kennedy sent Meyer. And it was written on White House stationery! I guess JFK just couldn’t help himself. The chain of possession on this note is non-existent. But someone was stupid enough to pay five figures for this at an auction and so O’Brien reads it during the podcast. I guess no one ever told our unsuspecting host about the Lex Cusack forgeries. (Click here for details)

    In part five, our hostess continues with her incurable inflation. This time it is about Mary’s paintings. Meyer now becomes a very accomplished painter. What does our hostess base this upon? Largely on Mary’s painting entitled “Half Light”. (Click here for details)  To me, this painting is, at best, clever. It’s something that a college junior could think up and then execute. To my knowledge, Meyer only had one showing of her work. Yet, towards the end, in part 8, O’Brien talks about Mary’s “artistic legacy”. Jackson Pollock had an artistic legacy. Edward Hopper had an artistic legacy. Has anyone ever read a book about modern American painting in which the author described Mary Meyer’s artistic legacy? If so, I would like to read it.

    IV

    Given the above approach to the Meyer case, I waited for O’Brien to bring up the accusations of Timothy Leary and James Truitt. In episode five, she did. As I have previously noted, in his book Flashbacks, Tim Leary wrote that he had supplied Mary Meyer with tabs of LSD. Although Leary never named Kennedy as someone she passed on the acid to, it was pretty obvious that this is what the author was implying. If one can believe it, this allegation was actually accepted and then repeated in some Kennedy biographies. It was also accepted by Paul Hoch and printed in his journal, Echoes of Conspiracy. (No surprise there, since Hoch actually took Tony Summers’ diaphanous book about Marilyn Monroe seriously.)

    Flashbacks was published in 1983. The scene that Leary drew in that book between himself and Meyer was both mysterious and indelible. Meyer appears to him and says she and a small circle of friends in Georgetown were turning on. She consulted him about how to conduct such sessions and also how to obtain LSD. She mentioned one other “important person” she wanted to turn on. After Kennedy’s assassination, she appeared to Leary again. She tells Leary that “They couldn’t control him anymore. He was changing too fast. He was learning too much.” Leary said that after he learned about Meyer’s death he put the story together. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 341)

    I have to confess that I actually accepted this story myself, when I first heard about it. Someone sent me the section of Flashbacks dealing with Mary Meyer when it was issued as a magazine reprint. To my present embarrassment, I actually talked about it at a gathering in San Francisco. But the more I learned about Leary—especially from the book Acid Dreams—the more suspicious I became about him. So one day in a large college library, I collected almost all the books Leary had written from 1964 to 1982, which was not easy. Somehow, Leary published about forty books in his life, about 25 of them before Flashbacks. In none of those 25 books—which I eventually all found—was there any mention of Mary Meyer. In other words, from the time of her death in 1964 until 1983—a period of 20 years—Leary passed up over a score of opportunities to mention this episode, which, if it were true, clearly had to be the high point of his drug distribution career. And some of those books, like High Priest, were almost day-to-day diaries.

    But, as I have proven elsewhere, the idea that somehow Kennedy was altering his foreign policy views in a basic way in 1962 is simply not accurate. As I have noted elsewhere, JFK’s overall foreign policy was formed by the time he was inaugurated. The only serous alteration in 1962 was through the Missile Crisis. (See Chapters 2 and 3 of Destiny Betrayed, second edition by James DiEugenio.)

    What makes the story even more improbable is that Flashbacks was published at the 20th anniversary of Kennedy’s death. Was that a coincidence? I don’t think so. Further, in that book, Leary also said he slept with Marilyn Monroe. In all probability, Leary was using Meyer, Kennedy, and Monroe in an effort at salesmanship. This is the conclusion that biographer Robert Greenfield also came to in his book about Leary. Mark O’Blazney, who we will encounter later, knew both Leary and his colleague Richard Alpert, who worked with the drug guru at Harvard. When Mark asked Alpert if he had ever seen Mary either with Leary or on the grounds, he said no. He then added that Tim had a penchant for pitching malarkey about himself. (O’Blazney interview with author, 8/17/20)

    James Truitt was the first person to ever say anything for broad publication about the relationship between Meyer and Kennedy. He did this in 1976 for the National Enquirer He said that in 1962–63 Mary and Kennedy were having an affair. He also added that they smoked weed together in the White House. In fact, Truitt said he rolled the joints they smoked! Further, Kennedy said that she should try cocaine.

    As I noted in my review of Peter Janney’s Mary’s Mosaic, when the Enquirer published this story they gave very little background on Truitt. After all, a logical question would be: Why did Truitt wait over ten years to reveal this story? There was a personal reason behind the timing. And the Enquirer was wise not to reveal it.

    Ben Bradlee’s second wife, Toni, was Mary Meyer’s sister. Toni was his wife while Kennedy was in the White House. Bradlee was one of the closest contacts JFK had in the media. In addition to that, he was also a personal friend. So, when the Bradlees were invited to the White House for certain social or political functions—which was not infrequent—Mary would come along.

    In 1968, Ben Bradlee was promoted to executive editor of the Washington Post. A year later, he fired Truitt. According to author Nina Burleigh, Truitt had a serious alcohol problem at the time. Further, he was showing signs of mental instability and perhaps even a nervous breakdown. (Burleigh, p. 284; Washington Post 2/23/76) Bradlee forced Truitt out with a settlement of $35,000. (Burleigh, p. 299) Truitt’s problems now grew worse. It got so bad that that his wife, Anne Truitt, tried to get a legal conservatorship assigned to him. This was based on a doctor’s declaration that Jim Truitt was suffering from a mental affliction (Burleigh, p. 284) The doctor wrote that Truitt had become incapacitated to a point “such as to impair his judgment and cause him to be irresponsible.” (ibid, italics added.) As a result, in 1971, his wife divorced him. In 1972, the conservator assigned to him also left.

    This left Truitt in a forlorn state. He now wrote to Cord Meyer and requested he secure him a position at the CIA. When that did not occur, he moved to Mexico. He remarried and lived with a group of former Americans, many of whom were former CIA agents. And he now began to experiment with psychotropic drugs. (Burleigh, p. 284) If all this was not bad enough, the motive behind the article was for Truitt to revenge himself on Bradlee for firing him. Specifically to show that the reputation that Bradlee had garnered for himself during the Watergate affair was not really warranted. Somehow, Bradlee knew all about these goings on in the White House and not revealed it.

    What kind of witnesses are these? I mean a guy doing psychotropic drugs in Mexico in the midst of a bunch of CIA agents? And who is now trying to extract revenge on the guy who fired him almost ten years earlier? Another witness who had two decades and 25 opportunities to tell us he was supplying LSD to Mary Meyer, but never breathed a word of it? But he does on the 20th anniversary of Kennedy’s death? And whose colleague calls him a BS peddler? As the reader can predict, O’Brien did not say anything to her listeners about the problems with Leary and Truitt. Not a word.

    V

    The worst part of Murder on the Towpath was episode seven. This constituted O’Brien’s attempt to get in all the stuff that Leo Damore and Peter Janney had worked on for years. Damore was the published author researching the Meyer case. When he died by his own hand in 1995, his acquaintance Peter Janney now picked up the work he had done. O’Brien wants to use this, as we shall see, dubious material. But she does not want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. So what does she do? She places a lot of it in this, her longest episode. But she frames it with an interview with a social scientist who tries to explain why, psychologically, certain people need to believe in conspiracy theories. She also does not actually interview Janney; she plays a brief tape of him speaking. Talk about playing both ends against the middle.

    To repeat and update all the problems with the work of Damore and Janney would take a long and coruscating essay in and of itself. I have already referenced Lisa Pease’s review of Janney’s Mary’s Mosaic. If the reader needs more evidence of how seriously flawed that book is, please look at my review also. (Click here for details)

    Before turning to what O’Brien actually says in this segment, let me comment on her practice of playing both ends against the middle. There are certain homicide cases of high-profile persons that are provable conspiracies. And this site is dedicated to showing the public that such was the case. We don’t need some kind of counseling by an academic to explain why we think what we do about, for example, the assassination of Robert Kennedy. We can prove, rather easily, why his murder could not have been performed by one man. In the Mary Meyer case, the circumstances do not come close to approaching that level of clarity. For example, there was not an institutional cover up afterwards, the defendant did not have incompetent counsel, there was not another suspect at the scene of the crime, and it was not a case of the suspect not having a sociopathic personality.

    To take just the last, Nina Burleigh did an unprecedented inquiry into the life of Ray Crump. After being emotionally appealed to by Crump’s mother, Roundtree tried to present him in court as being a rather innocent waif caught up in a miscarriage of justice. (Justice Older than the Law by Roundtree with Katie McCabe, pp. 190-94) But smartly, she never put Crump on the stand. As Burleigh found out, Crump had an alcohol problem prior to his arrest in the Meyer case. He suffered from severe headaches and even blackouts. His first wife detested his drinking, because, when intoxicated, he would become violent toward the women around him. (Burleigh, p. 243) And there was evidence, by Crump himself, that he had been drinking that day. After his acquittal, this tendency magnified itself exponentially. Crump became a chronic criminal. He was arrested 22 times. The most recurrent charges were arson and assault with a deadly weapon. (ibid, p. 278) His first wife left him during the trial and she fled the Washington area. Meyer biographer Burleigh could not find her in 1998.

    Crump remarried. In 1974, he doused his home with gasoline, with his family inside. He then set the dwelling afire. From 1972–79, Crump was charged with assault, grand larceny, and arson. His second wife left him. In 1978, he set fire to an apartment building where his new girlfriend was living. He had previously threatened to kill her. He later raped a 17-year-old girl. He spent four years in prison on the arson charge. (Burleigh, p. 280)

    When Crump was released in 1983, he set fire to a neighbor’s car. He was jailed again. When he got out in 1989, he lived in North Carolina. In a dispute with an auto mechanic, he tossed a gasoline bomb into the man’s house. He went back to prison. (Burleigh, p. 280) This long and violent record is probably the reason that, when Burleigh tracked him down, Crump would not agree to an interview. To my knowledge, he never talked to any writer on the Meyer case. Burleigh today is convinced to a 90% certainty that Crump killed Meyer.

    As with the curtailment of Burleigh, the many problems with Leo Damore’s credibility are never addressed, even though O’Brien extensively uses Damore as a source in segment seven. Damore said that somehow he found the address of the actual killer of Mary Meyer. He wrote to him. And the killer replied to Damore’s letter! But even more bizarre, Damore said that he met with him. (Janney, pp. 378, 404) Damore said he talked to him extensively on the phone and taped the phone calls. This man confessed to being a CIA hit man and that Meyer’s death was a black operation. This is all very hard to buy into. Damore discovers his Holy Grail; the key to the book he was working on. That guy talks to him for hours on end, on the phone and in person. Yet there is no tape of the call that exists. And none has surfaced in the intervening decades after Damore’s death. As I previously wrote, this smells to high heaven. Any experienced writer would have taped the calls, had them transcribed, and then placed the originals in a safe deposit box. There is no evidence that any of that was done, even though Damore was an experienced writer who had written five books. And according to Damore, he had a time frame of two years to do this in.

    Damore also said that Fletcher Prouty revealed to him the name of the assassin. Len Osanic, the keeper of the Prouty files, said Fletcher almost never did this kind of thing (i.e. expose someone’s cover). The only exceptions were when the person under suspicion had a high-level profile (e. g. Alexander Butterfield). But further, Prouty was out of the service at the time of Meyer’s death, so how he could he know about that case?

    The most bizarre claim that Damore ever made is actually repeated by O’Brien, namely that Damore found a “diary” that Mary had kept. But what O’Brien does not reveal is this: Damore said he found the diary three times! (Janney, pp. 325, 328, 349) Damore even claimed that the alleged confessed assassin he interviewed had a version of it. But again, somehow, some way, Damore never thought of copying it.

    No objective journalist, attorney, or author could or should accept these claims. In the field of non-fiction authorship, there is a famous dictum: Extraordinary claims necessitate extraordinary evidence. What is there to back any of the above up? There is nothing that I can detect except hearsay from Damore, who, on the adduced record, is not the most credible witness. As they say in the trade, the references here are circular: they begin with him and end with him. And there is more she left out.

    One of the most surprising things about O’Brien’s podcast is that she never talked to Mark O’Blazney. This is weird, because Mark worked for Damore during the three years up to his death. He was introduced to him by Leary, who told him Damore was writing a book about the Mary Meyer case. At the start of the assignment, Damore promised to pay Mark for his work, and he did.

    But as time went on, this changed. Two things happened to upset the relationship and the prospective book that Damore was writing on the Meyer case. Damore and his research assistant visited the National Archives extensively, in order to find something new on the case besides the trial transcript. They came up empty. That was a large disappointment. Secondly, Damore’s wife left him.

    According to Mark, Damore never had a book, at least one that was even close to being completed. At one time, he even wailed, “I’m not finishing the book. I don’t have it.” (Question: if he talked to the admitted killer for hours, how could he not have a book?) Though he admittedly had no book, Damore would get angry at Mark for talking to other interested parties, like Deborah Davis, author of Katherine the Great. Damore was also consulting with the likes of the late professional prevaricator David Heymann. (Click here for details)

    Towards the end, Damore stopped paying Mark. At the time of his death, he owed his researcher about twelve thousand dollars. He could not afford to pay him, since Damore now had substantial debts of his own. At this time, Damore would phone Mark in a troubled, barely coherent state and ask him for small amounts of money. As Lisa Pease noted, it turned out that Damore had a tumor in his brain.

    Several years after Damore’s death, Peter Janney got in contact with Mark. He visited him personally. Janney spent about 3 hours interviewing Mark and paid him five thousand dollars for that and his research materials. What puzzled Mark was that toward the end of their talk, Janney started going on about space aliens. As if this had something to do with the Mary Meyer case. (Author interview with O’Blazney, 8/17/20)

    VI

    This background on Damore—all left out by O’Brien—brings us to William L. Mitchell. One of Damore’s claims was that the man who replied to his letter to the safehouse, and who he talked to for hours on the phone and then in person, and who also saw the Meyer “diary” was Mitchell. (Janney, p. 407) Mitchell happened to be a witness at Crump’s trial. Mitchell said he was jogging on the towpath the day Mary was killed and saw an African American male in the area. His description was similar to the other witness, Mr. Wiggins.

    Janney picked up this lead. In his book, he tried to say that he could not find Mitchell. Even though Damore had talked to him on the phone and in person. Janney then questioned if Mitchell really was, as he stated to the police, a mathematics professor. The impression Janney left was that somehow Mitchell had fallen off the face of the earth a short time after the trial. The implication being he was a black operator who stayed in a safehouse and was now being protected by the CIA. But then something occurred that rocked that scenario. Researcher Tom Scully did find Mitchell. He traced him through several different sources, including academic papers he published. Tom discovered his whole collegiate history, which was pretty distinguished, ending with a Ph.D. in mathematics. This information included the fact that in his registration for certain mathematical societies, he listed his so called “safehouse” address: 1500 Arlington Blvd. Apt. 1022 in Washington DC.

    When Tom Scully discovered this allegedly missing information, Janney now said that Mitchell had gone into deep cover and eluded everyone by “changing” his name to Bill Mitchell. Does this mean that if I use the name Jim DiEugenio, instead of James DiEugenio, that I am using an alias and have gone into seclusion? Of course not. But Janney was trying to save face because Scully had found that one of the tenets of the first edition of his book was rather unsound. If you can believe it—and by now you can—O’Brien parrots this silliness about “aliases,” which is further disproven by the fact that, as Scully noted, at times Mitchell did use the proper first name of William. (The Berkeley Engineering Alumni Directors of 1987, p. 225)

    But it’s worse than that, because Damore said that, when he met Mitchell back in 1993, the man was 74 years old, which would mean that William Mitchell today would have to be 101. Well, when Scully found Mitchell and Janney attempted to call upon him in early 2013, it turned out he was living in Northern California and was born in 1939. In other words, the man that Damore said he talked to was not the William L. Mitchell that Scully had found for Janney. Yet, Janney admitted that the man Scully found for him was the witness at Crump’s trial. (Click here for details)

    All the matters dug up by Scully and revealed by Mark O’Blazney bring up the gravest questions about what on earth Damore was doing towards the end of his life. Just what was the factual basis of his research into the Meyer case? CIA hit men do not return letters to them. They also do not print the address of the “safehouse” they have been assigned to in academic journals. And they surely do not meet with authors and confess about their black operations. If they did so they would not live long. Yet, Damore said these things occurred.

    And, apparently, O’Brien believes him, because in segment 7, she even quotes Damore as saying that he talked to Ken O’Donnell. According to the deceased author, O’Donnell said that JFK was losing interest in politics because of his affair with Mary. (Janney p. 230) This is ridiculous. Kennedy was planning his campaign for 1964 in 1963. And he was also mapping out future policies, like a withdrawal from Vietnam, and the passage of his civil rights bill. How does that indicate he was losing interest? But, as Lisa Pease noted, that is not the worst of it. O’Donnell also said that Kennedy was going to leave office, divorce Jackie Kennedy and move in with Mary Meyer! What was the source for this rather shattering information? It was Janney’s interview with Damore. According to O’Blazney, about one third of the interviews that Damore did were with Janney. (Op. Cit, O’Blazney interview)

    Need I add: O’Brien does not include any of this important qualifying information about Damore.

    VII

    O’Brien includes in her segment seven a long section on the so-called diary that Truitt alluded to back in the seventies. To me, this whole issue is almost as much a cul-de-sac as the Marilyn Monroe “diary”. (See Section 6 here for details)

    In my essay on the Meyer case, which I originally wrote for Probe Magazine, I examined every version of this diary story that was then existent. I concluded that it was quite odd that none of the participants who searched for it—Ben Bradlee, Toni Bradlee, Anne Truitt, Jim Truitt, Jim Angleton, Cicely Angleton—told a cohesive, consistent story. At times, they actually seemed at odds with each other. (Probe, September/October 1997, pp. 29-34) I concluded that what was found was probably a sketch book with some traces of Mary’s relationship with Kennedy, where he was not mentioned by name. Janney then made this angle all the worse. He wrote that Damore actually found the diary not once, but three times. (Janney, pgs. 325, 328. 349) And even Mitchell had the diary. (How a witness at the trial who did not know Mary Meyer could end up with a copy of her diary was left unexplained by both Damore and Janney.) As I said, this whole diary issue has become so evanescent that it is now a non sequitur. I concluded in 1997 that if it had all the information Truitt said it had—details about the affair and the pot smoking etc.—Angleton, who had some access to it, would have found a way to get it into the press. He never did.

    Yet O’Brien is not done stooping. She actually includes the information about Wistar Janney’s phone call to Ben Bradlee. After Wiggins phoned the police, the story of Meyer’s death got out into the local radio. Cicely Angleton heard about it that way and called her husband Jim. (New Times) Lance Morrow, a local reporter, was at the police station when the call came in. He called his newspaper and told them about it. (Smithsonian Magazine, December 2008) Wistar Janney, who was a CIA officer at the time, called Ben Bradlee and told him of the report he had just heard. (Bradlee, A Good Life, p. 266) From the description, Wistar thought it might be Mary. As Peter Janney made clear in his book, the two families knew each other well. Wistar Janney also called Cord Meyer when he heard the report. (Meyer, Facing Reality, p. 143)

    O’Brien puts this call together with something that is, again, completely unsubstantiated: Mary was putting together pieces of the JFK assassination puzzle. The implication, borrowed from Janney, is that this is why she was killed. Wistar Janney knew both Cord Meyer and Bradlee, who was married to Mary’s sister. Who better to call than Toni’s husband and Mary’s former husband? If the news was already out, then what was conspiratorial about the call? But secondly, as I noted in my review of Janney’s book, there is nothing in the record that indicates Mary Meyer was investigating the JFK case. How could she if the Warren Report had just been published two weeks earlier? It was 888 pages long with 6,000 footnotes. The testimony and evidence to those footnotes had not been issued at the time of her death, so how could she cross-reference them?  O’Brien is so hard up to give some kind of reason d’etre for her debacle of a podcast that she will reach for just about anything. Leaving the information that neuters it unsaid.

    In fact, Nina Burleigh, Ron Rosenbaum, Lance Morrow, and lawyer Bob Bennett all think that Crump was guilty. Only Rosenbaum gets to voice that on the podcast. Yet, if one adds up all the time the four are on the air, it’s about a third of the show. Also, if O’Brien would have admitted the mythology about “Vivian” and Mitchell, it would have left her with a real problem: Crump has no alibi and there is no other suspect. But the problem is, that leaves the public with “witnesses” like Jim Truitt, Tim Leary, and Damore, about which she conceals all the serious liabilities they have, while turning Meyer and Roundtree into artistic and legal icons.

    In 2008, when O’Brien did her special on the death of Martin Luther King, she took the opposite approach. Like Gerald Posner, she was out to discredit the idea that there was a conspiracy to kill King. (Click here for details) She concluded that people just need to think that a small time burglar like James Earl Ray could kill someone as important as King. Now, she takes the other approach: no matter how dubious the evidence, there likely was some kind of a plot to kill Mary Meyer. In both cases, she chose the expedient path. She was so eager to do so in the latter case she was unaware that she hit a new low in journalism.

  • Creating the Oswald Legend – Part 4

    Creating the Oswald Legend – Part 4


    I. ANGLETON & ROUTING OSWALD’S FILE

    In part 3, we discussed how Angleton controlled and manipulated Oswald’s incoming cables from Mexico in such a way to ensure that no one would understand their meaning until after the President’s assassination. We also presented the possibility that Angleton was using the mole hunt as a cover to hide his involvement in the assassination. In this section, we will show how Angleton was holding, close to his vest, the Oswald files from the very beginning. He did it via a very unusual mail routing system to ensure absolute control.

    We must first return to four years earlier, when Oswald defected to the Soviet Union and tried to renounce his citizenship. On October 31, 1959, Richard Snyder sent a Confidential cable from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow to the State Department. Cable 1304 described Oswald’s willingness to defect to the Soviet Union and his intention to give up military secrets to the Russians. The cable reads:

    Lee Harvey Oswald, unmarried age 20 PP 1733242 issued Sept 10, 1959 appeared at Emb. today to renounce American citizenship, stated applied in Moscow for Soviet citizenship following entry USSR from Helsinki Oct. 15. Mother’s address and his last address US 4936 Collinwood St., Fort worth, Texas. Says action contemplated last two years. Main reason “I am a Marxist”. Attitude arrogant aggressive. Recently discharged Marine Corps. [That was encircled] Says has offered Soviets any information he has acquired as enlisted radar operator.[1]

    On November 3, 1959, the State Department received a cable from the US naval attaché in Moscow, Captain John Jarret Munsen containing the following information: “OSWALD STATED HE WAS [A] RADAR OPERATOR IN MARCORPS AND HAS OFFERED TO FURNISH SOVIETS INFO HE POSSESSES ON US RADAR.”[2]

    The CIA received both the Snyder and Munsen cables, but claimed that they had no idea about the exact date of receipt.[3]

    On November 4, 1959, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) sent a cable to the Embassy in Moscow requesting to learn more about Oswald. This cable was also sent to army and air force intelligence, the FBI, and the CIA. It is known that Angleton’s CI/SIG received this CNO cable on December 6, 1959, but nobody could explain who possessed this cable from November 4 to December 6, a period of thirty-one days. It had simply disappeared somewhere inside the Agency and it turned out they had been withheld in the Office of Security (OS), which was part of the Directorate of Support. Along with these cables, there were newspaper clippings about Oswald and a cable from Tokyo regarding Oswald’s brother, John Pic.[4]

    The exact date that these cables and clippings were received by the OS is not known and author John Newman believes that they were first located in Angleton’s CI/SIG and then were sent to the OS.

    A November 9, 1959 document says Oswald was placed by the CIA on the Watch List, a select group of 300 people whose mail would be illegally opened by the highly secretive and illegal program HT/LINGUAL. [5] This program was used to detect Soviet Illegals, as was shown in part 2, and also for Angleton’s infamous Mole Hunt.

    The HT/LINGUAL project was responsible for opening incoming and outcoming mail from the Soviet Union, China, Pakistan, and South America. The OS played an important role in this HT/LINGUAL program, since it was responsible for monitoring and opening the mail in coordination with the Post Office, while Counter Intelligence would translate and analyze the material.[6]

    A CIA file, 104-10335-10014, released by NARA on April 26, 2018 contains the following information describing the Oswald files that the OS had prior to the assassination:

    At the time of the assassination, the Office of Security (OS) held two files which contained information on Lee Harvey Oswald. One file, entitled “Defectors File” (#0341008), contained a reference to Lee Harvey Oswald and the second file was Office of Security subject file on Lee Harvey Oswald (#0351164). This information was reflected in the automated security database known as the Management Data Program/Personnel Security (MDP/PS)…Both the Defectors File (#0341008) and the file of Lee Harvey Oswald (#0351164) were handled by Marguerite D. Stevens of the OS/Security Research Staff during the pre-assassination time frame. Of the documents listed above, a majority of them contain a notation or the initials of Marguerite D. Stevens, leading one to believe she was the officer responsible for the collection, analysis, and filing of this information…The Security Research Staff (SRS) was the component responsible for collecting, developing, and evaluating information of a counterintelligence nature to detect and/or prevent penetration of the Agency’s organization, employees, and activities by foreign or domestic organizations or individuals. SRS conducted research in connection with employee loyalty cases and maintained records identifying personalities, environments, and personal traits of individuals who had been of counterintelligence interest over the years. SRS maintained liaison with various government agencies in connection with counterintelligence activities and coordinated the counterintelligence effort throughout OS. Using organizational charts of this time period, SRS reported directly to the office of the Director of Security.

    It was extremely bizarre that the cables about Oswald went to the OS and not to the Soviet Russia Division (SR), as one would have expected, particularly because it would seem that Oswald’s defection to Russia would have been a matter of interest to the latter and not to the former. But it seems that this oddity was the main reason Oswald’s 201 file was not opened in late 1959, which is when it should have happened. Instead, it was opened over a year later on December 8, 1960.[7]

    It is interesting to compare the Oswald files destination with files of another defector, Robert Webster. His files went to the Soviet Russia Division (SR), as was supposed to happen, and they were copied to the Counter Intelligence (CI) and the Office of Security/Security Research Staff (OS/SRS). The men in charge of the OS/SRS were General Paul Gaynor and Bruce Solie. They cooperated very closely with Jim Angleton and his CI/SIG group, since the OS/SRS’s main function was counterintelligence. The truth is that “the SRS was a component started up in 1954 when Angleton wanted, in his words, to build a bridge to the Security Office; and it was almost co-joined with Angleton’s CI/SIG.”[8]

    II. MALCOLM BLUNT UNVEILS A HEROINE

    There are a few people who have gained national notoriety for their involvement in the JFK case. Some examples would be Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and Josiah Thompson. To a lesser extent, there are people like Sylvia Meagher, Harold Weisberg, Gaeton Fonzi, and John Newman. There are also those who did estimable work, but due to classification restrictions were only belatedly recognized (e.g. Bob Tanenbaum, Dan Hardway, L. J. Delsa, and Eddie Lopez). Due to the film JFK and the releases of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), their contributions have now been recognized in books and within the critical community.

    But there are researchers who toil mostly alone and work in the archives. They give their work to only a few trusted people. One man who fit that description early on was Peter Vea. It was his work which greatly helped authors like Bill Davy, Joan Mellen, and Jim DiEugenio write their books on New Orleans and the Garrison inquiry. This caused a new evaluation of that aspect of the Kennedy assassination history.

    Another person who fits the Peter Vea profile is Malcolm Blunt. What makes his case even more unusual is the fact that he lives in the United Kingdom. But he travels to Washington and does valuable work sorting through the Kennedy archives at NARA. It is through his work, and his work only, that we discovered a key figure who would have otherwise remained anonymous. Her name is Betsy Wolf.

    Betsy Wolf was one of the researchers for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. She interacted with attorneys Michael Goldsmith and Dan Hardway on matters related to the CIA. On page 514 of the HSCA report, she is listed as a researcher under the name Elizabeth Wolf, but she signed all of her work with the first name of Betsy.

    To say that Wolf was a dedicated, deliberate, and detailed researcher/investigator does not begin to describe the kind of analyst she was. That virtually no one knows anything about her work is due to the fact that, while the ARRB was in session, from 1994-98, only some of her work product was declassified. Much of her material was placed on a time-delayed release pattern when the ARRB formally disbanded. What this meant was that many of her materials were deemed so sensitive that they were given a release date after 1998. In fact, some of her notes were not declassified until 2010. And even then, a few of them have redactions. Even more maddening, the vast majority of Wolf’s output is in the form of handwritten notes. For whatever reason, the HSCA chose not to transcribe much of her output into formal memoranda. So, at times, her notes are difficult to read, and also to date.

    Why was her work not transcribed? Why did it take so long to get it declassified? It appears to be because one of her major areas of inquiry was exploring the mystery surrounding the Oswald file at CIA. One of the key points she addressed was this: Why was there no opening of a 201 file on Oswald once it was known he had defected to the USSR in late October of 1959? When Oswald arrived in Moscow, he talked to former CIA employee Richard Snyder at the American Embassy. (Snyder’s formal Agency employ was discovered by Wolf and is in her notes.) What made the late opening even more perplexing was the fact that the State Department knew that Oswald had threatened to give away top secrets to the Soviets. That threat was magnified because the former Marine Oswald had been a radar operator and his military service associated him with the U-2 spy plane. (See John Newman, Oswald and the CIA, pp. 29-46) The fact that the Agency did not open a 201 file—one of its most common files—upon learning this information greatly puzzled Wolf. Oswald’s 201 file was not opened until thirteen months after his defection, in spite of the fact that the U-2 was a CIA project.

    Wolf approached her assignment as if no one had ever done any research on the subject before. Considering how little the Warren Commission delved into the area, this was largely true. She investigated and asked for the charters of different directorates and divisions within the CIA (e.g. Soviet Russia, Office of Security, CI/SIG). A paradox that stymied her was the following: a rule that had been followed informally was that a 201 file should be opened whenever a subject accumulates at least five documents. (Michael Goldsmith interview with CIA officer William Larson, 6/27/78). This made an impression on Wolf because Larson was the Chief of the Information Management Staff. Larson also said that the Office of Security did not open 201 files. (ibid) Yet, this is where the early documents on Oswald went.

    Why was this important information? Because prior to the 201 file on Oswald being opened, there were twelve items in the Oswald file. (Blind Memo of HSCA Team Five) Wolf found this so odd that she wrote it down three times in her notes and also listed the items. Four of the documents—from the Navy and State Department— had been sent to CIA within a week or so of the defection. Both Navy and State knew about Oswald’s threat to give secrets to the Soviets. And this information was in the cables. (ibid) According to three witnesses that Wolf interviewed, Larson, CI/SIG chief Birch O’Neil (sometimes spelled O’Neal), and CIA Director Dick Helms, that information should have caused the opening of a 201 file. (Wolf notes of 7/20/78 and 9/9/78) In other words, there were two reasons to open the 201 file on Oswald over a year prior to when it happened. Neither one triggered the opening. Further, when Wolf looked at the 201 file, it only contained copies and the two Naval dispatches were gone. (Op. cit, Blind Memo) She later discovered that the Office of Security (OS) had the originals and these were not dated as to when they arrived or who handled them. (ibid)

    In addition to Larson saying that OS did not open 201 files, he said something else that was rather mystifying, that OS worked closely with the Counter-Intelligence division (CI). And CI could cause the opening of a 201 file. (Op. Cit. Larson interview) What could be a more compelling reason for the counter-intelligence office opening a file on Oswald than his threatening to give secrets of the U-2 to the Soviets? (ibid, pp. 45, 48) But again, it did not occur. Larson also said that if he had been in his position in 1959, he would have sent Oswald’s files to the Soviet Russia (SR) division. (ibid, p. 56) Larson said that for such a lacuna to happen, SR must not have been aware of the State Department memo. (ibid, p. 74) Larson also stated that project files are held separately from the 201 file. But if the subject is part of an operation, that operation number should be on the 201 file. As we shall see, there was no such number on the first document once the Oswald file was opened.

    Larson’s interview was apparently too revealing. Malcolm Blunt first discovered it in 2006. But in his visits to NARA in 2010 and 2017, he couldn’t find it.

    Why was Oswald’s 201 file opened when it was? Ann Egerter, worked at Counter Intelligence Special Investigations Group (CI/SIG). According to the information Wolf dug up, CI/SIG was formed in order to locate and stop security leaks, either in the field or at HQ. It was close to OS, but it was more concerned with operational security than Agency security. (Wolf notes of 12/8/78) Egerter said she opened the 201, because of a request from the State Department saying they needed information about a list of defectors who recently went over to the USSR. (Op. Cit. Blind Memo, p. 16) She continued by saying that they got the request on 10/25/60, and she and O’Neil cooperated in replying to it. In an interview she did with Wolf, Egerter stated that she worked closely with O’Neil, who headed CI/SIG, and his deputy was Scotty Miler. (March 31, 1978 interview) She then added that both were very close to James Angleton, chief of counter-intelligence. Egerter now went about setting up a 201 file on Oswald, except the cover sheet was rather odd.

    The opening document of Oswald’s 201 file

    Note the middle name of Henry, not Harvey, and the slot that is labeled Source Document is filled in with the acronym CI/SIG, which is not a document. Finally, in the notes below Dottie Lynch is still waiting for the file. She works in the SR division where the file should have been placed originally.

    Wolf had not yet figured out why Oswald’s files went to OS in the first place. There were two key inquiries she did in order to understand this aspect, which in CIA parlance is called dissemination of files. One was with H. C. Eisenbeiss, Director of Central Reference. He said that dissemination had been founded on written dissemination requirements from customer offices.  (Wolf notes of September 18, 1978) This would seem to indicate that someone in OS requested Oswald’s files be directed to that office.  Wolf’s interview with Robert Gambino went further.

    As Malcolm Blunt explained to the author, OS Chief Robert Gambino described incoming mail dissemination. This was in an HSCA interview that cannot be found anywhere except in Betsy Wolf’s surviving notes. (Wolf interviewed Gambino on 7/26/78) Gambino revealed to her that it was CIA Mail Logistics, a component of the Office of Central Reference (OCR)—part of the Deputy Director of Intelligence (DDI)—that was responsible for disseminating all incoming documents. In the case of Oswald, his files bypassed the General Filing System and went straight into the Office of Security and its SRS component. (This is illustrated in the file routing graph below; note the detour at the second step from the top.)

    If someone wanted to get a file from Mail Logistics, they would have to request it ahead of time.  So, the SR Division would have to ask Mail Logistics for Oswald’s incoming documents. But, in this case, Mail Logistics closed off the SR Division. A possible explanation for doing that was in order to surface a mole who Angleton believed was in the SR Division after the arrest of CIA spy Pyotr Popov by the KGB. Since the file was restricted, the mole would have had to sign for it, thereby exposing himself. However, this author still maintains that the search for Popov’s mole was only an excuse for Angleton to cover the shooting of the U-2 and the Paris peace talk cancellation. A third possibility would be that Oswald was a special project for Angleton, one he wanted no one else to know about. A fourth alternative would be that there was a dual filing system on Oswald. An idea that Wolf seriously entertained.

    One copy of Oswald’s file would have gone to RID (Records Integrating Division). But this is a passive location, where CIA staff would trace a name of a person of interest that could come up.[9]

    Let us close out this section with other compelling discoveries made by Wolf. She discovered that, in preparation for the Warren Commission looking at CIA documents on Oswald, there were 37 of them missing. A key attachment to this document was gone and there was no index as to which documents were missing. Neither was there any indication as to where they were or when they would be replaced. (Wolf notes of 4/5/78) From November of 1959 to February of 1964, Oswald’s file contained a grand total of 771 documents, 167 originated with CIA. (ibid) By 1978, the Oswald file contained 150 folders and envelopes.

    The first fact exposes the lie David Belin of the Warren Commission once said on Nightline, namely that he had seen every CIA file on Oswald. The second one belies the claim that CIA Director Robert Gates once said, namely that there was little interest in Oswald by the CIA.

    Somehow, some way, Wolf had access to a chronology set up by Ray Rocca. Rocca was Angleton’s right hand man at CI. In that chronology are two fascinating insights into Angleton and Mexico City. The first is that Rocca had cabled Luis Echeverria on November 23rd concerning the relationship between Oswald and Sylvia Duran, the receptionist at the Cuban consulate. This is important because, as David Josephs has revealed, Secretary of Interior Echeverria would eventually take over the investigation of Oswald in Mexico City; leaving the FBI and Warren Commission out in the cold. What makes this important is that this was before Helms had assigned Angleton his liaison duties with the Commission. Secondly, the day after the assassination, a CIA agent escorted Elena Garro de Paz to the Vermont Hotel. In other words, within 24 hours, Angleton and Rocca are controlling Duran, a prime witness to Oswald not being in Mexico City, and Elena Garro, a witness who would eventually say that Oswald was having an affair with Duran.

    This neatly leads us to our next topic.

    III. BLAME IT ON CUBA & RUSSIA

    Rita Hayworth had sung “put the blame on Mame,” but there were some elements worldwide that started singing after the assassination a different version of the song, “put the blame on Cuba and Russia”.

    In part 3, it was shown that on November 22, 1963, after Oswald’s arrest, Colonel Robert E. Jones of the 112th MIG provided information to the FBI that linked Oswald to Hidell and FPCC and by extension to the rifle that was used to assassinate the President. The 112th MIG also transmitted crucial information to the U.S. Strike Command (USSTRICOM) at McDill Air Force Base in Florida. This was given to them by Assistant Chief Don Stringfellow, Intelligence Section, Dallas Police Department: Oswald had defected to Cuba in 1959 and was a was a card-carrying member of Communist Party.[10]

    USSTRICOM had been given the mission to swiftly and surprisingly attack Cuba, if necessary. FBI agent Jim Hosty later wrote that he had learned from independent sources that fully armed fighter airplanes were sent to attack Cuba, but their mission was aborted just before entering Cuban air space.[11]

    On November 22, 1963, Dallas Police Lieutenant Jack Revill sent a memo to Captain W.P Gannaway of the DPD Special Service Bureau that agent Hosty had informed him that Oswald was a member of the Communist Party.[12] It seems that early on there were some forces within the U.S. trying to spread the notion that Oswald was a Communist and to blame Cuba for the crime.

    The new agencies repeated the same theme and UPI dispatched cables about the assassination, as Fabian Escalante presented them in his book “JFK, The Cuba Files.”[13]

    —–“Dallas, November 22. The Police today detained Lee Harvey Oswald, identified as a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the main suspect in the Kennedy assassination.”

    —–“Dallas, November 22. The assassin of President Kennedy is a confessed Marxist who spent three years in Russia trying to renounce his U.S. citizenship…an ex-marine and president of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.”

    Similar UPI cables referred to Oswald as a pro-Castro American and a Marxist partisan of Prime Minister Fidel Castro. Another dispatch the following day November 23, reported that Oswald had admitted to the Dallas Police that he was a Communist and member of the Communist Party.

    US News & World Report joined the bandwagon and, on December 2, 1963, published an article titled “Lee Harvey Oswald, Castro defender and Marxist, who was charged with the assassination of Kennedy.” Some days later, it was reported that the assassination was carefully planned, Oswald was an active Communist, and Castro was terrorizing the Americas and creating problems.

    As discussed in Part 3, Oswald had come into contact with Carlos Bringuier and the DRE in New Orleans. On November 23, 1963, the DRE published a special report of its monthly magazine, Trinchera, and linked Oswald to Fidel Castro. Under the title “The Presumed Assassins,” there was a photo of Oswald next to a photo of Fidel Castro.[14]

    On November 26, the CIA and Mafia-affiliated Frank Sturgis said to the Sun-Sentinel newspaper that Oswald had connections to the Cuban Government and that he had made a call to the Cuban Intelligence. The same day John Martino, another CIA and Santo Trafficante Jr. ally, stated in an interview that he had contacted Cuban G-2 in Mexico City and had distributed FPCC leaflets in Miami.[15] Martino also revealed that Castro killed Kennedy to retaliate for a plot devised by Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev to replace Castro with Huber Matos, who was in a Cuban jail.

    Robert Slusser, an expert in Soviet affairs, maintained that Kennedy was killed by the Soviet secret police.[16] There were more rightwing pressures on CIA when Senator Dodd of the American Security Council, the same Senator that we discussed in part 3, disseminated Julien Sourwine’s Senate Internal Security Subcommittee report, the false information that Oswald had been trained at a KGB assassination school in Minsk.[17]

    Before Oswald was charged with murder, CBS aired Oswald’s interview from last August in New Orleans against Stuckey and Butler. Then Senator Dodd called Ed Butler to testify before his Senate Sub-Committee. According to Butler, Oswald was a Communist with a hatred of his country and not just a crackpot.[18]

    Oswald’s friend Peter Gregory helped the Secret Service with translating Marina Oswald’s testimony. Earlier, another White Russian, Ilya Mamantov, who was one of Gregory’s friends, had told the false story that the alleged murder weapon was a dark and scopeless rifle that Oswald had owned since his days in the Soviet Union. Gregory had intentionally distorted Marina’s testimony to support the above claim.[19]

    Back in Mexico, a young man from Nicaragua, Gilberto Alvarado Ugarte, visited the American Ambassador Thomas Mann on November 25, 1963, and claimed that he had visited the Cuban Embassy, where he had seen Oswald talking to a tall thin red- haired Negro. Alvarado said that Oswald had offered to kill Kennedy and he saw the red-haired Negro giving Oswald $6,500 to carry out his threat.[20] Alvarado also claimed that Oswald met a girl there—meaning receptionist Sylvia Duran. She gave him an embrace and invited him to her house, implying that Oswald and Duran had an affair. Elena Garro De Paz, a Mexican writer, collaborated Alvarado’s story a few years later. She also claimed that Duran was Oswald’s mistress and that both were at a dance party that Duran’s husband had organized. She also claimed that the red-haired Negro was also in the company of Oswald.[21]

    Alvarado claimed that he was a leftist trying to go to Cuba. Win Scott, the CIA Station Chief in Mexico, cabled Langley to find out about him. The response was that Alvarado was a known informant for the Nicaraguan Intelligence Service. Scott asked David Phillips to interrogate him and Alvarado told him that the incident happened on September 18. Phillips said that Alvarado had knowledge of the Cuban Embassy personnel and that he was “completely cooperative” showing some signs of fearing for his safety. The FBI interviewed Oswald’s landlady in New Orleans and testified that Oswald was in New Orleans on September 18.[22] The problem was solved when Alvarado changed the date to September 28, the day that Oswald was supposed to be in the Cuban Embassy. It was Phillips who had sent the initial cable under the alias Michael C. Choaden that Alvarado “claims he [is] awaiting false Mexican documentation prior [to] receiving sabotage training in Cuba.” In a second cable, L. F. Barker, an alias for Phillip’s colleague Robert Shaw, reported that Alvarado had admitted he was a member of Nicaraguan Intelligence, but that was no reason to doubt his story. Barker described him as “a young, quiet, very serious person, who speaks with conviction.”[23]

    Eventually, Alvarado was handed over to the Mexican government for interrogation. They reported back to Win Scott that Alvarado had recanted and signed a statement admitting that his story was “completely false.” A few days later Alvarado repeated his original story. He now said he changed when he was threatened by his questioners and told they would hang him by his testicles.[24] A technician from Washington performed a polygraph test on him. He failed.[25]

    Phillips later wrote that he had the theory that Somoza, the Nicaraguan leader, had dispatched Alvarado to plant the false story in order to force the U.S. Government to move against Cuba. As Phillips said, “it was a nice try, but a transparent operation.”[26]

    Nicaraguan intel had a close cooperation with the CIA and Phillips knew all along that Alvarado was a CIA informant, and the FBI believed that he was under CIA control. Three CIA reports admitted that Alvarado was a CIA informant.[27]

    Hoover, according to document CD 1359, said to Earl Warren that Castro had told an FBI informant with the codename “Solo” that Oswald had threatened to kill Kennedy inside the Cuban Embassy. This was never published.[28] In 1995, the identity of “Solo” became known. He was Jack Childs, an FBI informant inside the Communist Party USA. Childs said that he had told the FBI in 1964 that Castro confided to him that Oswald was so upset when the Cubans did not issue him a visa that he yelled “I am going to kill Kennedy for this.”[29]

    Years later, Castro denied that he ever uttered that statement. Clarence Kelly, who replaced Hoover as FBI Director, wrote in his autobiography that Oswald had offered to kill Kennedy inside the Cuban Consulate.[30] Kelley claimed that Oswald offered to reveal information to the Cubans and Soviets on a CIA plot to kill Castro in exchange for Cuban and Soviet visas. Kelly was certain that Oswald offered to kill Kennedy inside the Soviet Embassy and this was revealed by informants inside the Soviet Embassy.[31]

    To this day, there is no tangible evidence to support the idea that Oswald made such a threat, which leaves two possibilities. Either this was manufactured after the fact to support the Alvarado story; or Oswald did say this inside the Cuban Consulate as part of his role in the SAS operation to discredit the FPCC in foreign countries.  But yet, as Arnaldo Fernandez points out, no eyewitness in either location heard Oswald say this. And there is no tape of it either. (Click here for a review)

    There were more dubious efforts to incriminate Cuba as the driving force behind Oswald’s decision to kill President Kennedy. Fabian Escalante, head of Cuban Counterintelligence at that time, presented five letters whose purpose was to incriminate Cuba in the assassination. Two of them were dated before November 22, 1963, while the other three after the assassination.[32]

    The first letter was signed by a Pedro Charles. Dated Havana, November 10, 1963, it read:

    My friend Lee…I recommend great prudence and that you don’t do anything crazy with the money I gave you…After the business I will highly recommend you to the Chief, who will be very interested and pleased to meet you because they need men like you. I told him that you could blow out a candle at 50 meters and he does not believe me, but I made him believe me because I saw it with my own eyes. The chief was amazed. Well Lee, practice your Spanish well for when you come to Havana…after the business I will send you your money…[33]

    That letter was postmarked Havana, November 23, 1963. It reached the U.S. and Marina Oswald 12 days later, which was impossible according the mail system in those days.

    Another letter addressed to Oswald was signed by a “Jorge”, dated Havana, November 14, 1963. It was accidentally found in the Cuban postal system when a fire broke out on November 23, 1963. Jorge was writing about the time they had met in Mexico and Oswald had talked to him about a “perfect plan” that would weaken the politics of that braggart Kennedy.[34] Braggart would be a word used by the Cuban exiles about JFK, not a G2 agent.

    Upon examining these two letters, the Cubans concluded that they were both written first in English and then translated into Spanish. But without great success. They also concluded they were written by the same person and this person was privy to the assassination plot.[35]

    Another letter was dated November 27, 1963. It was received by the New York Daily on December 8, 1963, and signed by Miguel Galvan Lopez, an ex-Captain of the Rebel Army and Cuban Exile. It confirmed that:

    Oswald was paid for by Mr. Pedro, an agent of Fidel Castro in Mexico. This man befriended the ex-marine and sharpshooter Lee Harvey Oswald…Mr. Pedro Charles had given Oswald $7,000 as an advance…Later he handed over $10,000 to complete the job…the crime was agreed at $17,000. Mr. Pedro Charles who uses other fictitious names…is currently at the residence of the Cuban Ambassador to Mexico…I would like you to know before anyone the truth concerning the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas.[36]

    A similar letter was sent to Robert Kennedy claiming that Pedro Charles had paid Oswald $7,000 to assassinate his brother.[37]

    The Cubans concluded that all five letters were written by the same person. The sole purpose being to incriminate Castro and Cuba for the assassination of President Kennedy. They were scheduled to arrive in the U.S. after the assassination, to provoke an American invasion of Cuba as revenge for the crime. The FBI examined the letters and concluded that they were faked: postmarked at the same place and two were typed on the same typewriter, yet they were supposed to be written by different people. The FBI concluded that Cuba had not sponsored the assassination and these letters were provocations. Things were about to drastically change and take a spectacular U-turn.

    IV. THE LONE NUT

    Dallas District Attorney, Henry Wade, stated on November 23, 1963, that “Preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved in the shooting…the electric chair is too good for the killers.” Little did he know that a day earlier, November 22, 1963, someone from the White House situation room had announced to everyone aboard Air Force One on their way back to Washington that Oswald was the lone assassin and there was no conspiracy.[38]

    Something would later be apparent to those who wanted to blame the crime on Cuba. It was simply that there were opposing forces within the country that promoted the story that Oswald was the lone assassin acting alone. There was no foreign or domestic conspiracy.

    On November 23, 1963, James Reston of the NY Times, wrote an article entitled “Why America Weeps” followed by the sub-heading “Kennedy Victim of Violent Streak He Sought to Curb in the Nation.” Reston concluded that “an assassin” had shot the President due to “some strain of madness and violence.”[39] Associated Press reporter Jack Bell, who was in Dallas, wrote a story in The Times that “the assassin took his stand” and that “His three well aimed shots plunged America and the world into grief.”[40] Not only had Bell come to similar conclusions as Reston, but he had asserted a day after the assassination that only three shots were fired, when the investigation was still in progress.

    On November 25, 1963, The Times published a story by reporter Foster Hailey, entitled “Lone Assassin the Rule in the U.S.; Plotting more Prevalent Abroad.” Hailey stated that in other countries like Russia and Japan assassinations were politically or nationalistically motivated and the result of organized plan by Government figures. But in the U.S. the assassinations were done by a single person without advance planning. Hailey then concluded that “seems to have been the case of Lee H. Oswald, the killer of President Kennedy who was himself slain yesterday.”[41]

    There were rumors in Dallas about a conspiracy. The investigation was still ongoing. The alleged assassin was killed while literally in the arms of the Dallas Police. But instead of raising questions, Hailey had decided to close the book on Kennedy’s assassination, at a time when much of the public was wondering if Jack Ruby had been on a mission to silence Oswald. And on a historical note, the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was clearly a broad-based conspiracy, which had three targets: Lincoln, Vice-President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward. Eight people were put on trial and one of them, Lewis Powell who had almost stabbed Seward to death, famously said that they only apprehended half of the plotters.

    In spite of that fact, the NY Times was not alone. Similar conclusions were presented by the New York Herald Tribune in an article entitled, “Shame of a Nation—History of Assassinations.” The article stated that assassination was used around the world for power struggle, but not in the U.S.  It also included an excerpt from a book The Assassins by Robert J. Donovan, which was about American presidential assassinations:

    They involved neither organized attempts to shift political power from one group to another, nor to perpetuate a particular man or party in office, nor to alter the policy of the Government, nor to resolve ideological conflicts. With one exception (Truman), no terroristic or secret society planned these assaults on our Presidents or was in any way involved.”[42]

    Coincidentally, it was the Donovan book that Allen Dulles passed around at the first executive session meeting of the Warren Commission. Mayor Earle Cabell, the brother of former CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell, stated on November 23, 1963, in the Dallas Morning News that Oswald was a maniac and the assassination was “the irrational act of a single man” and that it “could only be the act of a deranged mind.” It was only recently revealed that Mayor Earle Cabell had been a CIA asset since 1956. (Click here for details)

    Newsweek, Time, and The Wall Street Journal, all followed with similar articles blaming the assassination on one single assassin, Lee H. Oswald. U.S. News and World Report was a vocal proponent of the “Cuba did it” story, but on December 16, 1963, took a U-turn and argued that:

    President Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald; Oswald had no accomplices at any level. He alone planned the attack and fired the fatal bullets; No conspiracy, on the part of groups in the United States or abroad, aided the death of the President or his assassin.[43]

    In other words, these reports paved the way for the Warren Commission to come to its lone nut conclusion. That theory was actively promoted by Alan Belmont, the number three man in the FBI chain of command. Hoover would later fall in line to participate in the official cover-up. But it was Belmont who was certainly a prime force behind the cover-up, since he was running the day-to-day operations of the FBI inquiry. Hoover had discussed with the Chief of Secret Service, James J. Rowley, on November 22, 1963, possible conspirators like Cubans or the Ku Klux Klan. Later that day, Hoover informed Robert Kennedy about Oswald’s FPCC membership, his defection to the Soviet Union, and that he had visited Cuba several times “but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for.”[44]

    Hoover called LBJ on November 23, 1963, at 10.01 a.m. and told him that the evidence against Oswald “at the present time is not very, very strong” and that “the case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction.”[45]

    Belmont had a different agenda. On November 24, 1963, a few hours after Oswald’s death, he sent a memo to Clyde Tolson promoting Oswald as the lone assassin. Although he informed Tolson about Oswald being a Marxist, the FPCC, and his Soviet Union defection, he concluded that “we will set forth the items which make it clear that Oswald is the man who killed the President.”[46] As Donald Gibson noted, Oswald’s leftist connection and the fact that the FBI had been warned that Oswald would be murdered were of no interest to Belmont.

    On November 25, 1963, Belmont sent a memo to William Sullivan stating that: “In other words, this report is to settle the dust in so far as Oswald and his activities are concerned, both from the standpoint that he is the man who assassinated the President, and relative to Oswald himself and his activities and background et cetera.”[47] Later, John J. McCloy used the same expression when there were concerns regarding conflicting evidence about the assassination: “This Commission is set up to lay the dust, dust not only in the United States but all over the World.”[48]

    Belmont had done everything he could in directing the FBI investigation to the desired conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin. At the same time, more powerful individuals were trying to convince LBJ that he should create a Presidential Commission to investigate the assassination. This commission would later become the Warren Commission and would cement the conclusion that Oswald was a lone nut who, alone and without assistance, killed JFK.

    Most people are under the impression that it was LBJ or Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach who came up with the idea of a Presidential Commission. However, as Donald Gibson revealed in his book The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Katzenbach was not the originator of the Warren Commission.

    The source of this misunderstanding was Katzenbach’s memo to Bill Moyers, Assistant to LBJ on November 24, 1963 that warned:

    The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

    Speculation about Oswald’s motivation ought to be cut off and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately, the facts on Oswald seem about too pat—too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.[49]

    There were two investigations going on, so there was a question as to why a Presidential Commission was necessary. One was being conducted by the FBI and the results would have been presented to President Johnson. The second was being done by the Attorney General Waggoner Carr of Texas.

    Eugene Rostow, Dean of the Yale Law School, called Bill Moyers at the White House on November 24, 1963, to suggest the possibility of a Presidential Commission which would include distinguished citizens. It should be noted that Rostow told Moyers there was someone else in the room when he called, but he did not say who it was. Rostow told Moyers that he had already spoken to Katzenbach about three times, but he was speaking directly to Moyers because Katzenbach “sounded too groggy so I thought I’d pass this thought along to you.”[50] According to Gibson, Katzenbach wrote his memo as a result of his conversations with Rostow.

    On November 25, 1963, LBJ received a call from esteemed and influential journalist Joseph Alsop of the New York Herald Tribune. Alsop was considered a VIP member of the Ivy League and Eastern Establishment with connections to intelligence services. Interestingly, during this call, Alsop said he too had talked to Moyers. Alsop suggested to LBJ the need for a presidential commission, but the President argued that it would ruin the Texas and FBI investigations. Alsop tried to convince Johnson otherwise and offered the information that Dean Acheson, the former Secretary of State, was also in favor. Alsop was indirectly admitting that he was acting in collusion with Acheson.

    The other early supporters of a Presidential Commission were Secretary of State Dean Rusk and, from the Washington Post, Katherine Graham, Alfred Friendly, and Russell Wiggins.[51]

    Even though LBJ was the legal creator of the Warren Commission, the real instigators behind its creation were elite and important members of the Eastern Establishment. On December 4, 1963, Dean Acheson praised LBJ for appointing the Warren Commission and LBJ replied that “we did the best we could and I think we’ve got Hoover pretty well in line.”[52]

    By creating the Warren Commission and having it appear to be of Johnson’s origination, the most important and crucial aspect of the cover up had succeeded. However, there were still loose ends to tighten up and tuck in. The first was Ambassador Thomas C. Mann in Mexico. He was aggressively promoting the Cuba did it story based on Alvarado’s testimony. Hoover was not very impressed with Mann and mocked him for “trying to play Sherlock Holmes.”[53] So Hoover sent Agent Larry Keenan down to Mexico, where he met with Win Scott, Ambassador Mann, David Phillips, and the FBI Legat Clark Anderson. Mann predicted that “the missiles are going to fly,” but Anderson and Scott disagreed, believing that the Soviets were too professional to be involved in this charade. Keenan intervened and informed Mann that Hoover had concluded that Oswald was a Communist who had acted alone. To back up his claim, he told Mann that LBJ and Robert Kennedy shared the same opinion. Later, Mann said that this “was the strangest experience of his life” and added “I don’t think the U.S. was very forthcoming about Oswald.”[54]

    A second loose end were the recorded tapes of Oswald’s talks with the receptionist Duran and Russian diplomat Valery Kostikov in Mexico. On November 23, 1963, at 10.01 a.m. Hoover called LBJ and informed him: “That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.”[55]

    The same day a memo from Belmont to Hoover and a memo from Hoover to Secret Service Chief Rowley confirmed that FBI agents from Dallas who knew Oswald had seen the photos and listened to his voice and they were of the opinion that the individual in question was not Lee Harvey Oswald.[56] In order for LBJ to play his WWIII trump card and intimidate Senator Richard Russell and Chief Justice Earl Warren into accepting their Warren Commission appointments, the tapes had to disappear. The tapes had left Mexico on a plane and arrived in Dallas on November 23, 1963, where the FBI agents listened to the tapes. Later the CIA advised that all tapes had been routinely erased.

    Back at CIAHQ, John Whitten, responsible for the investigation, had learned about the FBI agents listening to the tapes and that even some tapes were erased. There was one tape discovered after the assassination. The lone gunman theory had no place for Whitten’s involvement, therefore Richard Helms—who was running the CIA’s interactions with the Commission—replaced him with Angleton. A cable from Win Scott to CIAHQ linking Kostikov to Rolando Cubela was the pretext that Angleton needed to hijack the investigation. Cubela was AM/LASH, a CIA agent, and Cuban national designated to assassinate Castro. This cable would create a triangulation between Kostikov, Oswald, and Cubela and the implication would have been severe for the CIA, even if there was no proof that this ever happened.

    Everything was now constructed: the media was indoctrinating the public, a blue-ribbon panel was established, the threat of atomic annihilation was in the air, Belmont was helming the inquiry, and Angleton was running the cover up about Oswald. With all these in place, the path had now been cleared and was about to be paved, or as Belmont said, the dust would now be settled. The lone nut and lone gunman would become the official version, the one that would perpetuate the cover up to this day.


    NOTE: Section II written largely by James DiEugenio using documents supplied by Malcolm Blunt.

    Go to Part 1

    Go to Part 2

    Go to Part 3

    Go to Part 5

    Go to Part 6

    Go to Conclusion

    Go to Appendix


    [1] Joe Backes, ARRB Summaries: Page 16.

    [2] Newman John, Oswald and the CIA, Skyhorse Publishing Inc. 1995, pp. 22-23.

    [3] Newman John, Oswald and the CIA, Skyhorse Publishing Inc. 1995, p. 23.

    [4] Newman John, Oswald and the CIA, Skyhorse Publishing Inc. 1995, p. 27.

    [5] Newman John, Oswald and the CIA, Skyhorse Publishing Inc. 1995, p. 54.

    [6] Newman John, Oswald and the CIA, Skyhorse Publishing Inc. 1995, p. 56.

    [7] Newman John, Oswald and the CIA, Skyhorse Publishing Inc. 1995, p. 48.

    [8] Blunt Malcolm in private correspondence with this author.

    [9] Blunt Malcolm in private correspondence with this author.

    [10] Scott, Peter Dale, Deep Politics, University of California Press 1993, p. 275.

    [11] Hosty James, Assignment Oswald, New York, Arcade publishing, 1996, p. 219.

    [12] Scott, Peter Dale, Deep Politics II, Mary Ferrell Foundation Press 2003, p. 78.

    [13] Escalante, Fabian, JFK: The Cuba Files, Ocean Press, 2006, pp. 152–153.

    [14] https://jfkfacts.org/nov-23-1963-the-first-jfk-conspiracy-theory-paid-for-by-the-cia/#more-9594

    [15] Escalante, Fabian, JFK: The Cuba Files, Ocean Press, 2006, p. 154.

    [16] Scott, Peter Dale, Deep Politics II, Mary Ferrell Foundation Press 2003, p. 33.

    [17] Scott, Peter Dale, Deep Politics, University of California Press 1993, p. 215.

    [18] Ed Butler: Expert in propaganda and psychological warfare.

    [19] Scott, Peter Dale, Deep Politics, University of California Press 1993, pp. 267-269.

    [20] Fonzi Gaeton, The Last Investigation, Marry Ferrell Press, 1993, 2008, p. 279.

    [21] Scott, Peter Dale, Dallas ‘63, Open Road Media, 2015, kindle version.

    [22] Morley Jefferson, Our Man in Mexico, University Press of Kansas, 2008, pp. 222–223.

    [23] Scott, Peter Dale, Dallas ‘63, Open Road Media, 2015, kindle version

    [24] Morley Jefferson, Our Man in Mexico, University Press of Kansas, 2008, pp. 229–230.

    [25] Scott, Peter Dale, Dallas ‘63, Open Road Media, 2015, kindle version.

    [26] Morley Jefferson, Our Man in Mexico, University Press of Kansas, 2008, p. 230.

    [27] Morley Jefferson, Our Man in Mexico, University Press of Kansas, 2008, p. 230.

    [28] Newman John, Oswald and the CIA, Skyhorse Publishing Inc. 1995, p. 428.

    [29] Scott, Peter Dale, Deep Politics II, Mary Ferrell Foundation Press 2003, p. 90.

    [30] Newman John, Oswald and the CIA, Skyhorse Publishing Inc. 1995, p. 429.

    [31] Scott, Peter Dale, Deep Politics II, Mary Ferrell Foundation Press 2003, p. 101.

    [32] Russell Dick, The Man Who Knew too Much, Carroll & Graf 1992, p. 461.

    [33] Escalante, Fabian, JFK: The Cuba Files, Ocean Press, 2006, p. 135.

    [34] Escalante, Fabian, JFK: The Cuba Files, Ocean Press, 2006, p. 138.

    [35] Escalante, Fabian, JFK: The Cuba Files, Ocean Press, 2006, p. 143.

    [36] Escalante, Fabian, JFK: The Cuba Files, Ocean Press, 2006, p. 136.

    [37] Escalante, Fabian, JFK: The Cuba Files, Ocean Press, 2006, p. 137.

    [38] Tale of the Tapes – By Vincent Salandria.

    [39] Gibson Donald, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Krosha Books, NY, 2000, pp. 27–28.

    [40] Gibson Donald, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Krosha Books, NY, 2000, p. 28.

    [41] Gibson Donald, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Krosha Books, NY, 2000, pp. 29–30.

    [42] Gibson Donald, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Krosha Books, NY, 2000, p. 30.

    [43] Escalante, Fabian, JFK: The Cuba Files, Ocean Press, 2006, p. 157.

    [44] FBI Memo from Hoover to his staff, November 22, 1963, 4.01 pm.

    [45] Gibson Donald, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Krosha Books, NY, 2000, p. 40.

    [46] Gibson Donald, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Krosha Books, NY, 2000, p. 42.

    [47] HSCA Report, Vol. III, p. 668.

    [48] Gibson Donald, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Krosha Books, NY, 2000, p. 98.

    [49] Katzenbach: Memo to Moyers.

    [50] Gibson Donald, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Krosha Books, NY, 2000, pp. 54–55.

    [51] Gibson Donald, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Krosha Books, NY, 2000, p. 85.

    [52] Gibson Donald, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up, Krosha Books, NY, 2000, p. 85.

    [53] Morley Jefferson, Our Man in Mexico, University Press of Kansas, 2008, p. 224.

    [54] Morley Jefferson, Our Man in Mexico, University Press of Kansas, 2008, pp. 225–226.

    [55] The Fourteen Minute Gap.

    [56] The Fourteen Minute Gap.

  • Oliver Stone amid the Trolls:  Tom Fordy and The Telegraph

    Oliver Stone amid the Trolls: Tom Fordy and The Telegraph


    Unless you are aware of the timely release of Oliver Stone’s autobiography, Chasing the Light, then you will be blindsided by the most recent attack article on the famous film director.

    The Telegraph is a notoriously hard right newspaper, so much so that it is sometimes called The Torygraph. From 2018 to 2019, its popularity declined to the point that it withdrew from newspaper circulation audits. From 1980 to 2019, it has been estimated that the publication lost about 80% of its readership. It was fined in 2015 for emailing readers and urging them to vote conservative. The reason for this is, perhaps, because the publication has been owned by Conrad Black from 1986–2004 and the Barclay Brothers since 2004. Business has been so poor of late that the billionaire brothers have reportedly been looking for a buyer.

    On July 15th, The Telegraph featured an article by one Tom Fordy. Fordy is essentially a writer on films. Yet The Telegraph billed his piece, “Why Oliver Stone’s JFK in the greatest lie Hollywood ever told.” The problem with that pompous and self-righteous title is this: Fordy has no grasp of the facts he is about to address. As we shall see, he is a Warren Commission shill who might as well be writing in 1967.

    Yet in some cases, he is even worse than that. As everyone knows, the 1991 film JFK was based largely on Jim Garrison’s 1988 book On the Trail of the Assassins. That book was essentially Garrison’s memoir of his investigation into the murder of President Kennedy which he conducted through his position as DA of New Orleans Parish. Stone’s film was so cinematically powerful and its intellectual effect so shocking that it provoked the creation of a new agency of government: The Assassination Records Review Board. That board was in session from 1994–98 and declassified 2 million pages of previously redacted papers; 60,000 documents in all. It then declassified, on a timed-release schedule, thousands more.

    How uninformed is Tom Fordy? He actually writes the following:

    1. George Bush established the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)
    2. Which led to the release of more than 3,000 documents
    3. In 2017
    4. Though there were no major revelations

    When you can write a sentence packed with four errors in it, that tells you how trustworthy Fordy is. Plus, this: The Telegraph has little or no fact checking apparatus.

    George H. W. Bush did not establish the Board. He tried to sandbag that establishment. He let the clock run out on his appointments, so they could not be approved by Congress and begin their work of declassification. When Bill Clinton took office, he had to start the process all over. Therefore, it was he who actually established the Board and it began work in 1994.

    As mentioned, the ARRB released about 60,000 documents containing 2 million pages in four years. In other words, about 20 times more than the number Fordy lists. But it’s even more than that, since there was a “timed-release” program that allowed other documents to be declassified after 1998.

    The significance of the year 2017 is that this was when all the JFK documents were supposed to be finally declassified en toto. This meant no redactions at all. Fordy is so uninformed that he does not even understand the significance of what happened that year. Because, as he could have figured out from journalist Jeff Morley or archivist Rex Bradford, today there are still 15,000 pages still being withheld in whole or in part—in defiance of the JFK Act. That law stated that if there were any withholdings in place in 2017, there had to be a presidential explanation for doing so. Well, the government is withholding a lot of pages. There has been, to my knowledge, no presidential explanation for doing so. What is worse is that with hapless writers like Fordy, the public will never know that this is happening.

    The idea that, amid all of those hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, none of them offered any major revelations, this is either pure ignorance or pigheaded bias. And it implies that either Fordy or one of his authorities actually read all those pages. To show just how false that assumption is and how misleading Fordy’s instantly obsolete article is, consider this: the author is apparently not familiar with the Lopez Report. This was the 300 page report prepared by Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. That report had access to documents and CIA officials that no one ever had access to before. Clearly, Fordy never read it. In fact, from what he writes, he never even heard of it. It had been secret up to the coming of the ARRB. It was one of their prime objectives to have it declassified.

    The so-called experts that Fordy summons on this issue are just as ignorant about that landmark report as he is. In fact, if one has read the Lopez Report, it is almost embarrassing to read what they say. Two non-entities in the field, Tom Stone and Michel Gagne, say that Oswald made mysterious visits to the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico City. They then add that perhaps someone he talked to while at those places influenced Oswald’s later actions. Tom Stone actually says, “If we could ever know who said what to Oswald in Mexico City, we’d have a solution to the case.” Stone teaches a class on the JFK case at SMU. Evidently, part of that curriculum does not consist of the Lopez Report. Because the main question one is left with after reading that report is this: Was Oswald ever in Mexico City? Why do we ask?

    1. The CIA had a number of cameras outside the Soviet and Cuban consulates. They should have captured Oswald entering and exiting those places ten times. In 57 years, the Agency has yet to produce even one picture of Oswald doing so.
    2. The Mexico City tapes capturing Oswald speaking, these are not his voice. The FBI agents in Dallas heard these CIA tapes. They were talking to Oswald at the time, they knew his voice, these tapes were not him.
    3. Virtually none of the people in the Cuban consulate who should have been able to ID Oswald were able to do so. This includes receptionist Sylvia Duran and diplomat Eusebio Azcue. Outside the consulate, student organizer Oscar Contreras also failed to identify him.
    4. The CIA had two undercover agents in the Cuban consulate. After the assassination, the CIA asked them if they had seen Oswald there. They said not they had not. This information was declassified in 2017.

    Somehow Fordy did not read any of these declassified documents and neither did any of his “experts”. They do not indicate any kind of “solution to the case”. They create a puzzle about Mexico City that Fordy wants to avoid telling his readers about.

    Ken Drinkwater has an advanced degree in philosophy. He is another of the “experts’ Fordy consulted. Drinkwater is also passing Fordy howlers, which he then prints. Drinkwater’s foot in mouth moment is when he says that Kennedy signed off on an attempted assassination of Fidel Castro. Again, this shows that neither Fordy nor Drinkwater ever read the declassified documents of the ARRB, because, in 1995, the Board issued an unredacted version of the CIA’s Inspector General Report on the plots to kill Fidel Castro. On several pages of that report, one will see the issue of presidential authorization of the Agency plots addressed. In every instance, the reply comes back in the negative. In other words, the CIA had no such presidential authorization from Kennedy or any other president, i. e. Dwight Eisenhower or Lyndon Johnson.

    As noted, Fordy writes that there were no major revelations declassified by the Review Board. I would say that the two matters I mentioned above qualify as “major revelations”. And he and his “authorities” got them both wrong. You can have little doubt about why this is so. In a November 20, 2003, article at CNN.com, Tom Stone revealed he was in the Warren Report camp. At that time at least, he thought Oswald had shot Kennedy.

    But that is in keeping with all the authorities that Fordy uses for his propaganda piece. For instance, he called up Don Carpenter for his views on Jim Garrison and Clay Shaw. Again, in writing his book on Shaw, Carpenter managed to avoid the ARRB documents on the subject. (Click here for details) His other authority on New Orleans is the late Patricia Lambert. Malcolm Blunt has recently discovered letters from Lambert to the CIA saying she was going to do all she could to explode Jim Garrison. And she needed their help on Shaw’s covert background. If she got any, it did not aid her book. (Click here for details)

    But perhaps the worst example of Fordy stooping to a source in order to attack Stone’s film is his use of the late Vincent Bugliosi. Fordy actually writes that, in his chapter on JFK, Bugliosi dismantled the film’s claims “with convincing ferocity”. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at that statement. Although, with Fordy, I tend towards laughter.

    This author wrote a book length review of Bugliosi’s elephantine Reclaiming History. Elephantine is putting it mildly. For when one adds in the material on the attached CD, that book clocks in at over 2,600 pages. I was one of the very few people who read all of them and took notes. One of the worst chapters in Bugliosi’s door stop of a book is the one on New Orleans and Jim Garrison. And that chapter is even worse in light of the declassified records of the ARRB. In my volume, I minutely examined the opening third of Stone’s film in light of that newly released record. Bugliosi questioned it all. Like Fordy, he takes a carpet-bombing approach to the film. In my book, I went through the first 16 scenes in the film. I described the action in each of those scenes. I then commented on the evidence we have today for what was presented. (See The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 190–93) As I concluded in my scene by scene by scene analysis, there is nothing in those first 16 tableaux that one can term an excessive use of dramatic license. In fact, in a couple of instances, in light of what we know today, Stone understated the case.

    Bugliosi indulged himself in so much hyperbole and grandstanding that it is almost embarrassing to read his book today. Reclaiming History is an argument by length and invective. What Fordy used from Bugliosi is simply not supported by the factual record, for instance, on Oswald’s marksmanship. By the time Lee Harvey Oswald left the Marine Corps, he was not a good marksman. In fact, he was something of a joke at that time. This information comes from eyewitnesses who saw Oswald shoot. For example, Sherman Cooley said there was no way Oswald could have pulled off what the Commission said he did. (Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, pp. 99–100)

    Fordy then says that one of the marksmen that the Commission used actually improved on what the Warren Report says Oswald did. Again, do you laugh or cry? As has been exposed since the days of Sylvia Meagher and Mark Lane, the Commission knew that duplicating the shooting sequence in Dealey Plaza was going to be quite difficult. Therefore, they cheated on their tests. Their marksmen—and, unlike Oswald, they really were expert shots—did not fire from sixty feet up, but thirty feet. And they did not fire at a moving target, but at stationary targets. Therefore, the so-called tests were invalid from the beginning. (See Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, pp.106–09; Mark Lane Rush to Judgment pp. 125–27)

    When it comes to the presentation of Vietnam in the film, again the English professor chimes in. Tom Stone says he does not think it’s possible to know what Kennedy was going to do about Vietnam. At the beginning, Fordy writes about the long sequence with Donald Sutherland as Mr. X depicting the withdrawal from Vietnam as a piece of “hokum”. Again, Fordy has a big problem here. He is either ignorant of the ARRB work on this or he is ignoring it.

    In 1997, the Review Board declassified the records of the May 1963 Sec/Def Conference. That meeting was one of a series that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara held on progress in Vietnam. This one was in Hawaii and all the representatives of departments from Saigon were in attendance: State, CIA, Pentagon etc. At that meeting, McNamara had alerted the attendees in advance to bring withdrawal schedules with them. McNamara then collected them and read them. He then turned around and said that the schedules were too slow. (See Probe Magazine, Volume 5 No. 3, p. 19) That batch of documents was so compelling that even the MSM was forced to admit that Kennedy had an early exit plan for Vietnam (e.g. The New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer). From the document release, it was clear that everyone in attendance knew that Kennedy was getting out of Indochina. That withdrawal would begin in December of 1963 with a pullout of a thousand men and be completed in 1965, when all advisors would be out. (ibid)

    But Fordy, as he usually does, now gets worse. He writes that NSAM 273, which the film claims would give the military its war, by reversing Kennedy, was actually drafted before Kennedy’s assassination. What Fordy leaves out, and it is hard for him to claim ignorance, is this: NSAM 273 was not drafted by Kennedy. He never even saw it. It was drafted by National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy and it was then modified by President Johnson. (John Newman, JFK and Vietnam, 1992 edition, pp. 445–49) It was those modifications which allowed for direct American intervention and cross border raids, allowing for expansion into Cambodia and Laos. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination, p. 188, op. cit. Probe Magazine, p. 19)

    But further, Fordy never mentions NSAM 288. That memorandum was signed in March of 1964. It contained a bombing list of sites in North Vietnam that numbered over 90 targets. That document was really a plan to carry the war to Hanoi, it was the design for a full scale war in Indochina. In other words, what Kennedy never even contemplated in three years, Johnson was now planning for in just three months. (DiEugenio, p. 189) Those plans were first activated five months later, after the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

    Fordy then continues by saying that Kennedy was late to civil rights. As I explained, in detail, in my four-part essay on this subject, this is a myth that the MSM has created to disguise the fact that JFK did more for civil rights in three years than FDR, Truman and Eisenhower did in nearly three decades. The truth is that Kennedy went to work on civil rights his first day in office. And the Kennedy program went down several paths until they were reasonably certain they could pass an omnibus bill. (Click here for details) He then says that Kennedy had ties with mobsters. This is another piece of malarkey that has come down the pike mainly through the horrendous book Double Cross. This has also been exposed. (Click here for details)

    Gagne then adds that, unlike what is presented in the film, if one reads the Warren Report one can see that the Single Bullet Theory trajectory is really a straight line.  How Gagne can say this is so, based upon the Warren Report, is baffling, because that report misrepresents Kennedy’s back wound by placing it in neck. Like most of the stuff in this article, this is incomprehensible, because one of the major releases of the ARRB was the final draft of the report. That draft showed that Commissioner Gerald Ford had moved up the wound in Kennedy’s back to his neck. (Click here for details) Again, this made the Associated Press and NY Times. How could a bullet fired right to left, at a downward angle, into Kennedy’s back move up through soft tissue to exit his throat? And then move right to hit Connally on the extreme right of his scapula?  Ford himself knew that the Single Bullet Theory—that one bullet went through Kennedy and Connally making seven wounds and smashing two bones—was simply not tenable. So, he altered it. Because he knew it betrayed more than one sniper.

    But perhaps the silliest part of this article is Gagne’s complaint that Oliver Stone did not “consult mainstream historians”. Thank God. If Oliver Stone had not found John Newman, he might never have known about Kennedy’s withdrawal plan. And if he had not depicted it in his film, the world might never have known about Johnson’s treachery. What is so impressive about what Newman and Stone did is that it influenced a whole fleet of modern historians who unearthed more about the withdrawal plan and other aspects of Kennedy’s reformist foreign policy (e.g. David Kaiser, Howard Jones, Robert Rakove, and Philip Muehlenbeck).

    When one encounters a point of censorship this extreme, one is not practicing journalism. This is just plain hackery, performed to bamboozle the reader.


    Addendum

    There was an equally nutty article written a bit before Fordy’s fiasco. This was by rightwing talk radio shill Howie Carr. His column was printed on July 4th in The Boston Herald.

    As everyone knows, as a result of the George Floyd murder in Minneapolis, a series of monuments and statues were torn down to reflect the public’s rage at the state of the race issue in America. Statues of historical figures like Columbus, Albert Pike, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee were defaced, toppled, or removed by government action. The vast majority of these were monuments to the Confederacy or their representatives. Most of the monuments were constructed during the Gilded Age. They accompanied the rise of Jim Crow in the south. And most all of them are located in the south. (Click here for details)

    In other words, as many historians have written, they were constructed as a reminder to African Americans that, although the Confederacy had lost the war, they had won the peace. Which was true. The system that was allowed to spring up in the South—Jim Crow and tenant farming—was as close as the southern plantation owners could get to slavery after the Civil War amendments were passed.

    As I, and many others, have written, this replacement system owed itself to the utter failure of Reconstruction. (Click here for details) The Republican Party controlled Reconstruction. The GOP had sprung up as an anti-slavery reaction, but generally their attitude toward the defeated Confederacy at the presidential level was grievously weak. Let us be plain:  The Confederate States of America had decided to split off from the USA and create its own nation, with its own government. Robert E. Lee made a conscious decision to stay loyal to the slave state of Virginia. Let us be plain again:  the war was about the slavery issue. The economy of the South, and its Power Elite, knew how valuable the peculiar institution was to them. The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, had stated this in his famous Cornerstone Speech. He made that speech in March of 1861 in Savannah. He said “that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition,” to which the crowd applauded. He then went on to say that this was a scientifically proven fact. (Click here for details)

    I could go on and on, but contrary to any kind of Lost Cause mythology, this is what the Civil War was about. That Ken Burns allowed the late Shelby Foote, a southern apologist if there ever was one, by far the most talking head time on his PBS series The Civil War was a disgrace. But it was this kind of cinematic blurring of history (e.g. Gone with the Wind), that has allowed—with few exceptions—the real horror of what the South was to escape both our media and our history books. The most remarkable example being the fact that Woodrow Wilson supplied the captions for D.W. Griffith’s smash hit cinema consecration of both the South and the Klan in Birth of a Nation.

    In this author’s opinion, what should have happened after the Civil War was the following:

    1. The entire upper level of the Confederacy should have been arrested and placed on trial for treason and insurrection.
    2. The large plantations should have been divided up and given to the former slaves.
    3. An occupying army of at least 100,000 men should have been sent into the south and stayed there for 30–40 years.

    These are not at all drastic, not considering what the Confederacy had done, which resulted in about 700,000 dead. (Click here for details) As it was, during Reconstruction, the Union never had more than 20,000 troops in the South. This is what allowed the former Confederate soldiers to organize the Klan, which then turned into the Redeemer Movement. When the Compromise of 1876 occurred, the last soldiers left the South. The Redeemers were in control. They won out, through terror and lynchings and other forms of intimidation and murder. If the three steps above had been taken, that would not have happened.

    Carr is a leading rightwing author and talk radio host operating out of the New England area. Conservative talk has somehow convinced a vast stretch of Middle America and working-class America that their interests coincide with the Power Elite—the connecting point being the GOP. This is the same GOP that has practiced voter suppression to keep themselves in power by constricting the minority vote.

    Howie’s column on the leveling of Confederate monuments pulled a neat trick. It managed not to mention one single Confederate. Not Lee. Not Jackson. Not Jeff Davis. Not Stephens. No Cornerstone Speech. I am not kidding. Don’t ask me how he did it, he did it. He also never mentioned Mr. Floyd. He also never mentioned all the demonstrations or the military deployed against the peaceful demonstrators in Lafayette Park. (Click here for details)

    But then what was Howie’s column about? Are you sitting down? Good. Howie said that in all this anger and fury at tearing down remnants of the past evils of American history, somebody forgot something: the Kennedys. Yep, this is how bad conservative talk radio has become. The first president and attorney general to take real action for the civil rights of African Americans should somehow be grouped with Robert E. Lee.

    What does he base this upon? It’s the usual MSM, and rightwing BS bandied about by the likes of Sy Hersh—who he actually names in his article as a reference point.  Against all the recent scholarship in the field, he calls Kennedy a Cold Warrior and says he attempted to kill Fidel Castro, a deception I just dealt with.  He then repeats the Timothy Leary baloney about Mary Meyer giving JFK acid in the White House. This is more rubbish and I exposed it as such years ago. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pp. 341–42) In other words, Howie’s column is a litany of the conservative and politically motivated vendetta that is trotted out every time the reactionaries think: “Hey, things have gotten so bad that the public might be reminded of how much progress was made during the Kennedy presidency.” If you can believe it, Howie never mentions James Meredith at Ole Miss or Vivian Blaine at the University of Alabama. When Blaine was asked why she risked integrating that college with George Wallace and 900 state lawmen standing in her way, she said that she knew the Kennedys would protect her. Right after that event, JFK want on TV to deliver what many considered the greatest civil rights speech since Lincoln. Somehow Howie forgot that speech and the fact that Bobby Kennedy suggested his brother do it that night.

    Sorry Howie, not buying your baloney. Most of us do remember. With sorrow and regret. (Click here for a video of that speech)

  • Did EVEN the Warren Commission Believe Howard Brennan?

    Did EVEN the Warren Commission Believe Howard Brennan?


    Howard Leslie Brennan was born on March 20, 1919, in Oklahoma. One does not have to travel very far through the assassination literature to discover him. He appeared in front of the Warren Commission 3 times, all on the same day. There are also 2 affidavits connected to him as well. It is our job to sort through all of this and see if we can make any sense of his testimony. He was the poster boy, who supposedly identified Oswald in the sixth-floor window. So, in that sense, he is vitally important. His testimony, like so many others, is a metaphor on how the Warren Commission treated their witnesses: steered them a particular direction when they didn’t say what the Commission wanted to hear, ignored and moved on when they were obviously lying, ignored them when they said things that were at variance with what the Commission wanted to hear, or created hypotheticals that had nothing to do with the case and end up being red hearings diverting away from the real evidence at hand. Read through the testimonies of the medical personnel and see how many times Arlen Specter guides the witnesses down a path that leads nowhere, or better yet, creates hypotheticals in an attempt to get them to say something they really didn’t. Brennan will be no different. Again, keep in mind, he is their Golden Ticket, because his description eventually leads to the identification and arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. Let’s see how this worked itself out that weekend and beyond.

    Brennan testified, on March 24, 1964, at around 9:00 a.m. in Washington, D.C. His testimony resumed twice that day in the presence of other witnesses who gave testimony on that day. This was common, as all three autopsy doctors were in the same room during each of their testimonies. It was common for the Commission, but ridiculous and should not happen in a murder investigation. Warren Commission members present for Brennan were Earl Warren, Representative Gerald Ford, John McCloy, and Allen Dulles; also present were chief counsel J. Lee Rankin, senior counsel Norman Redlich, and junior counsels David Belin and Joseph A. Ball, and finally Charles Murray, “observer.” It is interesting to note who was not there, namely Richard Russell, Hale Boggs and John Sherman Cooper. As some critics have pointed out, these three had their differences with the majority. And, in fact, Russell filed a dissenting report at the final Commission executive session meeting. Were these differences manifest in their lack of attendance?

    As noted above, also present in the hearing room were Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, James Jarman, Jr., and Roy Truly. Notice has been taken of the absurdity of such a process, as Williams, Norman, and Jarman, who were friends, were not about to criticize each other. It just was not going to happen.

    Brennan remarked that upon his arrival into Dealey Plaza, “there was a man having an epileptic fit, a possibility of 20 yards east—south of this corner. And they were being attended by some civilians and officers and I believe an ambulance picked him up.” (3H 141-142) We know that the person in question is Jerry Belknap, who did have an “apparent” seizure, but upon arriving at Parkland hospital decided to not stay but instead left. He did pay the medical expenses for his short trip to the hospital, but it remains somewhat of a mystery as to what was happening. So much so, that someone should have interviewed him and attempted to find out what was really going on with Belknap that day, if anything. It just seems odd.

    Brennan then told David Belin, who was the main interlocutor for questioning him, that he “jumped up on the top ledge.” (3H 142) The witness was referring to the retaining wall around the reflecting pool opposite the Book Depository. But it an odd statement, because his inarticulateness makes it sound like he literally jumped on the top ledge and was standing, which he wasn’t and that there is more than one ledge, which there isn’t. He simply sat down, which I will assume is what he meant in all of his unletterdness.

    The interview takes a turn and with a quick sleight of hand a moment of monumental proportion is lost. Belin shows Brennan CE-479 and notices that Brennan’s legs are not dangling on the front side, which they would be if he was sitting and facing north toward the Texas School Book Depository. Listen to the exchange:

    Mr. BELIN: All right. I hand you now what the reporter has marked as Commission Exhibit 478. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 478 for identification.)

    Mr. BELIN: I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.

    Mr. BRENNAN: Yes. That is the retaining wall and myself sitting on it at Houston and Elm.

    Mr. BELIN: You remember that the photographer was standing on the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository when that picture was taken on the 20th of March?

    Mr. BRENNAN: Yes; I do.

    Mr. BELIN: And the camera is pointed in what direction?

    Mr. BRENNAN: South.

    Representative Ford: Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?

    Mr. BRENNAN: Yes, sir.

    Warren Commission Hearings Volume XVII p. 197 (CE-477 and CE-478)

    Warren Commission Hearings Volume XVII p. 198 (CE-479)

    Howard Brennan facing east looking over his left shoulder (color slide of Z-188)

    As we shall see, this is not true, but Belin clearly let it slide, because Brennan was one of their stars. This preempted them from questioning Brennan about the real facts underlying his testimony. That function was left to researchers and they revealed the shenanigans of the witnesses and far worse, the Warren Commission itself. His testimony was not only believed that day, but was blessed with the imprimatur of the Warren Commission. Belin, had to know this was not accurate, because he noted that Brennan’s legs were “not dangling on the front side there, is that correct?” Brennan replied they were not. But Belin did not press the matter. He quickly moved on to ask Brennan what he was wearing on that fateful day. This is your next question after wondering why Brennan’s legs aren’t seen, as they should have been, had he been where he said he was sitting.

    Belin had showed him one negative, (couldn’t the FBI provide photos or at least a decent diagram for Brennan to respond to regarding his location?) or one frame from the Zapruder film—seems to be Z-188—which absolutely shows him looking east toward the jail and not north, where he is positioned during the reenactment photo shoot. Belin handed him a magnifying glass. The negative had been enlarged. (Not by much if a magnifying glass is needed, although Brennan by this time had suffered diminished eyesight due to an accident.) Listen to how Warren Commission Counsel David Belin broaches the topic:

    “This appears to be a negative from a moving picture film [Z-188, approximately—and keep in mind, the negative of which he was handed had already been published in Life magazine as a color photo]. And I will hand you a magnifying glass—the negative has been enlarged. This negative appears to be a picture of the Presidential motorcade on the afternoon of November 22nd. I ask you to state if you can find yourself in the crowd in the background in that picture.”

    From his previously noted reply, Brennan also knew that exhibits CE-477 and CE-478—which were recreations shot in March—were inconsistent with what he was swearing to. The actual photo, CE-479, shows Brennan sitting on the ledge of the reflecting pool, facing east towards Houston Street, not north toward the Texas Schoolbook Depository. Yet, note what author Richard Trask writes: “Brennan had been sitting on the concrete retaining wall by the north reflecting pool and was facing the Book Depository.” (Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the Assassination of President Kennedy, p. 493) That is rubbish and Trask must know it. He has a keen eye for detail and often brings out matters that the casual reader would not necessarily notice. It is clear from a collection of Zapruder frames that Brennan was, in fact, facing east and had to lean his left arm well back to look over his shoulder to see Kennedy’s car when it was in front of the Depository. Brennan would pose, on March 20 (his birthday), sitting right in the middle of the concrete wall looking into the Depository, and again, David Belin caught him lying. Yet when the Warren Commission staffers placed Brennan for purposes of understanding his visual abilities on November 22nd, they went along with this deception. They moved him a full 90 degrees and approximately 25 feet, around the concrete wall at the north end of the reflecting pond, so that Brennan, for “witness credibility” was sitting directly in front of the door of the Texas School Book Depository, facing north.

    II

    At least one early critic seems to have noted this departure from the record. Josiah Thompson included a photo to verify that fact on page 185 of Six Seconds in Dallas. The photos on that page show the Presidential limousine passing between the center of the concrete wall and the front door of the Book Depository—and nobody is sitting there.

    Researcher Dale Myers once told me that if I only understood the geography of Dealey Plaza, then and only then, would I truly understand the testimony of Howard Brennan. In his book, With Malice, he says concerning Brennan’s placement in the Plaza as “perched atop a cement wall directly across from the Book Depository.” It gives the impression—and I know this because Myers clarified this for me in an email—that Brennan was directly across from the Depository as in CE-478. Dale Meyers is wedded as much as Belin to Brennan, let us call them the B&B’s.

    Reading Belin and Brennan is what leaves informed people aghast when they comprehend Commission assertions, and someone who did as much research as Myers should be cautious not to repeat things which have caused a large segment of the public to lose confidence in the Warren Report. Brennan’s “directly across” from the Depository statement before the Warren Commission is undermined, because the Zapruder frames in 18H always show Brennan facing east. (see 3H 142 and 18H 1-20) And he is looking toward Houston Street, with his back to the camera, and not, as he posed for the Commission, facing north, into the front door of the Texas School Book Depository. Brennan diving behind the wall as the report rang out, would be senseless if he was where the Commission said he was. He wasn’t.

    Brennan marked the inaccurate photo that he posed for to show where he “dived” “as the gunfire rang out.” It is not “behind the wall,” where Brennan portrayed himself. It’s behind the wall from where he actually was, and by diving, he could not have seen anything in the sixth-floor window, hence, another problem. If he had dived like he said he did, the distance would have been somewhere around 30 to 35 feet! When the dust settles, and it does quickly for Howard Brennan, and you make him your star witness like the Warren Commission did, all bets are off.

    His falsehoods began on the afternoon of the assassination to Sheriff Decker’s office, stating the same nonsense he blathered on about before the Commission. In Decker Exhibit 5323 (19H 454-543, passim), Brennan stated the following:

    I proceeded to watch the President’s car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President’s back was in line with the last window I have previously described [when] I heard what I thought was a back fire.

    To allude that he was tracing the path of the motorcade and saw how the President could be Oswald’s target is absurd based on CE-479, where we can see exactly which direction he is facing and he is not, I repeat, he is not following the movement of the limousine as it turned from Houston onto Elm and proceeded in a westward direction.

    Howard Brennan is positioned by William Manchester “directly across from Roy Truly’s group at the warehouse entrance.” There may be some Euclidean truth to that, in that a straight line could be drawn between Truly, et al, and Brennan, but their lines of vision would most assuredly not intersect. As Brennan perjured himself in front of the Warren Commission repeatedly and was caught by Warren counsel David Belin, so Manchester accepts this falsity at face value. One rule of research: check the sources, especially original sources. A lot of embarrassment can be averted if this was done on a more regular basis. Truly, et al, were looking south. Brennan was facing east, as shown in the approximate range of Z-200—the sequence where Phil Willis is shown stepping briefly off the curb. Brennan is facing the jail and has his left arm well behind him, in order to look over his left shoulder—had he desired to see Truly and company. There is no evidence he ever did see him during the 26.55 second run of the Zapruder film.

    Belin asks him what happened after he first sat down. He goes on to explain he was people and window watching, which is okay, but when the President approached and passes by him, you would expect him, or anyone for that matter to focus on the President and the rest of the motorcade. He is asked to identify the window where he claims to have seen someone and then after some odd remarks by Brennan, he finally circles the window and places the letter A next to it. He says he saw a man in the 6th floor window and then is asked to describe what he saw. Grab your socks and hold on, you can’t make this stuff up. He says, referring to the shooter in the 6th floor window:

    He was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure himself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared. (3H 144)

    At this point, I can assure you there is something Brennan did not know. The window is thirteen inches from the floor at its bottom and twenty-six inches from the floor at the top of its opening. Our possibilities are somewhat finite, either the shooter was kneeling down and then stood up or he shot through the glass, which is beyond ridiculous. He saw the man in the window from the waist up, even though the window opening was below the knees of a man between 5’9” and 5’11”, Oswald’s changing heights.

    Yet, according to Brennan, he was able to describe the shooter with precise accuracy and what he was thinking as well. Not sure how Brennan could possibly know the what and the why of the shooter he described. He also did not observe a scope. I’m not sure why; he described everything else with almost divine-like accuracy. But then again, he said the colored men he saw on the 5th floor “were standing with their elbows on the window sill leaning out.” (3H 144) One other thing before we leave the B&B show is that he claimed to be able to see the shooter from the hips up. This is now getting beyond ridiculous. Howard Brennan did not identify Lee Oswald and he could only have seen the window in peripheral vision from how he was positioned. By the time of his Warren Commission testimony, his vision was quite poor, mainly because of an accident involving steam after the assassination. On January 31, 1964, he was sandblasted, causing extreme damage to his vision. He was treated for something like 6 hours by a Dr. Black, who said Brennan’s eyesight was not good. He would have had trouble seeing the Book Depository, but I’m not sure his eyes were so badly damaged that he would have forgotten, by a distance of twenty to twenty-five feet where he had been sitting. (3H 147) As a side note, speaking of the Depository, there were several questions asked of Brennan regarding “the Texas School Book Depository,” but Brennan continued to testify regarding the “Texas Book Store.” His grammar and syntax are among the worst of any witness in terms of command of the English language. Similar disregard for linguistic niceties would be present in the testimony of the limo driver, William Greer, and Mary Bledsoe. With 488 witnesses who appeared before the Warren Commission, this was probably to be expected.

    III

    Brennan, at times, seems to be carefully placed that day and when he isn’t, just change the direction and he will be placed where you want him. One photo is taken from the door, straight on, to Brennan. The other is taken from behind, and he hasn’t moved. In a subsequent exhibit, he will mark the spot—behind the entirety of the cinderblock wall at the corner of Houston and Elm—where he “dove” for cover while he was admittedly watching the assassin take aim for his last shot and then depart the window. Once the assassin left, according to Brennan, he dove for cover—a dive that amounted to approximately 25 feet. The reality of where Brennan was, when coupled with the other fairy tales he told about meeting and greeting all seven commissioners present (there were four), knowing “Governor Warren” well, and the invite to meet Mrs. Kennedy, disqualify him from any pretense to credibility. It is almost as if a “mystery weekend” was going to be staged, so that it could not be overlooked in the scenario that day, to make him fit into the Commission’s preconceived evidence trail. Again, taken with all his qualifications, Brennan is a metaphor, like so many others.

    Let’s briefly mention some of the medical witnesses that fit into the metaphor scenario I have been mentioning, so you can see what I mean. When Specter is questioning Dr. Humes, the lead autopsy doctor, he was talking about the fragments in JFK’s skull and asks a question with a predetermined end. Specter asks, “Were these all fragments that were injected into the skull by the bullet?” (2H 353) It was Specter’s very slick and skillful way of limiting the inquiry to one bullet, hence we see the magic bullet in gestation. Even Humes, didn’t say this, but Specter sure did. Specter engaged in his “let’s assume for a moment,” just so there is something in the record that at least makes it look like the witness said something they really didn’t. At times, Humes seemed befuddled.

    When questioning Dr. Charles Carrico, the good doctor is telling of a 5mm by 8mm wound in the front of the neck. Commissioner Dulles asked, “Where did it enter?” Carrico: It entered—at that time we didn’t know—…” Dulles (interrupting): “I see.” (3H 361-362)

    There are times when questioning the medical witnesses Arlen Specter will engage in his ‘Let’s assume for a moment,” in which he asked Carrico, and not just him but successive medical witnesses, to make a variety of postulations. They were all the same: if the President had been shot from behind, in the rear neck, would the wound in the front be an entrance or an exit. Of course, only one answer applies in that case and it matched with what the Commission wanted to hear. (3H 362)

    When Specter was interrogating Dr. Kemp Clark, the resident neurosurgeon at Parkland Hospital, he testified to “a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. (6H 20) Clark would later comment that he thought this was an exit wound. (6H 21) A few pages later, Specter asked, “Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the President’s head, with brain protruding…” (6H 25) This all has to be seen for exactly what it is. It isn’t just Howard Brennan committing perjury and it being ignored, because it happened all through the Warren volumes. Just see how Specter directs the choir to get just the right note from each individual, so as to get the same refrain every time: all shots came from behind and the magic bullet is the only reality that explains what happened with those seven wounds to those two men.

    Before Dr. Clark is finished, Arlen Specter asks, what has to be, one of the most asinine questions out of the 109,930 that were asked to the 488 witnesses. Specter asks, “Dr. Clark, in the line of your specialty, could you comment as to the status of the President with respect to competency, had he been able to survive the head injuries which you have described and the total wound which he had?” (6H 26) Clark says the wound was massive and in the back of the head. Specter never buckles and his pressure causes Dr. Clark to realize what is happening and he actually answers this silly question, when everyone and his mother know there was no way JFK could have survived those wounds.

    The testimony of another witness, Dr. Charles R. Baxter was engaging and tended to slap back at Specter. His observations were quite telling. At one point he said, “…literally the right side of his head had been blown off. With this and the observation that the cerebellum was present—a large quantity of brain was present on the cart (6H 41). Baxter continued to describe the right side of the head and what he saw. Specter then asks, “Did you notice any bullet hole below the large opening at the top of the head?” (6H 42) There it is again, Specter was constantly referring to the top of the head when talking with the doctors, yet I don’t recall Baxter ever mentioning the top of the head. A massive wound or hole in the back of the head will not work for the Commission and Specter was not about to let that happen.

    I will mention one more example of Specter’s shenanigans. When he was questioning Dr. Ronald Jones, he continued with his back of the head reference by the doctor and then his mentioning the top of the head. Jones simply testified to the destruction to the back of JFK’s head, with brain matter hanging out. (6H 63-4, 56)

    The point of these examples is that it doesn’t matter if it was a Parkland doctor or Howard Brennan. Brennan is simply one example—but a good example, because he was their poster boy as to what was seen in the sixth-floor window and the eventual arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald—of how the Warren Commission and their disciples guided witness after witness. It was virtually always down the same path of substituting top for back, not believing the testimony or description of a witness, not recognizing perjury or doing anything about it when they did. They attempted to drive witnesses down a particular narrative road and all in the name of sustaining their lone-nut scenario and single bullet silliness. It’s easy to locate when it is happening, whether it be led by Belin or Specter or Dulles. But its retroactively reprehensible that it was fostered on the American public to conceal the fact that the perpetrators that constructed a coup in 1963.

    Lest you think it can’t get any more bizarre, let’s hearken back to Brennan and watch the metaphor continue to blossom. Brennan claimed, after Belin asked him what direction the gun was pointing, that it was 30 degrees downward and west by south. Are you serious? He doesn’t seem to be able to distinguish east from north or standing from sitting, but then we are asked to believe this man, with obvious limited intelligence, can say what direction and the degree of angularity the gun was pointed? Maybe later he would express it in terms of algebraic geometry. Yet recall, he did not observe a scope! Even though he said he saw up to 85% of the rifle. (Vol. III, p. 144)

    When Belin asked him how many shots he heard, he remarked that, “positively two. I do not recall a second shot.” (3H 144) I don’t mean to nitpick, but really, I heard positively two, but then says he doesn’t recall a second shot! Apparently, the word positively needs to be redefined. Belin tried to bail out his friend, he replies to this contradiction by saying, “You mean a middle shot between when you heard the first noise and the last noise?” How can there be a middle shot between two shots? He then adds he thought the first shot was a backfire. And he then says “…subconsciously I must have heard a second shot, but I do not recall it.” (ibid) Wisely, Belin dropped the subject and asks him for a description of the shooter.

    He describes the man he saw in the window as 5 foot 10 inches, 160-170 pounds and white. After the shots were fired, Belin asked him what he did next. Brennan said he asked a police officer, within just a few minutes of the assassination, to get him someone in charge, “a Secret Service man or an FBI.” (3H 145) The policeman took him to a Mr. Sorrels, who was sitting in an automobile in front of the TSBD. This is likely another Brennan shenanigan. Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels went to Parkland hospital with the motorcade and didn’t return to the corner of Houston and Elm for about 25 minutes. Sorrels would subsequently testify that he did not return to Dealey Plaza until 12:55. This means that Brennan’s quite brief interval could have been no less than twenty-five minutes. Brennan would tell Sorrels, “I could see the man taking deliberate aim and saw him fire the third shot,” and said “then he just pulled the rifle back in and moved back from the window, just as unconcerned as you could be.” (Deposition of Forrest V. Sorrels, 7H 348-349)

    This raises a couple of issues. First, on the 12/3/63 Dallas police log of radio transmission, at 12:44 PM, there is a description of the suspect as being 5’ 10”, white, male about 30, weighing 165, carrying what looked like a 30-30 or some type of Winchester. As we have seen from the time factor involved, it is highly unlikely that Brennan was the source of the “description of the alleged assassin.” But then who was? The sinister quality of this is what is really unsettling. The Dallas police were also horrifying in the area of records keeping that afternoon.

    Yet Inspector Harold Sawyer got a description broadcast at 12:44, and it is usually credited to Howard Brennan’s keen observations, although we know he couldn’t have been the origin of such a description, because he was looking in a different direction and diving at the same time. And Sawyer said he did not recall who his witness was. (Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 408)

    By Brennan’s account, he stated clearly that he had seen an individual with a rifle aim for a shot. Yet Sawyer’s broadcast, as it appears on the Dallas police radio logs, stated to the dispatcher, “It’s unknown whether he is still in the building or not known if he was there in the first place.” (CE-1974) How could this be Brennan?

    So, it can be stated that Brennan spoke to Sorrels, but clearly not at the time implied by the Warren Commission. And not before 12:55—after the “description of the suspect” was broadcast—if, in fact, there had been a suspect in the Texas School Book Depository Building.

    Brennan was not the source. And, in fact, after a thorough inquiry, J. Edgar Hoover declined Brennan as the source for Sawyer. (FBI memo from Rogge to Rankin 11/12/64)

    Somebody had to be given credit, so the Warren Report placed Brennan “on Elm Street directly opposite and facing the building.” (p. 5) And now the Warren Report stated that the broadcast description was “based primarily on Brennan’s observations” and that Brennan’s visual accuracy most probably led to the radio alert at 12:45 p.m. (Warren Report, pp. 5, 144, 649)

    Primarily? But if it wasn’t Brennan, then who was it? And why don’t we know “who was it”? As I have argued, Howard Brennan’s credibility has to be questioned. He would state that he only saw the assassin from the chest and upward, but that is clearly an invention by Brennan, predicated on the fact that he assumed the windows in the Texas School Book Depository were at the normal height where windows would be installed. However, to repeat, the sixth floor Depository windows were thirteen inches above the ground, which means that when “Brennan’s assassin” fired and then stood up, Brennan would have had to strain to identify the man’s knees. considering that the window he allegedly fired from began at a height of only thirteen inches above the floor, how could anyone reasonably approximate his height at slightly below six feet? You simply couldn’t.

    There is simply too much falsity in his subsequent testimony to the Warren Commission—and they caught him at it, but since his “seeing the assassin” was critical, this was overlooked. Again, Brennan, like so many others is a metaphor on how to invent, ignore and guide all of us through the labyrinth of deceit that is the Warren Report.

    Please keep in mind that Brennan later wrote a book that was posthumously published. The title of the book was Eyewitness to History, which, as seen above, is almost risible. As I mentioned earlier, he stated that he was good friends with “Governor Warren,” personally gave testimony to all seven members of the Warren Commission, which he did not. Only four were present during his testimony. And he claimed he was guarded by an FBI agent who was a JFK look-alike and doubled for JFK often. And he was asked by Chief Justice Warren if he would like to meet Mrs. Kennedy. This is a widow who was so full of grief that she wouldn’t give her only testimony to the Commission for another four months, but, of course, she would just love to have tea and crumpets with Howard.

    Nothing should surprise us about Brennan’s book or testimony. But just keep in mind: this was the Commission’s star witness. When I interviewed Professor Robert Blakey in 1998, who was the Chief Counsel for the HSCA, I asked him why they never called Brennan. He commented that he would have done more harm than good. Yet in Volume 2 of the HSCA volumes on page 3, even they, however, cannot get away from Brennan, when the same Blakey says that Howard Brennan saw a man fire one shot from the depository.

    IV

    The police lineups rear their head eventually. Oswald, as everyone should recall, protested these assemblies vociferously, because—due to his dress and age—he stuck out like a sore thumb. Brennan admitted to seeing Oswald on TV multiple times when he got home, at somewhere between 2:45 – 3:00 p.m., CST. Yet then told the police at the lineup (Brennan was escorted to the Dallas Police Station c. 6:00 p.m.) that he couldn’t positively identify anyone. (3H 148) He then revised his story and said he didn’t identify Oswald, because he thought the assassination might have been part of a Communist plot and so he feared for the safety of his family. Brennan would later state that he feared he would be a target of an international conspiracy if he identified Oswald (Deposition of Forrest V. Sorrels, 7H 354-355). Yet, if he was the courageous patriot the Warren Commission made him out to be, then we would expect him to stand his ground and take his chances. He didn’t. Accordingly, the FBI had to supply him with the “communist plot” excuse, which he then adapted. (Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 91). Yet, there is further evidence of just how suspect these line ups were. Consider the following:

    BELIN: “Do you remember how many people were in the lineup?”

    BRENNAN: “No; I don’t. A possibility seven more or less one.”

    BELIN: “All right.”

    No, it’s not even close to being all right. Brennan has just indicated the lineup was somewhere between six and eight individuals. There never was any such thing. We know there were four people in the lineup. It was only four people for each of the lineups in which Lee Harvey Oswald was a participant.

    BELIN: “Did you see anyone in the lineup you recognized?”

    BRENNAN: “Yes.”

    BELIN: “And what did you say?”

    BRENNAN: “I told Mr. Sorrels and Captain Fritz at that time that Oswald—or the man in the lineup that I identified looking more like a closest resemblance to the man in the window than anyone else in the lineup…”

    BELIN: “Were the other people in the lineup, do you remember—were they all white, or were there some Negroes in there, or what?”

    BRENNAN: “I do not remember.”

    This is Texas in 1963, three months after the March on Washington. Brennan gave a description of a man as 5’10”, 160-170 pounds, fair complexion, and slender build. Nobody reminded him that the identification was based on an individual kneeling down, allegedly firing out of a window that was thirteen inches above the level of the floor. Brennan then viewed a skewed lineup, with three better-dressed individuals and did not provide a positive identification of Oswald.

    Belin, and this is only my suspicion, actually was fed up with Brennan, with his comments about and his inaccuracy as to his own placement, which Belin challenged without calling him out on it. Belin had to be disappointed, in addition, to Brennan’s “7 person,” plus or minus, lineup, which is an illusion. So, he asked, if by chance it had been a bi-racial lineup, which is about as unlikely of an occurrence as Howard Brennan telling the truth.

    This needs a context. As Mark Lane noted in Rush to Judgment, although the Warren Report states that Brennan picked Oswald out of a line up, and as noted above, Brennan told Belin the same, this is not backed up in the actual record, that is in the exhibits in the 26 volumes. (Lane, pgs. 11, 91) It would seem to me that if someone thought he had seen the assassin of the President of the United States—before seeing him on TV and in the newspapers prior to the lineup—wouldn’t he be so charged up that he would recall every imaginable detail. Maybe not of everything, but certainly of the lineup. Well, Brennan got the number of stand ins in the lineup wrong and he could not recall if there were people of color in it. (Ian Griggs, No Case to Answer, p. 91) There is no mention in the official police record of the line ups that Brennan was present at any of them. (Commission Exhibit 2003, p. 293) Captain Will Fritz, who said he supervised all the line ups, could not recall Brennan being at one. (Volume 4, p. 237) One has to wonder, how long would Brennan have lasted under a real cross examination before the prosecution decided to withdraw him?

    In fact, prominent California attorney and junior counsel for the Warren Commission, Joseph Ball, did not believe Brennan. According to Edward Epstein, Ball based his doubt on the failure of Brennan to identify Oswald at a lineup and his similar failure to do so during an FBI interview. He then reversed himself before the Commission. (Epstein, The Assassination Chronicles, p. 143) Ball also was dubious about Brennan’s failure to describe the alleged assassin’s clothing and the fact that Brennan seemed to say the shooter was standing, when the Commission concluded he was kneeling at the window.

    V

    Notwithstanding, Joseph Ball, Howard Brennan got his “fifteen minutes.” Norman Redlich, a very important fixture on the Commission, overrode Ball’s reservations at the insistence of the Commission. (ibid, p. 144)

    Brennan said that, after Oswald had been killed, he felt at peace to come forward and identify him as the killer he saw in the 6th floor window. We have already dealt with the ridiculousness of him being able to identify the person he claimed to see, based on the height of the window, how the person would have had to position himself to fire a rifle and being able to see anything clearly on that day. I’ve sat where Brennan actually was on November 22, 1983, and I couldn’t see a damn thing in that window. Sure, it was open to a height of 13 inches, but as we have demonstrated, that would not have helped him see what he claims he saw. Apparently, Brennan was told by a Mr. Lish that film footage of him talking with the Secret Service were cut, seemingly at Brennan’s request, so the Commies wouldn’t track him down and rub out he and his family. Again, I’m speechless.

    Belin asked Brennan a series of directional and geography questions and trust me, Brennan is no Rand McNally. Near the end, McCloy asked him if he were a Bible reader and Brennan humbly says that he didn’t read it as much as he should, but that he had to wear glasses when he did. I would certainly agree that Brennan does not suffer from an overdose of Holy Writ.

    The curious case of Brennan is a little like Benjamin Button: he gets more childish and infantile as time goes by. It is often like reading the words of a child. He simply makes things up including where he was sitting, to jumping off the ledge about 30 feet, to what he actually saw in the window, to his circus antics when he went to DC to meet with the Commission. If this is their star witness bolstering their case, then they didn’t have a case my friend.

    At the end of the day, he had to be a disappointment, even to the Commission. Brennan has now become a symbol, like so many others that were interviewed by the Commission, a symbol for everything that was wrong with the Warren Report. A report based on knowing liars, suborned perjury, bizarre flights of fantasy, all incorporated into a shabby and shoddy investigation. Both Brennan and the Commission are tarred by the same brush. They simply are not kosher. Howard Brennan passed away on December 22, 1983. Like Joseph Ball, I don’t take Brennan seriously. Unlike Ball, I don’t take the Warren Report seriously either.

  • Kerry Thornley:  A New Look (Part 2)

    Kerry Thornley: A New Look (Part 2)


    VII

    Thornley was associated with some of the more reactionary characters in the Crescent City:  Courtney, Bolton, Butler, and Bringuier. On the day of Kennedy’s murder, he told Allen Campbell, “It could not have happened to a nicer guy.” (Caufield, p. 229) On that day, he asked Bernard Goldsmith, “Did you hear the good news?” (ibid) But as David Lifton said, this was all beside the point. This author does not agree.

    One of the reasons Thornley gave for his incontinent antipathy for Kennedy—and he gave it more than once—was what he called the civil war and massacre in Katanga. (Gorightly, p. 53) As readers of this site understand, Katanga was part of the immense Congo Crisis, one that lasted from 1960-65. It began with the election of Patrice Lumumba in June of 1960. Lumumba wanted Congo to be free from Belgian and European colonialism. In fact, there was a constitution written and Lumumba won an election. As Jonathan Kwitny noted, Congo was going to be the first democratically-elected, constitutionally-constructed republic in sub-Sahara Africa. (Kwitny, Endless Enemies, p. 75) The mother country had other designs. Belgium deliberately pulled out early and almost completely. This was done in order to leave Lumumba on his own—with little money, means or machinery. As John Newman has noted, the Belgians even took the Congo’s gold reserves with them. (John Newman, Countdown to Darkness, p. 155)

    They did leave behind part of their army. A key aspect of the Belgian plan to retake Congo was for Katanga—by far its richest province—to break away and create its own state. This would deprive Lumumba of another source of funding—while keeping Katanga under imperial reins. As Newman notes, CIA Director Allen Dulles was aware of this Katanga scheme two months before Lumumba came to power. (Countdown to Darkness, p. 153) As both Kwitny and Newman make manifest, without Belgium and England, there likely would have been no Katanga breakaway. Therefore, to call this a civil war would be like calling the Vietnam War a civil War. There would have been no South Vietnam if not for Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and the Dulles brothers. The creation of Katanga was an extension of an imperial war. When the secession crisis started, the Belgians sent in paratroopers to fire on Lumumba’s men. Belgium, England, and France now sent thousands of mercenaries to boost Katanga.

    Because Allen Dulles was in on the plan, the White House denied any aid to Lumumba when he visited Washington. (Countdown to Darkness, p. 220) The idea was to make Lumumba go to the Russians. Realizing Moscow would extend help, that aid became Washington’s pretext to declare that Congo was undergoing a Castro like communist transformation. That CIA cable was written and distributed on August 18, 1960. As both Kwitny and Newman write, this declaration was complete hyperbole; Lumumba was not a communist. The cable was clearly designed as a provocation to begin covert action against Lumumba, which it did. (Countdown to Darkness, p. 223) The Agency began to devise a series of plots to murder Lumumba. Depending on what sources one uses and who is counting, there were as many as five of them. These were not rogue conspiracies. They were approved by both President Eisenhower and CIA Director Allen Dulles. (Countdown to Darkness, p. 227) The CIA even bribed Josef Mobutu, chief of the army, to assassinate Lumumba. (Kwitny, p. 67) Cooperating with the Belgians, the plots succeeded. Lumumba was killed by firing squad on January 17, 1961, in Katanga. His body was then soaked in sulphuric acid. When the acid ran out, his corpse was set afire. (Countdown to Darkness, p. 296)

    There is evidence that the CIA’s multiple plots to do away with Lumumba were caused by their suspicions of what Kennedy would do when he was inaugurated, which may be why he was shot three days before the inauguration. (Kwitny, p. 69; John Morton Blum, Years of Discord, p. 23) The suspicions were justified. Not only was Kennedy planning on backing Lumumba, he also backed UN Secretary Dag Hammarskjold, who also opposed the European created Katanga state. As we know, Hammarskjold was also murdered in September of 1961. The evidence for this is convincing today, so I will not use the word “killed” in reference to it anymore. Between Susan Williams’ book Who Killed Hammarskjold? and the film Cold Case Hammarskjold, there is little or no doubt about it. (Click here for the evidence)

    With those two men dead, Kennedy essentially took charge of the UN operation. The idea was to create an independent state under labor leader Cyrille Adoula and to restore the mercenary state of Katanga to Congo. Working through the UN, which he visited twice, Kennedy succeeded in attaining Hammarskjold’s aims. Like many things he achieved, this was undone after his death by a combination of the CIA and Lyndon Johnson. Thus, Congo became an imperial vassal state under long term dictator Josef Mobutu. For selling out Lumumba, Adoula and his new nation, Mobutu became an incredibly wealthy puppet. (Kwitny, p. 87)

    Why is that important to this story? In order to ask this question: What kind of person would celebrate the murder of Kennedy and the victory of colonial forces seeking to exploit both the native population and vast mineral wealth of Congo? Forces which were willing to twice resort to assassination to achieve their aims? I would call those kinds of people fascists. Katanga fit the strictures of a fascist state: a paramilitary enforcement army, one man rule (by Moise Tshombe), beatings, and summary executions of its enemies, like Lumumba. And according to FOIA attorney Jim Lesar, the CIA paid former Nazi commando Otto Skorzeny to work for Tshombe. (Personal conversation with Lesar in November of 2013) With the assassination of Kennedy, all of those tendencies now triumphed. Mobutu ruled for three decades. Today the wealth of Congo has been dissipated to an oligarchy at home and abroad; while 80% of its people live in poverty. This is what Thornley was celebrating. There is no crying ignorance either. Any interested party could find out the general outlines of the story, since it attracted so much attention. The fact that Thornley was a rightwing nut was known to Garrison, through people he interviewed like Bernard Goldsmith. Goldsmith called Thornley so far right he did not even want to talk politics with him. (Biles, p. 57) Thornley’s idol Ayn Rand thought Congo was a communist state.

    What is “inspiring” about this? What is “countercultural” about it? Kennedy was opposed on the issue by the likes of William F. Buckley. Buckley is the guy who sponsored James Kilpatrick’s screeds for Jim Crow well into the sixties, and, in 1963, Kilpatrick submitted an article to the Saturday Evening Post (ultimately rejected) that argued that African Americans were inherently inferior to whites. This policy was also opposed by Kennedy. (Click here for details)

    VIII

    The above information about Thornley should have been interesting enough to make him what investigators call “a person of interest”. Why was almost all of it, and even more, lost? In fact, actually buried, after the Shaw acquittal.

    There are two related reasons. David Lifton decided that his friendship with Thornley was more important than Jim Garrison’s investigation. Therefore, he decided to battle Garrison on both Thornley and other fronts, doing what he could to damage his reputation and credibility. He worked with Edward Epstein, and as the MSM buried Garrison—CBS, NBC, Saturday Evening Post, Newsweek—so did the leading lights of the critical community.

    I won’t go into all the details of the toxic assault that Lifton began on Garrison over what he perceived as the DA’s betrayal of a man he somehow, some way, considered a fine person and a valuable witness. For who? Albert Jenner? As Harold Weisberg wrote in a letter mentioned below, Lifton said Thornley appeared in New Orleans voluntarily since he had nothing to hide. According to Weisberg, Thornley was hauled into a Tampa court where the judge ordered him to appear in New Orleans. Lifton penned a two part attack article for an alternative weekly Open City that, for all its insight and subtlety, might have been written by Hugh Aynseworth. In his book Best Evidence, he termed the Garrison inquiry “a farce” (p. 717); and then when James Phelan died, he called Lisa Pease to let her know he had spoken at the funeral of the FBI informant; and she would like him if she knew him. Today, Phelan has been unveiled as nothing but a despicable character. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pp. 313-18)

    Like Clay Shaw with the MSM, Kerry Thornley himself was the origin of many of the stories used to attack Garrison on this particular issue. (Letter from Harold Weisberg to Open City, June 17, 1968) In his Open City article, Lifton tried to insinuate that it was Garrison and his methodology which generated a case against Heindel. Again, I refer the reader to the above referenced grand jury examination of Heindel as the litmus test on this issue. No one who has read that testimony could come to the conclusion expressed in The Prankster andthe Conspiracy about using Heindel in a massive plot to finger Shaw. And that testimony has been available since the nineties, when the ARRB secured many of those files. (Click here for the grand jury testimony of Heindel and others)

    As shown above, it’s not safe or scholarly to consistently use people like Lifton, Dave Reitzes, and Thornley to smear Jim Garrison. Due to their unrestrained virulence, one will run into ditches. In the last issue of the paper magazine garrison, editor S. T. Patrick had Adam Gorightly run an article saying that Harold Weisberg had sent Lifton’s then friend and working colleague, Fred Newcomb, pictures of Thornley which Harold wanted commercial artist Newcomb to make up to look like Oswald. This had been around since the sixties, when Lifton’s working pal Newcomb had sent letters presumably presenting that case to Thornley’s Florida attorney, who then got the charges in the Tampa Times. Like Lifton, Newcomb, and Thornley, Gorightly configures this to mean that somehow Jim Garrison was using unethical means to incriminate Thornley as an Oswald double.

    Harold Weisberg passed away in 2002. Gorightly’s book, The Prankster and the Conspiracy, was published in 2003. In that book, I saw no attempt by the author to interview Harold about this issue. Yet he does mention and utilize it for negative propaganda effect in the book. (p. 128) In fact, Gorightly plays this theme of photo alteration with Garrison as often as Jimi Hendrix playing power chords at Woodstock. To him, it is the ultimate proof of the dastardly Weisberg/Garrison plotting against his cultural/generational hero Thornley/Kesey.

    I learned about this episode back in the nineties. I have never been one to take Lifton at face value on anything he says about Garrison or Weisberg. In my view, Weisberg had done some good work on the JFK case. I did not always agree with him, but I thought that someone who had pretty much devoted his life to the case should be given the opportunity for a reply. Especially when people were attempting to defame him in public and portray Thornley as a put upon male version of Joan of Arc. After all, in all my research, neither Garrison nor Weisberg had been accused of these things—except by the hapless and not very credible MSM clown Jerry Posner.

    So, I called Harold and when I read back the accusation, he instantly said: “Jim, that is the kind of spin that someone like Lifton would put on it.” I said, “Spin?” Weisberg replied “Yes, spin.” He then explained to me that what he was trying to do with commercial artist Newcomb was to show that, even if you tried, you could not make Thornley resemble Oswald to the point that someone would mistake him for the alleged assassin. Of course, he could not tell Newcomb that or it would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise. If one looks in the declassified files, the associated identification of Thornley took place in late 1967. (Mellen, p. 273) The Weisberg letter to Newcomb was sent about four months later, in March of 1968. Therefore, the circumstances would bear out what Weisberg told this author.

    In this author’s opinion, Harold Weisberg deserved to be heard. If one does not let the accused reply, then one is involved in a slime job.

    But the reader needs a background on this issue. As Weisberg wrote about the identification incident, the owner of a printing company in New Orleans could not identify Oswald to the Secret Service as the man who picked up the handbills that the alleged assassin had ordered for his FPCC chapter. According to Weisberg, the FBI, which apparently had gone through the same experience, now leaned on the Secret Service to drop the inquiry. If this was allowed to continue, the myth of Oswald the loner in New Orleans would have ceased. (Weisberg, Never Again, p. 18) As an honest investigator is supposed to do, Weisberg picked up several photos from Garrison’s collection to create what is called a spread of faces. Among them were Thornley’s. Douglas Jones identified Thornley. (Mellen, p. 273) Weisberg said the same thing about his photo ID methodology to author Jeff Caufield in interviews before he passed away. (Caufield, p. 229) Garrison’s critics say the incident was not possible, because Thornley was not in New Orleans at the time. This may or may not be true. But as the reader will understand by now, for good reason, this author has a justified problem with Thornley’s credibility.

    As most readers understand, in the mid-seventies, through a nationally broadcast screening of the Zapruder film, the Kennedy assassination exploded into the public consciousness again. It was investigated by both the Church Committee and the HSCA. A rather strange thing happened to Garrison at this time. Kerry Thornley started bird dogging him. Garrison made a speech at Georgia State in 1975. Thornley, who happened to be attending the university, sent a go-between to approach the speaker. He wanted to talk with the former DA, specifically about how Garrison had made a mistake about him back in the sixties. (Gaeton Fonzi memo of 9/23/76) Sensing that Thornley was about to dump a pile of dis-info on him, Garrison declined.

    Thornley persisted. He then mailed him two letters. Garrison did not respond. Thornley now decided to send him what he claimed was the basis for the DA’s mistake. This was in the form of a fifty page memoir of Thornley in the sixties. Finally, he now recalled certain details from his past that he had—somehow, some way—forgotten to tell the DA back then. Even though he had all kinds of opportunities to do so—by phone, by letter, before the grand jury. Thornley now realized that he had been a part of a JFK assassination plot. It was so secretive that, in two years of inquiry, Garrison had not been able to uncover it, or how it worked. That is because the major perpetrators went under the pseudonyms Slim Brooks and Gary Kirstein. Who were these men? Well Thornley now claimed they were respectively Jerry Milton Brooks and Howard Hunt. Yes, that Howard Hunt. The man who had just been all over the news for about three years because of the Watergate scandal. Brooks was a former Minuteman who had turned informant for author Bill Turner. (DiEugenio, p. 192)

    I don’t want to spend very much time on Thornley’s piece of pulp fiction. It would embarrass Quentin Tarantino. But the idea that Jerry Milton Brooks had these kinds of connections within the CIA is so far out it should be riding with Elon Musk at NASA. As for Hunt, after working on the Bay of Pigs, he was then detailed to Allen Dulles for 1961 and into 1962, and eventually helped Dulles write his book, The Craft of Intelligence. (DiEugenio, pp. 55-56) He was then transferred to Tracy Barnes where he did commercial covers for his new unit DOD, or Domestic Operations. The idea that Hunt teamed up with Brooks to pull off the JFK murder, that Hunt worked for Mafia Don Joe Comforto, that Hunt spent that much time in New Orleans, that the two consulted with someone like Thornley on where to go to war after, and he suggested Vietnam, and they then tried to frame Thornley—anyone who believes this utter claptrap deserves nothing but unmitigated derision. It cheapens the subject matter and is an extension of the utter contempt Thornley had for President Kennedy. It is nothing but self-serving camouflage designed to protect Thornley with a fallback position for the Church Committee and the HSCA. Thornley understood Garrison might be consulting with a new inquiry and he wanted to get to the DA before the new investigation got to him.

    IX

    In the fall of 1967, Kerry Thornley and his wife Cara decided to leave California. They informed very few people. The reason Thornley gave for leaving the Golden State was an odd one. He needed more privacy in order to study Zenarchy. (Gorightly pp. 86-89) I won’t bother going into that. Just like I will not go into the other fruitcake endeavors, like Principia Discordia, that Kesey/Thornley spent his time on. But I will add that Thornley did admit he was also worried about the FBI talking to him about what he now really believed about the Warren Report.

    Because of this move, Jim Garrison did not have an easy time finding Thornley. (Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 71) In fact, according to the DA, it took quite a long time to locate Thornley. In the nineties, I interviewed former Garrison investigator Jim Rose, who had his logs and journals on hand. A former CIA agent, he explained how he had used his Agency resources to locate Thornley. (DiEugenio, p. 191)

    But after spending considerable time, effort, and funds to find the witness, Thornley refused to talk to the DA. Please compare this with the Warren Commission. In that instance, Thornley dropped everything, including about ten days of credit on a rental, in order to hightail it to an easy job in Virginia where he could conveniently be available to cooperate with the Commission in preparations for his testimony. But now, that whole relationship is pretty much reversed. And then some.

    In a memorandum Thornley wrote on October 24, 1967, he expresses trepidations about Garrison. In some way, he feels that the DA is covering up for LBJ, who Lifton thinks is behind the assassination. By letter, he now begins to dictate terms to Garrison. One of those terms ended up being he would only meet assistant DA, Andy Sciambra at NASA, which was the place where many of those who worked with Oswald at Reily Coffee Company had been later transferred. (DiEugenio, p. 191) Apparently, coffee grinders make good aerospace designers. (Garrison, pp. 115-16) As he entered the establishment, Sciambra recalled thinking that, if someone like Thornley could command entry into such a place, then Garrison probably didn’t stand a chance in Hades of winning out. Obviously, Thornley did not just call NASA and say: I need a secure room to meet with an opposing attorney; put me next to a rocket silo, so he gets the message. No, not Thornley. Someone did that for him. Someone involved in protecting him.

    In one of the declassifications revealed by the ARRB, the CIA admitted that it ran something called a Cleared Attorneys Panel in major cities—one of them being New Orleans during the Garrison investigation. The existence of this panel was first exposed in a classified letter by attorney James Quaid to CIA Director Dick Helms on May 13, 1967. In that letter, which was declassified relatively early in the ARRB process, Quaid asked to be placed on the CIA’s preferred list of lawyers in New Orleans. To show the level of deceit involved in this covert operation, when this author, along with Bill Davy, interviewed Clay Shaw’s lead attorney Irvin Dymond in New Orleans in the mid-nineties, he said there was no such panel and the letter must be a fraud.

    At the time of the interview, the further releases on the subject had not yet been declassified. One of them later revealed that Shaw’s partner at the International Trade Mart, Lloyd Cobb, had been accepted and “granted Provisional Security Approval in connection with his use on a Cleared Attorneys’ Panel for the Office of General Counsel.” (Memo of 3/13/68, italics in original) The program went up to the CIA’s Chief Counsel Larry Houston. The idea that Dymond would not know that his client’s partner had been accepted on that panel is too ridiculous to contemplate.

    The reason Dymond lied is because in his Playboy interview, this is what Garrison said was happening. Many of his clients and suspects were being furnished with attorneys paid by the CIA. For example, Gordon Novel had four attorneys being “clandestinely remunerated” by sources unknown to him. One of those lawyers, Herb Miller, was shared by Novel with a man he talked to a lot while Garrison was trying to get Gordon back to New Orleans, namely Allen Dulles. (DiEugenio, pp.262-63)

    How does this relate to Thornley and the issue about NASA explained above? Simple. James Quaid’s law partner was Edward Baldwin. Baldwin ended up being one of Thornley’s lawyers. (See the above referenced Quaid letter, Gorightly, p. 153) Quaid understood that Baldwin had hopped on the gravy train early; Quaid now wanted some of those “clandestinely remunerated” Agency fees too. Baldwin was in the thick of all this agency intrigue. When Garrison was attempting to try Walter Sheridan for bribing and intimidating witnesses, Baldwin was one of the former NSA officer’s two lawyers. Mr. Baldwin also increased his wealth by defending local newsman Ric Townley. This is the reporter who threatened Marlene Mancuso, Novel’s estranged wife, with investigation unless she helped Townley “destroy Jim Garrison.” A few days later, Townley called her and said “If you don’t get out, you could get killed.” (Mellen, p. 192, 93) Nice defendants for Mr. Baldwin. Thornley’s other attorney was Arnold Levine in Florida who, according to Thornley, said words to the effect, pay me when you can. Plus, however and whoever, Thornley had access to NASA.

    When Jim Rose discovered through his Agency sources that Thornley had moved to Florida for Zenarchy purposes, he found he had two places there: one in Miami and one in Tampa. He drove down to look at the place in Tampa. It was a large white-frame house on something like a one acre lot. Many have wondered, how could Thornley afford a place like that? His defenders, like Lifton, constantly rant that he was poor and had no such resources.

    For some possible elucidation, let us flash forward to the days of the HSCA. Thornley had moved west to east at the time of the Garrison investigation. After failing to get his audience with the DA, but sending him his pulp fiction novella, he now moved east to west, back to California. When the HSCA found him, he did not want to speak to them until he lawyered up. (HSCA report of 5/24/78) When tossed a couple of questions, like did he recall with any precision when he moved back to New Orleans in the fall of 1963, Thornley said they could meet the next day for a discussion. The next day, Thornley failed to show up. The LAPD agreed to look for the runaway witness, but the HSCA was winding down and, as with the Warren Commission Chief Counsel Robert Blakey—and his writing assistant Dick Billings—did not want to open any more doors. (Mellen, p. 346) The home where Thornley first met with the two investigators was a large 5-bedroom, 2-bath on a sprawling lot, this time 2 acres. Thornley sure had access to some nice homes while he was under investigation for the JFK case. Just another coincidence.

    In the light of the above revealed record, we can and should establish some things about Thornley that are based on that adduced record. Thornley was perceived to be an important witness by the FBI and Secret Service. About that there can be no doubt. Second, Thornley gave the Warren Commission what they wanted. That one can easily discern that from the forensic analysis of his testimony above. One can also see that not only did he give them what they wanted, they also did what they could to cover certain instances that an objective investigator would have pursued e.g. his true associations with people like Butler and Bringuier, the bizarre height discrepancy, his possible knowledge of Albert Schweitzer College.

    As for his perjury, as shown above, there isn’t much that Thornley was not lying about, or at least equivocating upon. And it’s a shame that we had to wait until the ARRB to get the evidence. Some of it from Thornley himself. All the people he once said he did not know, or was not sure about, he now said he did know. And not only did he do a hit job on Oswald for the Warren Commission, he was doing it in New Orleans right after the assassination: Oswald was a demented communist.

    But yet, Thornley then admitted to both Doris Dowell and Bernard Goldsmith that he knew Oswald was not a communist. How can one explain such behavior? I believe it’s not explainable, unless we allow that Thornley was playing a role, his motivation being his almost pathological hatred of JFK, which David Lifton cannot bring himself to confront. But to hammer it home, in 1992 on the syndicated program A Current Affair, he said, “I would have stood there with a rifle and pulled the trigger if I would have had the chance.” (Program of 2/25/92)

    X

    As mentioned previously, Adam Gorightly uses David Lifton as a frequent source about Jim Garrison in his book, which, to me, is sort of like using Donald Trump as a source on Barack Obama. And he also frequently uses John McAdams’ partner Dave Reitzes and also Thornley himself. And, as we can see from above with the late Harold Weisberg, he allows them to run rampant without allowing voice to the people they run over, even when that person has something relevant to say that changes the equation. To put it mildly, this is what is called doing a smear job.

    But yet, using that dubious paradigm, Gorightly allows Thornley to say that Garrison—not Weisberg, but Garrison—also used photographic deception with a witness at the Mexican embassy in New Orleans and with witnesses who said they saw Thornley at Oswald’s apartment talking with Marina Oswald.

    No one has seen more of Garrison’s extant files than I have. I have shared these with others. In fact, a three man team went through them and filed them with me once we had them in Los Angeles. Jim Garrison never did any of what Thornley is saying. Gorightly also attempts to smear Garrison by saying a copy of an affidavit on Thornley being with Oswald was not signed. I have seen literally scores upon scores of affidavits from Garrison’s office. Some are signed and some are not. The reason some are not signed is the same reason that some people do not keep a copy of a signed will laying around the house. Do I need to explain that? The reason that some are signed is that many came from Garrison’s own archives.

    I mentioned the liberal use of snark to cheapen the subject matter. At the beginning, Gorightly strikes the mantra of I used to be a JFK researcher, but now I realize it’s really a kind of “circle jerk, leading to no ultimate conclusion, just a form of entertainment masquerading as intellectual pursuit.” (Gorightly, p. 17) Spoken like a researcher who writes FOIA’s for HSCA documents, but does not know anything about the true state of the evidence.

    Then there is the LSD meme. The author writes that at Atusgi, or perhaps one of the Tokyo bars, Oswald might have been made an MK/Ultra subject. (p. 186) He then adds on the hoary story about a New Orleans assistant DA who recognized Oswald after the assassination as a man who had quizzed him about importing drugs, perhaps LSD into the USA. He leaves out the fact that the FBI decided not to follow up the story, because the witness had such bad eyesight he was not capable of face-to-face identification. (Rolling Stone, March 3, 1983) The two stories were so asinine that co-author Martin Lee did not even use them in his book Acid Dreams.

    He uses this to connect to, in this same section, the discredited Tim Leary story that he supplied Mary Meyer with LSD and she gave it to President Kennedy. As I have pointed out, this is completely undermined by the fact that Leary never came close to mentioning doing such a thing for nearly 20 years, even though he had written about 20 books in the meantime. Some of them almost daily diaries. But we are to think he forgot to mention that time he met the former wife of a CIA officer, the striking looking Mary Meyer? Please.

    But with Gorightly on Thornley there are no brakes, because he also writes that, in his last weeks in New Orleans, Oswald was at animal ritual killings and blood guzzling sacrifices. No kidding. Forget Jim Garrison and the Clinton/Jackson incident you circle jerker you. It’s really about Loren Coleman? (Gorightly, p. 115)

    But this, I think, is the impression Gorightly wants to leave, that somehow in all those many months, all those pages of files, all those CIA infiltrators—like Gordon Novel, who he seems to know jack about—there really was not anything at all to the Jim Garrison inquiry. And its biggest crime is that it somehow detracted us from the Ken Kesey type talents of Kerry Thornley. My question though is why stop there? If you want to go out the window with hyperbole, why not compare Thornley to the greatest writer in English of the 20th century: How about Joyce?

    On this site, the reader can listen to my 26 hour interview with Dave Emory. He read Destiny Betrayed, took copious notes and went through that amply footnoted volume, which is based largely on the declassified documents of the ARRB. This is what intelligent discourse is made of outside the eccentric versions of New Orleans inhabited by John McAdams and David Lifton.

    Let me list just ten achievements of the deceased DA in comparison to work by Americans that came before him between 1964-67.

    1. Garrison was the first critic to declare that Oswald was an agent provocateur, probably in the employ of the CIA.
    2. The DA was the first critic to find out just what the stamp 544 Camp Street on Oswald’s pamphlet meant.
    3. Garrison was the first person to make a solid connection between Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw, at the above Clinton/Jackson incident.
    4. The DA was the first critic to understand that Mexico City was a central part of the plot to kill Kennedy.
    5. Garrison was the first critic to comprehend that the escalation of the Vietnam War was a direct result of Kennedy’s murder.
    6. First critic to prove that Clay Bertrand was Clay Shaw (DiEugenio, pp. 387-88)
    7. Garrison’s leads were paralleled and backed up by the FBI (Click here for details)
    8. First critic who said JFK’s murder was a coup d’etat
    9. First critic who said the murder of JFK was designed to roll back JFK’s foreign policy. (Click here for details)
    10. First critic to say the murders of MLK and RFK were related to JFK.

    Please compare this (partial) list to what Richard Popkin, Tink Thompson, Ed Epstein, Sylvia Meagher, and Mark Lane were writing at the time. Ask yourself why Gorightly leaves it all out. And what does this say about the value and the deliberate intent of his work.

    For more, listen to those 26 hours. Adam Gorightly describes himself as a crackpot historian. As far as the JFK case goes, he should call himself Adam Gowrongly.

    see Kerry Thornley: A New Look (Part 1)

  • Kerry Thornley:  A New Look (Part 1)

    Kerry Thornley: A New Look (Part 1)


    I

    At the end of Adam Gorightly’s The Prankster and the Conspiracy, there is a revealing bibliographical reference. In referring to the files of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), the author writes that he secured those papers through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. (Gorightly, p. 274)

    As with many places in the book, my eyebrows arched when I read that passage. I thought: Why would anyone do that? The book was published in 2003. By 1998, five years before its publication, those HSCA files had been declassified by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). All one had to do was call the National Archives—or email them—to make one’s request. Further, the Review Board process had begun in 1994, a full ten years before the book’s publication. Third, anyone familiar with FOIA law—or the JFK case—would know that it would be useless to submit a FOIA for HSCA documents anyway. Because the FOIA law does not apply to congress and, as anyone can note, the HSCA was a congressional committee. So who did Gorightly send his FOIA request to? And how long did it take him to find out that he didn’t know what he was doing?

    What made this even more odd is that I did not recall any reference to the epochal construction of the ARRB in The Prankster and the Conspiracy. Yet, the book is about the John Kennedy assassination. More specifically it is about Kerry Thornley and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison. Not to tell the reader that, beginning in 1994, there were now available millions of pages of declassified files on the JFK case—and by the time the process was completed, still some being withheld—that is a grievous thematic lacunae that is puzzling. Especially since thousands of those newly declassified pages dealt with the Jim Garrison investigation.

    These facts reveal something about the author’s sources. There is a passage at the beginning of the book that reveals the author’s design. On page 19, Gorightly compares Thornley to other “luminaries from the period” like, for example, the trickster/prankster Ken Kesey. That comparison of “luminaries” made me look back at the subtitle on the cover. It reads in part: “How he met Oswald and Inspired the Counterculture”. What? Kerry Thornley inspired the counterculture? Did I miss something in all my decades of reading current American history? Did my graduate professors somehow ignore the powers and influence of a major cultural/literary figure?

    Taken aback, I walked over to my personal library to see if—somehow—I had missed a second Ken Kesey. I looked up two popular histories of that era, Milton Viorst’s Fire in the Streets and Tod Gitlin’s The Sixties. Both authors trace the late fifties cultural rebellion—a lead in to the sixties—to the so called “beat authors”. This would mean writers Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg and William Burroughs. (Viorst, pp. 60-64; Gitlin, pp. 47-54. Gitlin predates this revolt with references to C. Wright Mills and David Reisman.) Kerouac, as most know, met with Kesey in New York, along with Neal Cassady and Allen Ginsberg. This was part of the cross-country bus tour memorialized in Tom Wolfe’s The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. When that book was published in 1968, depicting Kesey and Cassidy’s meetings with famous men and their attempts to turn them on to LSD, it made Wolfe a famous writer and forged the New Journalism field. But Ken Kesey had already established a formidable literary name for himself years before.

    In 1962, Kesey wrote One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. That book was purchased by Kirk Douglas and adapted for the Broadway stage in 1963 by Dale Wasserman. The play has been revived several times in award winning productions, one of them lasting two years. Kirk’s son Michael later made the book into a worldwide, smash hit movie starring Jack Nicholson. That film went on to win all five major Academy Awards: Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Adapted Screenplay. It ended up being distributor United Artists’ biggest hit.

    But even that is not the whole story about Kesey’s literary career. Some would say—from a purely literary view—it’s not even the best part. Because two years after the publication of Cuckoo’s Nest, Kesey wrote a novel entitled Sometimes A Great Notion. Most critics consider his second, longer book an even better work than his first. Unlike Cuckoo’s Nest, it is not allegorical in design. It is an expansive, episodic, large scale epic about Pacific northwest logging. It touches on the dimensions of national tragedy: contrast and competition between East and West Coast, nature savagely despoiled by industry, conflict between rugged individualism versus communitarianism. Sometimes A Great Notion is on lists of the 100 best American novels of the century. It was called by the late essayist Charles Bowden “one of the few essential books written by an American in the last half century”. It too was also made into a film, this time starring Paul Newman.

    So right at the start of this book a question arises: How can any self-respecting historian or cultural analyst place Kerry Thornley in the midst of Kesey, Kerouac, or Ginsberg? These literary figures are important enough to have feature films and documentaries made about them. (See the films Heart Beat with Nick Nolte and On the Road with Viggo Mortensen.) In historical terms and cultural impact, the attempt by Gorightly to equate Thornley with Kesey strikes me as so bizarre as to be risible. I mean, how did that idiot Charles Bowden miss Thornley’s The Idle Warriors? How did Gitlin pass over Thornley’s writings about weekend nudie/swinger escapades? (Gorightly, pp. 72-73) Were these careful historians somehow unaware of how Thornley “Inspired the Counterculture?”

    This patent absurdity—combined with the earlier observation about Gorightly not even knowing, or ignoring, the ARRB—these factors tip us off as to what this volume is really about. The book will not be any kind of sober, balanced analysis of the subject matter. It will be an exercise in agitprop: a screeching polemic. And it will be a Procrustean polemic. If one recalls the Greek bandit of lore, Procrustes both stretched and amputated his characters beyond recognition in order to fit his immovable bed. Gorightly’s polemic contains three main Procrustean elements:

    1. The simultaneous aggrandizement and concealment of Thornley
    2. The, by now, (yawn) familiar hatchet job on Jim Garrison
    3. Insertions of snark to cheapen the rather serious subject of murder

    If one rigidly follows the above architectural design one achieves the desired result: Thornley is somehow an ignored cultural and artistic lion; Garrison is a demented, hateful, vacuous fraud; and who really cares who killed JFK, what does it matter? The problem is this rigid formula renders the book so eccentric as to be solipsistic. Having dealt with the works of writers like Peter Janney, Lamar Waldron, and Tom Hartmann, I use that word gingerly. But this book is clearly in their league.

    II

    Thornley was born in East Whittier, California in 1938. He met his lifelong friend Greg Hill—who he shared a writing interest with—in high school. He was an actor in school plays and was a big fan of Mad magazine. (Ibid, p. 27) Thornley joined the Marine Corps Reserves in 1956 and attended boot camp that summer. He returned to high school for his senior year. He went to USC to study journalism but dropped out. (p. 29) He then joined the Marines in the spring of 1959.

    It was at El Toro Marine Base, outside of Santa Ana California, where Kerry Thornley met Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald had already been at Atsugi air base in Japan. Thornley would go there after their meeting. Like Oswald, Thornley was a radar operator. (Ibid, p. 36) It was at Atsugi that Thornley learned of Oswald’s defection to the USSR. Although Gorightly says Oswald renounced his citizenship in Moscow, thanks to the workings of diplomat/CIA agent Richard Snyder, we know that is not accurate. (John Newman, Oswald and the CIA, p. 6) Interestingly, Gary Powers’ ill-fated U2 flight over the USSR occurred while Oswald was in Russia. Gorightly says that Powers’ U2 flight flew out of Atsugi. This is also not true. (Newman, p. 46)

    According to Thornley, it was upon learning about Oswald’s defection that he decided to write a novel about his former colleague. This ended up being called The Idle Warriors. According to his landlord in New Orleans at the time of the assassination, Thornley thought he was going to make a lot of money, because Oswald happened to be the subject of his book. (Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 76) Such was not the case. The book was not published until 1991, during the prerelease furor over Oliver Stone’s film JFK.

    On his way back from Japan, Thornley read Ayn Rand’s dystopian novel Atlas Shrugged. According to Thornley, this was a transformative experience for him. It altered his world view. He fell in love with Rand and her radical free enterprise philosophy. (Gorightly, p. 43) After his discharge from the service, Thornley stayed with his parents in East Whittier. He led a rather odd life. He staged a one man reading of The Idle Warriors and apparently thought this would get him work as a lecturer. By who and for what is not specified in Gorightly’s book. After being hassled by the police one night for loitering, Thornley and Hill decided to move to New Orleans. It is not really explained why. After the cop altercation, Thornley said they should move to a place where they could stay up all night. Hill suggested New Orleans. And that was that. (Gorightly, p. 46)

    They arrived in February of 1961, which, of course, was when the preparations in the Crescent City began to shift into high gear over the upcoming Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. People like David Ferrie and Guy Banister were involved in these activities out of places like Belle Chase naval air station and Banister’s office at 544 Camp Street. In fact, because of the ARRB, we first found out about the training grounds at Belle Chase from file releases in the nineties about Ferrie. He worked there as a trainer for the CIA, under the auspices of his friend Sergio Arcacha Smith, who worked for the CIA under State Department cover. (Wiliam Davy, Let Justice be Done, pp. 30-31)

    As mentioned, at the time of Thornley’s 2000 mile “loitering harassment” move to New Orleans, he had already met Oswald. And he was writing about him. With the move to the Crescent City, Thornley was now going to run into a group of people who apparently also knew about Oswald and they were associated with this Belle Chase, anti-Castro, CIA associated movement. This group was called the Friends of Democratic Cuba (FDC). It was a shell company created by the CIA and FBI, “which involved the shipment and transportation of individuals and supplies in and out of Cuba.” (Davy, p. 17) The man who was supposed to be the recipient of this merchandise was Sergio Arcacha Smith. Members of the committee were Grady Durham and Bill Dalzell, the latter was a CIA operative and friend of Clay Shaw’s. Both Durham and Dalzell operated, at times, out of Banister’s office at 544 Camp Street, which makes sense since Banister was one of the incorporators of the Friends of Democratic Cuba. The man who was listed as head of the FDC, that is president, was Martin McAuliffe. McAuliffe was a PR man who handled publicity for Smith’s Cuban Revolutionary Council in New Orleans. (Davy, pp. 17-18)

    As most everyone who studies the JFK case knows, due to its timing, the FDC was involved in a rather startling incident. In late January of 1961, actually the day President Kennedy took the oath of office, two men walked into the Bolton Ford Truck Center in New Orleans. They identified themselves as members of the FDC. They wanted to purchase ten Ford Econoline vans. At first, the man who did the talking was one Joseph Moore. But when the bid form was made out, Moore said he wanted his friend’s name on it as co-signer. The second man said this was fine since he was the man with the money. The man signed the form simply “Oswald” and he said his first name was Lee. (Davy, p. 16) This was when the real Oswald was in Russia.

    In other words, Thornley was now in the midst of a group of people who also knew about Oswald and were manipulating his name and impersonating him—in 1961. There can be no doubt about this for the simple reason that McAuliffe knew Thornley and knew about his manuscript. (New Orleans DA memo of 2/20/68) Thornley also showed his manuscript about Oswald to Banister. When the Thornley/Oswald episode was first written about back in the nineties, this Oswald/Banister exchange startled even Mr. Warren Commission Gus Russo. It would be natural for Thornley to do this, since he was among the menagerie at 544 Camp Street. Both Dan and Allen Campbell, who worked for Banister, saw him there. (See Davy, p. 40; James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 188) In fact, on the day of the assassination, Allen was talking to Thornley. (Gorightly tries to negate Dan’s statement through John McAdams, but the original reference does not say what McAdams says it does. Anthony Summers, Conspiracy, p. 293)

    Why Gorightly should try to dispute the Thornley/Banister association at all is hard to fathom, since Thornley himself admitted showing the manuscript to Banister in his introduction to The Idle Warriors back in 1991. In other words, by a strange and powerful coincidence, Thornley is now united with the only other known group of people in America using Oswald’s name in a fictional setting well in advance of Kennedy’s assassination. There will be more of these coincidences to come.

    III

    It wasn’t just Guy Banister and his staunch anti-communist comrades which Thornley was part and parcel of; and not just McAuliffe of the FDC he happened to run into. During his stay in New Orleans, Thornley worked briefly for rightwing publisher/activist Kent Courtney. (Probe Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 4, “False Witness: Aptly Titled”) But calling Courtney rightwing does not begin to establish who he was. Courtney was a McCarthyite and a John Bircher. In 1960, he ran for governor on the States Rights party ticket. That same year, Courtney organized a ‘draft Goldwater’ movement because he thought Richard Nixon was too liberal. In fact, at times, Courtney thought that Goldwater was not conservative enough for him. Courtney agreed with Robert Welch that Dwight Eisenhower was really an agent of the worldwide communist conspiracy. This reactionary extremism is why Courtney tried to start a political party to the right of the GOP in 1961. Courtney admired Senator Strom Thurmond and backed Governor George Wallace for president in 1968.

    During his two-year New Orleans stay of 1961-63, Thornley also befriended Clint Bolton, an associate of Courtney. (Ibid, Probe Magazine) Bolton wrote publicity copy for the FDC. And Thornley dedicated his 1965 book, entitled simply Oswald, to Bolton. (We will discuss this book later.) According to Garrison’s sources, Bolton was associated with the CIA.

    Thornley also knew Ed Butler through Thornley’s employment by Alton Ochsner’s Information Council for the Americas. (ibid) INCA was another rabid rightwing propaganda mill, managed for the wealthy Ochsner by Butler. (For a profile of Butler, click here.)

    We all know that Butler, along with Carlos Bringuier of the Student Revolutionary Directorate—the DRE, ended up bushwhacking Oswald during an August 1963 broadcast debate in New Orleans. With help from the FBI, they exposed Oswald’s crusading for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee as being colored by his past defection to Russia. According to his girlfriend Jeanne Hack, Thornley once took her to a meeting behind Bringuier’s store. (Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, p. 275) As Jefferson Morley has shown, the first media accusation that Oswald was in cahoots with Fidel Castro in the assassination was made by a DRE broadsheet—which was paid for by the CIA. (Morley, The Ghost, p. 145) Within 24 hours of Kennedy’s murder, Senator Thomas Dodd—who knew Butler before the assassination—had the propagandist shipped up to Washington to testify before congress about Oswald. (Probe Magazine, p. 12, September-October 1996)

    And what was Kerry Thornley doing in the hours immediately following JFK’s murder? He was beside himself with joy. He could not contain himself; he was cheering. He actually referred to Kennedy’s assassination as “good news”. (Mellen, p. 272; Gorightly, p. 53) Within 36 hours, he was being interviewed by the Secret Service, twenty-four hours later, by the FBI. (Gorightly, p. 54)

    Within days of the assassination, Thornley had departed from New Orleans. He left so hastily that he did not even talk to his landlord—even though he had over a week left on his rental. After finding a note, the landlord checked Thornley’s apartment. He found papers torn up all over the floor; but “before being torn up, the paper had been watered down so the ink was blurred, making it unreadable.” (Garrison, p. 76)

    Thornley had hightailed it to Arlington, Virginia. It was almost like he was preparing to be called by the Warren Commission, which he was. He later joked about it. He said there was just cause for the FBI and Secret Service to suspect he had a role in the assassination. But then, for whatever reason, that line of inquiry was quickly dropped. But being where he was, in proximity to Arlington Cemetery, this gave him the opportunity to urinate on Kennedy’s grave. (Garrison, p. 78)

    IV

    To any person who knows anything about who Oswald really was and what the Warren Commission was up to, it is impossible not to take sharp notice of Thornley’s testimony. And, in fact, with his three complete editions of the Commission volumes, this is what first caused Jim Garrison to ponder the case of Kerry Thornley. The Commission wanted Thornley to bring all drafts of his book The Idle Warriors with him, which he did. His main liaison with the Commission was Albert Jenner. Through the FBI and Secret Service reports, Jenner knew about Thornley’s incontinent celebration of Kennedy’s demise and agreed to paper it over by saying the witness was buzzed. (Gorightly, p. 64) Yet, Thornley was working his waiter job when he got the news of Kennedy’s murder. (ibid, p. 53) I am familiar enough with the restaurant business to know that waiters are not allowed to drink on the job. Yet, in spite of that, Thornley actually started singing when he learned Kennedy was shot. (ibid. p. 53) With that nod and wink, any objective reader could see that the Commission was laying down the carpet for Thornley to be a key witness for them. In fact, in what has to be considered an act of concealment, Jenner never mentioned this celebratory aspect of Thornley’s story. Within one page, Jenner began to focus on Thornley’s relations with Oswald in the spring of 1959. (WC, Vol. XI, p. 83)

    Thornley began by saying Oswald had been demoted to doing janitorial work for pouring a beer over an officer’s head. (ibid, p. 84) He then goes on to say that at his first meeting with Oswald, he learned that the man was both a communist and an atheist. (ibid, p. 87) Therefore, within just four pages, Thornley had hit a three-bagger. And this was just for starters. The witness then depicted Oswald as saying with a little grin, “Well, I think the best religion is communism.” Thornley continued that Oswald had concluded Marxist morality was the most rational morality for mankind and Oswald thought “communism was the best system in the world.” (ibid, p. 87) Thornley also revealed that Oswald was studying Russian and subscribing to Russian newspapers. When asked by Jenner if he himself did these things, Thornley replied no, he considered himself presently as an extreme rightist. (ibid, p. 88) Later on, Thornley said Oswald, in the service, was extremely sloppy in his personal habits, would go out of his way to get into trouble, and would pull his hat down over his eyes, so he did not have to look around at anything, “very Beetle Bailey style”. (ibid, p. 90) He then said that on a personal level, Oswald’s relationships with others were “almost nil.” The alleged assassin got along with almost no one. (ibid, p. 94) This would imply that Thornley was his closest pal at the time, therefore he could give the most complete impression of the man.

    Jenner would ask Thornley about aspects of Oswald’s personality and about discussions the two had, since Oswald was an alleged communist and Thornley was not. (Ibid, p. 92) Thornley now described Oswald’s arguments in regards to the Marxian idea of the excess profits corporations derived from labor. (ibid, p. 93) Jenner even pushed Thornley to recall any of Oswald’s comparisons between the USA and the USSR. Thornley stated one could not argue such points, since Oswald said we lived in a state of propaganda and no one had real knowledge of what Russia was like. Again, Jenner pushed Thornley on this point: “Give us some examples and tell us.” (Ibid, p. 94) Thornley used this to say Oswald favored the USSR and it was a part of his personal rebellion against “the present circumstances.”

    Based on a two-sentence verbal exchange with Oswald—after which Oswald allegedly walked off and cut off communications—Thornley later concluded that Oswald was a nut, maybe crazy. Oswald had a “definite tendency toward irrationality at times, an emotional instability.” (ibid, p. 96) Thornley later added that, when he read about Oswald in Moscow, he was surprised. He did not think Oswald’s allegiance to communism was so deep as to defect. Again, Jenner pushed him on this issue of his personal reaction to the defection. Thornley said that Oswald had the idea that the Russians would win the Cold War and he wanted to be on the winning side. He also added that this was part of his “persecution complex…insofar as he has tended to be emotionally unstable.” (ibid, p. 97)

    Later, in explaining the defection, Thornley said:

    He looked upon the eyes of future people as some kind of tribunal, and he wanted to be on the winning side so that 10,000 years from now people would look in the history books and say, ‘Well this man was ahead of his time’…The eyes of the future became what to another man would be the eyes of God, or perhaps to yet another man the eyes of his own conscience. (ibid)

    If the reader can believe it, Thornley went even further. He said that Oswald “wanted to die with the knowledge that, or with the idea that, he was somebody.” (Ibid, p. 98) Later on, Thornley said that Oswald’s Marxism was an irrevocable conviction with the man. (ibid, p. 99) When Jenner asked him for more indications about a persecution complex, Thornley went beyond picturing Oswald as an unstable, glory hungry, irrevocable Marxist. Thornley now added that Oswald had a hint of paranoia about him. Oswald thought “he was being watched and being pushed a little harder than anyone else…I think it was kind of necessary for him to believe that he was being picked on.” (ibid, p. 100)

    Jenner finally admitted what is clear to anyone with any objectivity: what he is pressing Thornley hard for is Oswald’s motivation. (ibid, p. 102) At times, the Q and A gets mildly humorous. Jenner asks Thornley if Oswald felt superior because he was an avid reader. Thornley responds affirmatively. He later tells Jenner that Oswald felt his commanders were too incompetent to give him orders. (ibid, p. 106) So we have a man who had both a persecution complex and superiority complex.

    In going over Thornley’s testimony, I really do not think the Commission could have asked any more of him. There is no arguing this and those who do are in denial. To me, in terms of sheer incrimination and character assassination, Thornley ranks with Ruth and Michael Paine, George DeMohrenschildt, and Carlos Bringuier. He was quite valuable to them in their portrayal of Oswald as a deranged, sociopathic Marxist. And he is duly quoted in the Warren Report in three damaging passages. (See pp. 385-86, 388-89, 686-87)

    But in forensic value, the way a DA would look at it, how much of his testimony could be admitted in a court of law? Paranoia, persecution complex, Beetle Bailey shutting out his environment, wanting the world to know he was somebody? Much of it was surmise, personal opinion, and dime store psychology. From a man who not only was not a psychologist, but was a college dropout. And all the way through, Jenner was pushing him to editorialize. The two were so close that Thornley made sure he had Jenner’s correct phone number at the end. (ibid, p. 115) The fact that this kind of dog and pony show was allowed without objection goes to the heart of how bad the Warren Commission really was. And Thornley was, oh so, eager to cooperate. At a real trial, a defense lawyer would be jumping out of his chair with objections. At a pre-evidentiary hearing, a judge likely would not have allowed it on the grounds that its prejudicial character outweighed its forensic value. To put it plainly, upon lengthy review of his testimony, Kerry Thornley has all the appearances of being a hit man.

    V

    As several authors have written, the Commission featured a whole series of affidavits of servicemen who knew Oswald. These were mostly a bit over a half page each. Although it is clear that these affidavits were externally guided, none of them came close to doing to Oswald what Thornley did. (WC, Volume 8, pp. 315-23) Thornley was allowed the freedom to answer open ended and leading questions for 33 pages.

    But Thornley’s testimony, once we go outside its immediate parameters, deserves even more attention. Minimally, some of the things he said would seem to have merited immediate follow up—if Jenner wanted to get at the underlying facts.

    As we have seen above, Thornley knew both Butler and Bringuier. These were Oswald’s opponents in the August broadcast debate that smeared both the alleged assassin and the FPCC. As we have seen, immediately after the assassination, Butler and Bringuier swung into action to use that incident for psy war purposes: Oswald was guilty and he did it for ideological purposes. Thornley was so eager to please Jenner that, during his testimony, he slipped. He said that he heard these tapes after the assassination. (WC, Volume 11, p. 100) This must have been in the time interval before he left for Virginia. He said he was standing in a TV station as the tape was played. And like every Oswald coincidence Thornley was involved in, he said he just happened to be standing there. Was he waiting for a streetcar? Inside the studio? As we shall see, a newsman would fill this in a bit more. In all probability, Thornley did not just happen to be there.

    The second point a true interlocutor would have focused on was the enduring mystery about Oswald and his application to attend Albert Schweitzer College. Oswald had been a part of a unit at El Toro naval air base called MACS 9 since July of 1958. Kerry Thornley had been a part of MACS 4 since that fall. (Thornley’s 2/8/68 Grand Jury testimony, p. 2) Thornley told Jim Garrison he was not sure when he was transferred to Oswald’s unit. But he thought it was sometime after January or February of 1959. (ibid, p. 3) Again, this is interesting, because, in early March, Oswald sent in an application to Albert Schweitzer College (hereafter ASC). That college was 6000 miles away in Switzerland. It was so obscure that the FBI agents in Europe could not find it. They had to contact the Swiss police to locate it. But even the Swiss police could not find it, because it was not in the official registry at Bern. The police had to undertake an investigation that lasted two months. (Probe Magazine, Vol. 3 No. 3, p. 7) The natural question would be: how did Oswald find out about it at El Toro?

    Make no mistake, the Warren Commission was on to this. And Albert Jenner understood the connection might have been through Thornley. Comprehending how damaging that would be to their star military witness, they had no intention of finding out if such was the case. But George MIchael Evica, not concerned with such matters, thought this might have been what happened. According to Evica, neither the FBI nor the CIA had produced Oswald’s letter for application to the ASC. (A Certain Arrogance, p. 15) This caused Evica to ask: did Oswald’s letter really exist? The ASC episode is of interest, because Oswald’s defection will occur in just six months. When he applied for his passport, he listed ASC as one of his destinations. Three months after his attention in ASC was accented, he applied for a hardship discharge for early release from the service. The reason for this early discharge? At her place of work, his mother had a candy box drop on her head. No kidding. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 135) As many have noted, everything about this hardship discharge was suspect, as was everything about ASC, including the institute’s Director Hans Casparis, who never received any degrees from the colleges he said he attended. (Evica, pp,77-78) Plus the fact that ASC closed down within months after Kennedy’s murder. (DiEugenio, p. 134)

    When the FBI interviewed Thornley after the assassination, they apparently understood this possible connection. As Evica notes, the ASC was promoted and partly administered by the liberal Unitarian Church and the Unitarians had been covertly used by Allen and John Foster Dulles for overseas espionage actions. (Evica, p. 21, pp. 85, 98-99, 123-25) One of the most famous of these Unitarian churches was Stephen Frichtman’s First Unitarian Church in Los Angeles, which sometimes had a thousand attendees. Frichtman had organized the Unitarian Service Committee, once run by Percival Brundage, who was later associated with ASC. (Evica, p. 105) As Evica further notes, Thornley was fully aware of this church and he attended at least several times. The witness also testified that Oswald asked him about this church. (WC, Vol. 11, p. 110) Thornley was also aware that Oswald had visited Los Angeles with his Marine colleague Nelson Delgado. (ibid) The FBI asked Thornley what Oswald’s connection may have been with Frichtman’s church. The witness replied there was none. Quite logically, since Thornley never said he visited LA with Oswald, the FBI had its doubts, because there is a 60 page FBI report on Frichtman’s church in the National Archives. (Evica, p. 21)

    But perhaps even more interesting, the FBI may have found an acquaintance who Thornley had said something contrary to. Because Thornley goes out of his way to deny that his classmate Sylvia Bortin ever knew Oswald. (WC Vol. 11, pp. 110-11) This does not mean that Thornley could not have told her about this upon his return to California in 1963. Clearly, Jenner had rehearsed all of this with the witness in advance. Either during one of their phone calls or their lunch. Both men knew, through the FBI reports, just how close to the edge it came. Evica correctly poses the questions: Did Thornley pick up an ASC brochure from Frichtman and give it to Oswald during one of their discussions about the church; or did he inform Oswald of this available literature and the college?

    Why is that important? Not just because of the upcoming (phony) defection and not just due to the fact of ASC’s obscurity. It is because with all that has come out about the institution, many authors—Evica, John Newman, John Armstrong, and myself—now believe it likely that this alleged higher education institution was a CIA shell or proprietary. Therefore, if Thornley knew about the upcoming defection, it is understandable that he and Jenner would avoid the issue.

    A third matter Jenner should have explored: Thornley made the point that he never saw Oswald after he left El Toro. Jenner then specifically asks about seeing the alleged assassin in New Orleans. Thornley denied it. (WC, Vol. 11, p. 109) He only knew about Oswald’s defection through a published report, probably the military journal Stars and Stripes. He also knew of his return to America, but never talked to him about the book. He says he began the book when he learned of the defection and finished it in February of 1962; Oswald returned in June. He reaffirmed to Jenner there was no contact with Oswald at all after El Toro. (WC Vol. 11, p. 110)

    His father contradicted Kerry. According to an 11/26/63 confidential LA Sheriff’s report, his father Ken said that Oswald had been in letter contact with Thornley. Some of these were of recent vintage. (Mellen, p. 276) Could these possibly be the letters Thornley had ripped up and then watered down in his apartment? Allen Campbell, who worked out of Banister’s office, told Joan Mellen in 2002 that the two had been in contact. (Ibid) That’s just for starters; we will return to the rather important issue of Thornley’s denials on this point later.

    A last area about Thornley’s testimony where Jenner should have challenged the witness, is one which intrigued Jim Garrison. When asked to describe Oswald’s physical stature, Thornley said he wasn’t positive but he thought Oswald stood about 5’ 5” in height. (WC, Vol. 11, p. 89) Now, there is a dispute about how tall Oswald actually was. Some records measure him at 5’ 11”, some at a bit over 5’ 9”, but for Thornley to say Oswald was five inches shorter than he was–when in fact they were around the same height—that was rather notable. The Warren Commission had these records. Jenner had to have been aware of this. As with everything else, he made nothing of it.

    The Commission had allowed Thornley the equivalent of a slalom run at Tahoe.

    VI

    After appearing before the Warren Commission, Thornley published a non-fiction book simply titled Oswald in 1965. As I have written elsewhere, the 1965 book is pretty much a rerun of his planned and patently incriminating Commission testimony. In that book, he says, “Frankly, I agree that the man was sick, but I further think his sickness was…self-induced.” (Thornley, p. 69) How was it self-induced? Because others did not recognize the “mark of destiny clearly visible on his forehead…” (ibid, p. 19) Needless to say, there was no conspiracy to kill JFK. It was all done by his sick acquaintance, Oswald. In addition to the book rights, it was sold for tabloid rights to The National Insider.

    Perhaps for that reason, the book caught the attention of Kennedy researcher David Lifton. Since both were in the LA area, Lifton visited Thornley more than once and—there is no other way to say this—they became friends. Somehow, some way, Lifton was willing to overlook all that Thornley had said for the Warren Commission in smearing and incriminating Oswald. He was also willing to—and this got almost ludicrous—downplay Thornley’s nutty neo-fascist beliefs. For example, In 1964 Thornley attended Robert LeFevre’s Freedom School. LeFevre sued the Girl Scouts for mentioning the United Nations too often in their handbook.

    Consider how Lifton handled this later. He cannot bring himself to accept that Thornley was celebrating Kennedy’s death, so in an article attacking Jim Garrison for a journal called Open City in 1968, this is what he wrote:

    In short, Kerry’s humor, however in bad taste it might be interpreted to have been, had more to do with his own sense of irony and his own ideas about Government, (and the type of man that makes leading other men his life’s work). But this is all really besides the point.

    No one considered Thornley’s comments in jest, including Thornley. And it’s inexplicable for someone who was not there to say such. And how on earth are his fruity extremist beliefs “besides the point”? As examined above, they provide a nexus point for Thornley’s associations with other extremists in New Orleans. We will explore just how extreme—and therefore how important—these beliefs were in a later section.

    Lifton had no subpoena power. He had no detectives to do a field investigation. And there is no evidence that, at the time, he had been to New Orleans. So when Lifton took some signed statements from Thornley and turned them over to Garrison, the combination of Thornley’s previous testimony, and at least one of the signed statements, caused Garrison’s suspicions about Thornley to deepen. For instance, in one of his statements to Lifton, Thornley said he thought he had heard Oswald speaking to another Marine in Russian at Atsugi. He thought his name was John Rene Heindel. In fact, according to a long memorandum Thornley made out on October 24, 1967, that name was given to him by Jenner. According to Thornley, he and Lifton spent hours making out a statement to this effect for Jim Garrison. The information ended up being sent to the DA in a notarized declaration, specifically naming Heindel as the guy who talked to Oswald in Russian. (Grand Jury testimony of Heindel, 10/5/67, pp. 23-24)

    For anyone familiar with the record, this is all confusing. According to Heindel, he was at Atsugi with Oswald. (WC, Vol. 8, p. 318) And he talked to him once briefly in English. But that was the only place he ever talked to him. He never even knew him at El Toro, where he spent most of his time at the helicopter base. He never knew Thornley at all in the service. He only heard of him afterwards. (Heindel, op. cit, p. 4, 24)

    But yet Thornley says he was not at Atsugi at the time Oswald was there. (WC Vol. 11, p. 86) Therefore, if this ever happened, it almost had to be at El Toro. But yet Heindel said he did not speak Russian. (Heindel, op. cit. p. 26) There is a concept put forth by some that, wrapped up in all this, Garrison was trying to lure Heindel into a perjury trap. Based on this Russian language information—and the fact that Oswald supposedly used the name Hidell in ordering the rifle the Commission says was used to kill Kennedy—Garrison was going to implicate Heindel in a huge plot that would somehow lead up to Clay Shaw. (Gorightly, p. 91) When one reads Garrison’s examination of Heindel before the grand jury, the reader can see this is bunk. (Click here for details). In fact, in reading this exchange, it appears that Heindel likely would not have been called without Thornley’s declaration.

    Thornley insisted he never saw Oswald in New Orleans. Yet, there were many witnesses who testified to the contrary:  they either said they saw Oswald with Thornley or Thornley told him he did know Oswald after the service.  Jack Burnside  was  a regular at Ryder Coffee House and said he saw Oswald there. He also knew “Thornley and was with him at Fong’s Restaurant on Decatur Street when Oswald came in and talked with Thornley.” (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 591) Peter Deageano told assistant DA Andrew Sciambra of Garrison’s office that while eating a hamburger at the Bourbon House, he saw Thornley with Oswald. He also recalled seeing Oswald leafleting on Canal Street in the summer of 1963. (Interview of October 26, 1967)

    Doris Dowell  knew Thornley from the Shirlington House in Arlington. She said that Thornley told her that he and Oswald had been buddies in New Orleans. (NODA memo of April 2, 1968) L. P. Davis had also seen  Thornley with Oswald at the Bourbon House and he recalled that they had been dressed in a similar manner. (NODA memo of January 30, 1968)

    With this as background, let us dial back to Thornley, the TV station, and the Butler/Oswald tapes being shown after the assassination. Cliff Hall was a program director of WSHO Radio in New Orleans in 1963. He hung out in the French Quarter and got to know Thornley. Shortly after Kennedy’s assassination, he accompanied Kerry to WDSU TV station. There, Thornley was interviewed about Oswald and he rendered the same information he essentially gave the Warren Commission. But then something odd happened. Thornley and Hall went out for a drink. Thornley now admitted that he had seen Oswald since the service. It was in New Orleans. Hall asked him if he knew Oswald well and he said yes he did. (Interview with Richard Burness, January 10, 1968)

    But Thornley did not just visit the TV station to get his message out. He also made the New Orleans States Item, one of the two major papers in the city. On November 27, 1963, they ran an article based on an interview with Thornley. Quoting Thornley, the top headline labeled Oswald a ‘Real Loser’. The article is more qualified than his book. For instance, he says he never saw Oswald doing anything violent. But he calls Oswald schizophrenic and a “little psychotic.” He also adds that the Marines made Oswald a killer. During his testimony with Jenner, Thornley was not asked how the reporter located him or if he located the reporter. (WC Volume 11, p. 112) Whatever the cause, would it not appear to many that Thornley is doing what Butler and Bringuier were doing? Except his twist was character assassination, making Oswald into a pathological case.

    Recall, Thornley had told Jenner that he just happened to be at the studio and very briefly saw parts of the Butler/Oswald debate. That was not credible on its face and it should have been thoroughly examined. Like Thornley taking off to Virginia to await being called by the Warren Commission, here he was doing the same act right after the assassination. And apparently doing it in tandem with his colleagues Butler and Bringuier. To add to this contradictory paradigm, he told both Bernard Goldsmith and Dowell that he knew Oswald was not a communist. (Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy, p. 229) Yet this was what he was so adamant about for Jenner.

    As with the Commission, Thornley told Garrison in 1968 that he did not see Oswald after the service. (Thornley, Grand Jury Testimony, p. 40) To call his grand jury positions on whether he knew Clay Shaw, Banister, or David Ferrie equivocating, that is simply not accurate. Exaggerating only slightly, they are almost comical to read. (Ibid, respectively, pp 48-50, p. 62, p. 72) To anyone familiar with the JFK case, it’s clear Thornley is trying to avoid being indicted for perjury on those counts also. He did know these men. But if he admitted to that, along with knowing Oswald, along with Bringuier, Butler, and the rest of the CIA subculture around Oswald, what would happen? His carefully constructed Jenner meme, as the guy practicing the piano downstairs in the bordello—or in his case selling aluminum siding—this all would have been brought into question. How do we know this? Because Thornley later positively admitted to knowing all three of these men. (DiEugenio, p. 189) These men also lied about their associations with Oswald in and around New Orleans in the summer of 1963.

    Let us make no mistake, the above is not the accumulation of the evidence Garrison had against Thornley. There were other intriguing witnesses that I have not even mentioned. (See Joan Mellen, A Farewelll to Justice, pp. 271-76;  Joe G. Biles, In History’s Shadow, pp. 56-69)

    The problem was that, by late 1968, Garrison had some serious problems. He was not in good health and his office had undergone a huge blow out over the Bill Boxley affair. (DiEugenio, pp. 283-85 292-93) As has been written by many, Boxley had all the earmarks of being a CIA infiltrator. After this turning point, Garrison had all his volunteer assistants hand in their badges, which cut down on the amount of investigations he could do. And he decided to concentrate on prepping for the upcoming Shaw conspiracy trial with mostly his own office workers. After the huge disappointment of that trial, Garrison filed perjury charges against Shaw. When one follows the memoranda trail, or talks to people in the office, Garrison was revving up for that in a way he should have for the original trial. But in a very unusual move, that trial was moved from state court to federal court. (DiEugenio, pp. 313-15) And in a pre-trial hearing that can only be called surrealistic, the charges were then dismissed.

    After this, it was decided from up above that was it for Garrison and the JFK case. Further, Garrison was going to be made an example of to anyone else who harbored these investigative designs. The Power Elite in both New Orleans and Washington went to work to remove Garrison from office. He underwent two phony trials during which he demonstrated how the local federal attorney’s office had literally fabricated a case against him. (ibid, pp. 316-19) Garrison was acquitted. But the real aim was to mortally wound him in the press and broadcast media, which did occur. And that brought to the DA’s office Harry Connick, a man who has become infamous in legal journals for his rather unusual criminal practices. (Click here for details)

    But, no coincidence, Connick had also been the Justice Department liaison to Shaw’s defense team during his trial. This was discovered by the ARRB. (DiEugenio, pp. 303-05) Therefore, once he took office in 1973, he went to work setting fire to all the JFK files that Garrison had left behind. He literally sent them to the public incinerator. And we only found out about it because of the ARRB. (ibid, p. 320)

    So today, one can only estimate what we have left of Garrison’s files. Considering that this author—through attorney Lyon Garrison—had access to the extant files left over in Garrison’s archives, I would say, that it’s probably about 60%. The rest were incinerated by Connick, stolen by infiltrators like Boxley, or, as Garrison wrote his book editor, Zach Sklar, stolen from the garage of a friend of Garrison’s after he left office. Therefore, as with all witnesses and suspects in the Garrison inquiry, we really do not know the scope and depth of the case against Thornley. The fact that, as Joe Biles has written, Garrison had to concentrate on Shaw before, during, and after his trial detracted from the case against Thornley, who Biles believes would have been a better object of prosecution. (Biles, p. 68) For the reasons elucidated above, that is something we will never know.

    see Kerry Thornley: A New Look (Part 2)