Kennedys and King Test host626

Tag: DALLAS

  • The Power Elite in Dallas Takes Charge

    The Power Elite in Dallas Takes Charge

     

    dallas skyline

    On November 18th, Hugh Aynesworth clocked in with his annual Kennedy assassination cover up article in the only daily circulation paper in Dallas, The Dallas Morning News. In this article the longtime CIA-FBI asset did two things. He first took his usual slam at the critics of the Warren Commission. Secondly, with help from Larry Dunkel aka Gary Mack, he did protective cover for his protégé and apparent successor in the local cover up, Dave Perry.

    To understand who Perry is–and how bad he is–one needs to refer to the fine Bob Fox article on this web site. (Click here for that article) By reading that essay one can see that Perry is not to be trusted in his research. As Fox concluded, his work in the instance of the Mary Bledsoe arrest report was “so incomplete, so one-sided, so agenda-driven as to be misleading.” And this is a very important instance. Why? Because a hidden part of Perry’s agenda in this piece was to conceal just how bad a witness Mary Bledsoe really was. Bledsoe was the person that the Warren Commission relied upon in order to place Oswald on a bus after the assassination. In her masterly book, Accessories After the Fact, Sylvia Meagher first began to point out a few of the many problems with her testimony about Oswald being on the bus. In 2012, through the additional work of Joe Backes, Rodger Remington, Pat Speer, and Lee Farley, the nagging stream of doubt about Bledsoe has now turned into a raging river. To the point that today, when presented with all the problems with her testimony, most objective people have serious doubts that Oswald was ever on that bus—or that Bledsoe was on it when she said she was. In other words, with all the evidence we have today, it looks like Bledsoe was suborned, perhaps by Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels. (Sorrels advised her to bring notes to her Warren Commission appearance. See James Folliard’s, “The Bledsoe Bust”, The Fourth Decade, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 32.)

    For what reason would such an act occur? As Fox states in his piece, to discredit the testimony of Roger Craig. Craig testified that, after the assassination, he saw a man running down the embankment on Elm Street. As he did so, there was a light green Rambler station wagon driving slowly west on Elm. The driver was dark complected in appearance. He was leaning to his right and looking at this man who was running down the embankment. The running man jumped into the Rambler and the car sped away from the scene. Later, when Oswald was arrested and placed in custody at the police station, Craig saw him. He told Captain Fritz that he was the man who jumped into the Rambler. (WC Vol. 19, p. 524) Marvin Robinson, who said he saw the same thing, corroborated Craig’s testimony very closely. (Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 242)

    The Commission could not tolerate this testimony. At the least, it seemed to indicate that there was an Oswald double at the scene. And that would have been impossible to explain unless there was a plot unfolding. As Fox noted in his important essay, as the years have gone on and the Commission cover up has been torn to tatters, the Craig-Robinson version has been bolstered by researchers like John Armstrong and Anna Marie Kuhns Walko. While Bledsoe’s story has been shot so full of holes that she now stands with the likes of Commission witnesses Helen Markham and Howard Brennan as models of untrustworthy testimony. As Fox also notes, somehow, in all of his writing related to Bledsoe, Perry managed to ignore all of the many problems with her testimony. Which, with all we know today, seems impossible. But it’s true.

    It’s natural that Aynesworth would write this article about Perry since he set the standard for carrying water for the Commission. (Click here to see how.) And everyone who knows anything about the Kennedy case understands that fact. Only the editors at the Morning News can act as if they do not know that Aynesworth has was long ago exposed as an FBI asset and an applicant for the CIA. Therefore, only Hugh Aynesworth could call Perry a ‘One-man truth squad’. In fact, as Fox notes, Perry much more resembles Lt. Frank Drebin from The Naked Gun, telling spectators at an exploding warehouse, “Nothing to see here.” All we need to know about Perry is the he associates himself with a sell out like Aynesworth to the point of letting him write something about him. For the last thing that interests Perry or Aynesworth about the JFK case is the truth. And this extends way back to 1964. For that is when Aynesworth actually began his career of upholding the Warren Commission. Even before the Warren Report was published. In 1964, he wanted the Commission to portray Oswald as trying to shoot Richard Nixon. Even when Nixon was not in Dallas! (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 250) Aynesworth got this story from Marina Oswald, who he was clearly manipulating at the time. Aynesworth also was actively involved in helping Kennedy murder suspect Sergio Arcacha Smith avoid questioning by Jim Garrison’s assistant, Jim Alcock. (ibid, p. 253)

    On the other hand, Aynesworth has never admitted in public as to what the declassified record reveals: That he was in bed with both the FBI and the CIA while dealing with the Kennedy case. Like the late Jim Phelan, he has actually tried to deny this fact. Further, he has never written anything derogatory about the Commission itself. Even about the preposterous Magic Bullet. So when someone like Aynesworth praises someone like Perry, that tells you all one needs to know about Dave Perry.

    What does Aynesworth praise Perry for? If you can believe it, for going after the likes of Judy Baker and Ricky White. The article also spends many pages on Madeleine Brown. Who has also been critiqued on this site. (See here ) The author then lets Perry add that such trickery proves a “disservice to those who wish to get to the truth of this tragic event.” Wisely, Aynesworth does not add the following fact: for him the truth is that Oswald killed Kennedy. This would mean he would then have to explain the Magic Bullet. Which he does not want to do. Or even admit to.

    Towards the end Aynesworth takes a stab at Oliver Stone’s film, JFK by referencing a list by Perry called “Rashomon to the Extreme.” Yet, the list has little or nothing to do with that film. It is supposed to be a compendium of all the accused assassins of Kennedy. Except its not. For instance Perry includes Joseph Milteer and attributes his name to Bob Groden. But Groden has not said Milteer was a shooter. He has just said he thinks Milteer was in Dealey Plaza. And from his alleged position, along Houston Street in a large throng, he could not have fired without being 1.) Caught on camera, and 2.) Apprehended.

    The real role of Dave Perry has been to obfuscate the true facts of the Kennedy assassination. Namely that President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy and the Commission used some dubious witnesses to conceal that fact. Two of them being Bledsoe and Wesley Frazier. The latter has been a special assignment for, first Aynesworth, and now Perry. Today, Perry has become Frazier’s chaperone.

    II

    At the very end of the article, Aynesworth predictably brings up Gary Mack and the Sixth Floor Museum. And that brings us to the larger focus of this pitiful piece of reportage. And make no mistake, the Dallas Morning News is an integral part what is going on in Dallas. Or why else would they allow the silly and irrelevant meanderings of Aynesworth to appear in this day and age. In my article “How Gary Mack Became Dan Rather”, I outlined the relationship between these three men in detail. (Click here for that piece) But I also outlined the origins behind The Sixth Floor Museum. Namely that it was a creation of the Dallas power structure who, at one time, wanted to raze the building in order to wipe out the memory of JFK’s assassination altogether.

    Instead, they created a monument to the Warren Commission. In the two bookstores the Sixth Floor maintains, one will not see any critiques of the Commission. In fact, among the many books and films sold within, one will only see two that can be considered contra the official story: the DVD version of JFK, and John Kelin’s Praise from a Future Generation. (The latter is not really a critique of the Commission. It traces the relationships that began the critical movement against the Warren Report.) This is in keeping with the wishes of the upper classes, which helped raise the money to finance the institution in the first place. For them, it was embarrassing to try and explain how President Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit , and then Lee Harvey Oswald were all killed in the space of 48 hours. The last while he was literally in the arms of the Dallas Police. And how could one explain how Jack Ruby got into the basement of the Dallas Police headquarters in order to kill Oswald? Did he have help getting there? The House Select Committee on Assassinations seemed to think so. And if that was the case, was it the police themselves who helped set up the alleged assassin to be killed? That was a truth too terrible for the upper crust to take. The Sixth Floor Museum is their attempt to conceal all that. And Gary Mack, with his buddy Dave Perry, are now the two most active citizens in Dallas plying the roots of the cover up.

    This year, on the 30th of May, Aynesworth’s flagship, The Dallas Morning News, announced the formation of a “high-powered committee of Dallas philanthropists and community leaders” to begin “the sensitive job of planning events to commemorate the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination.” Mayor Mike Rawlings was the man who formed this committee. Rawlings is virtually a lifelong corporate denizen who has been the CEO of three companies, including Pizza Hut. On a radio interview he did recently for Lite FM 103.7 in Dallas, he said that since the 50th anniversary was going to be a huge international event, Dallas had to get out in front of the curve to be sure the city is represented in the right way. The world would be looking at Dallas, and the city had to be careful in order to control the face of Dallas and present it in the right way. Therefore, they had to be careful to celebrate only the life and achievements of John F. Kennedy. He then went on to praise the work of The Sixth Floor Museum as setting the right example in this regard. He described Dallas as a city of opportunity and growth. Incredibly, he then tried to equate this with Kennedy’s vision of a New Frontier. That previously mentioned May article also contained a revealing sentence about the formation of the committee, “In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, much of the world appeared to be looking for a scapegoat. Civic leaders believed the city of Dallas was miscast in the role of villain.” The article then says that city leaders “historically avoided planning any events around the anniversaries because of the lingering stain on the city. The committee’s formation indicates that the 50th anniversary…will be different.”

    Rawlings was sure to appoint people to the committee like Lindalyn Adams, who was also involved with the creation of The Sixth Floor Museum. Another revealing choice is that of Ken Menges, an attorney and board chairman of The Sixth Floor Museum. The article went on to say that the committee’s makeup promised multi-ethnic events, spiritual observations, and artistic presentations. This crossover seems to suggest that the permit that The Sixth Floor was granted to take hold of Dealey Plaza for one week—from November 18-24– was not done on its own. To pull off a permit that all encompassing, one would seem to need help. It now appears that City Hall was a part of that help.

    On that radio interview, Rawlings stated some of his ideas for the November 22, 2013 commemoration. At 12:30 he said there would be a U.S. Navy flyover, a choir singing, and historian David McCullough speaking. The choice of the last is also revealing. As McCullough is Tom Hanks favorite historian. Hanks made a mini-series out of his book on John Adams. And McCullough has now succeeded the late Stephen Ambrose as the preeminent Establishment Historian. In other words, he can be relied upon not to rock any boats or disturb anyone’s sensibilities. Rawlings also said that this would be a ticketed event. Apparently, if you have no tickets, you will not get to attend. Further, that it would definitely be in Dealey Plaza.

    All of this is a bit disturbing to anyone who is actually interested in not just the life, but also the puzzling circumstances surrounding the death of President Kennedy. First of all, why was it necessary to place a memorial to his life and achievements in Dealey Plaza? Dallas constructed a memorial to Kennedy a few blocks away from Dealey Plaza, near the Adolphus Hotel decades ago. If there was to be no discussion of his death, why not hold this event there? Second, why is this a ticketed event? And how will the tickets be allotted? Will one have to pay to get to see the Establishment Historian pontificate on something he knows little about? That is, the career and presidency of John F. Kennedy. Finally, if this is the main event, why was it necessary for them—through The Sixth Floor—to get a permit that lasts a week? What Rawlings is describing will last maybe an hour or two. In other words, not even the whole day, let alone the night, or the previous evening. In a democratic form of government, about an issue that is important to so many people, these kinds of questions are not ignored. If only to dispel the idea that Rawlings, his committee, and The Sixth Floor, have some kind of hidden agenda at work.

    Many people, including myself, suspect that this may well be the case. Especially considering the length of the permit. If no one else is allowed to attain such a permit, then the conclusion would be that this was a preemptive move. One that was done in an effort at prior restraint. The objective being to cut off anyone else from being in Dealey Plaza to bring up questions about the one thing these people do not want discussed. Namely, the bizarre circumstances surrounding the murder of President Kennedy. And also why Dallas, the state of Texas and the government of the USA have never been able to deal with them in an honest way.

    III

    On November 19th the Dallas Morning News again chimed in on this issue. David Flick wrote that attendance to the event will be restricted to VIPs. Considering the make up of this committee one can imagine who those people will be. Robert Groden will not be on the list. And his article goes on to explain why he won’t be. Flick writes that because there had been no official program in other years, the plaza was “dominated by conspiracy theorists, and sometimes simply by attention seekers….” Flick then goes on to state that both city and museum officials had been concerned for months about the image of Dallas to be presented next year, when it will likely get international attention. Rawlings said, “Dallas has been somewhat defined by the events of that day. We will have a chance to present what Dallas is.” Flick then writes that, “Last year, museum officials secured a permit for Dealey Plaza during the anniversary week, a permit since taken over by city leaders.” So it appears that The Sixth Floor’s action was simply done as an appendage to Rawlings and the Power Elite. Which, of course, is what the Sixth Floor has been since its creation.

    Which brings us to Judith Garrett Segura. As Joe Backes pointed out to me, the so-called restoration of Dealey Plaza now seems a part of this overall plan. As The Dallas Morning News reported in October 2012, all the rather expensive repairs to the plaza should be completed by the summer of next year. Well before the 50th anniversary of Kennedy’s death. That article then said the following: “Judith Garrett Segura, a historian and former president of the Belo Foundation, has led the effort to raise funds to restore the plaza.” The article then went on to say that 350,00 dollars of the 2 million dollar cost of the restoration came from the descendants and legacy companies of the plaza’s namesake, George Bannerman Dealey. The legacy companies include the A. H. Belo Corporation.

    What is the Belo Corporation that Segura once wrote a book about? The Belo Corporation is the parent company of the Dallas Morning News. A. H. Belo was born in North Carolina and fought for the confederacy in the Civil War. He then moved to Texas and was part owner in a couple of Houston area newspapers. After his partner died, he became sole owner and named his business A. H. Belo and Co. Looking to expand, Belo sent George Bannerman Dealey to Dallas to try and establish a paper in that city. Thus the efforts of Belo and Dealey gave birth to the Dallas Morning News. Which became part of Belo’s growing newspaper dominion. After Belo died, Dealey became president of the company. He renamed it A. H. Belo Corporation. Dealey was once publisher of the newspaper and Dealey Plaza is named after him. Dealey began an expansion of Belo. In the 1930’s the Belo owned radio station WFAA-AM boosted its power to 50,000 watts, becoming the first “super station” in the southwest. In 1950, after Dealey’s death, Belo purchased Dallas TV station KBTV and renamed it WFAA-TV. Today the ABC affiliate is the leading station in Dallas, and the flagship of Belo’s TV group. As Segura wrote in her 2008 book, simply titled Belo, at the turn of the century, Belo owned four daily newspapers, twenty-six television and cable stations, and over thirty interactive web sites. In fact, on this project, Segura now appears to be working for the Belo Foundation out of the Belo Building in Dallas. Belo’s flagship newspaper is still the Dallas Morning News.

    From Hugh Aynesworth, to Gary Mack and the Sixth Floor, to Rawlings and Belo, we have now come full circle in our exposure of how the Power Elite in Dallas plan on putting a lid on the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s death. At the 30th anniversary, CTKA secured a permit rather easily for the evening of the 21st. Reverend Steve Jones began with a religious invocation. Speakers like John Newman, Marina Oswald, Gaeton Fonzi and Cyril Wecht all gave powerful and dignified speeches commemorating the murder of President Kennedy. At midnight, four hundred listeners assembled in front of the speakers with candles held in front of them. It was a memorable, incandescent moment that showed just what was missing from The Sixth Floor Museum. And it is this kind of thing, under the klieg lights of the national media, that Rawlings has been told to avoid at all costs.

    In fact, the Dallas Morning News and Belo Corporation gave him their official imprimatur with an editorial on November 20th. They blessed his plan as having the “right ingredients”. They even praised his exclusive list of VIPs to be in attendance. They should, since Rawlings said people started asking him about this subject almost two years ago. Therefore it appears these same people gave him the exclusive and anti-democratic idea in the first place. After all they endorsed him for mayor. Its hard to win a mayor’s race in a one newspaper town without that one newspaper on your side. Rawlings wasn’t going to risk running again without Belo behind him.

    ~Jim DiEugenio

  • The 50th Anniversary of JFK’s Death Could Be the Start of Something Good and Loud

    By Jim Schutze

    Thursday, Mar 22, 2012, Dallas Observer News

    Things have to fall into place a certain way. The right cards must be dealt. But the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination in Dallas on November 22, 2013, could become a hallmark event in a long tradition of popular street actions stretching back to the nation’s beginnings.

    From Occupy Wall Street to the 1968 Chicago Police Riot, from the Cleveland Eviction Riots of 1933 all the way back to the Stamp Act Riots of 1765: This country was born and bred on the street and in defiance. And it could happen here.

    I had a great chat last week with Kalle Lasn, editor of Adbusters, the international iconoclastic magazine credited with sparking Occupy Wall Street. He said he saw no reason why the JFK 50th here could not grow into an Occupy Dealey Plaza event to capture and galvanize world attention.

    Jen Sorensen
    Illustration by Jen Sorensen

    He talked about how New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg unwittingly helped make Occupy a national movement by cracking down on it in New York. I suggested maybe Dallas is doing Bloomberg one better, by beginning to crack down on the JFK 50th a year and a half before the thing even happens.

    He agreed it could be a real window of opportunity: “The fact that the city of Dallas doesn’t get it and again wants to snuff out rather than allow this wonderful freedom that the young people of America crave right now, maybe that will be a wake-up call,” he said. “Maybe they are going to see a backlash that will surprise the hell out of them.”

    My writing on this issue over the last year or more has been pretty narrowly focused on the case of one man, author Robert Groden, a Kennedy conspiracy theory author now suing the city in federal court over repeated arrests for speaking and selling books in Dealey Plaza. Dallas has continued to harass Groden, even though his lawyer, Bradley Kizzia, was able to demonstrate in court that the law the city said Groden was violating did not exist and even though every judge who has dealt with the multiple tickets and arrests of Groden has declared them bogus.

    In his federal lawsuit and in conversations with me, Groden asserts that the city has a sub rosa agenda. He says the city’s real reason for going after him has been to suppress his version of the JFK story because it conflicts with official Dallas dogma. The Dallas version is that it happened a long time ago; the case is closed; people need to stop talking about it.

    Maybe you could almost see their point, from a very narrow and fairly stupid point of view. It’s stupid, because the ongoing conversation about the JFK assassination isn’t about Dallas. Neither the assassination nor the place where it happened belongs to Dallas. Both are creatures of global history. The 50th is only about Dallas if Dallas stupidly tries to get in the way of it.

    Which is just what City Hall is doing. The city has violated longstanding policy on permits for JFK commemoration events by crafting a new type of permit for the 50th that’s clearly designed to stave off unauthorized observances. For decades, for example, the Coalition on Political Assassinations has conducted a respectful “moment of silence” on the famous “grassy knoll” in Dealey Plaza on key anniversaries.

    So now the city has granted an exclusive permit to the official Sixth Floor Assassination Museum for the entire week of November 22, 2013. When COPA contacted city officials to ask for permission to do their own moment of silence, they were told that all the moments of silence for that week were already taken.

    Sounds stupid? Oh, yeah! But when I spoke to Jill Beam, head of the city’s office of special events, she confirmed it. I asked why people couldn’t have two moments of silence at the same time, since they were both going to be silent anyway. I’m not trying to be funny.

    She told me that the city’s software program for booking events doesn’t allow “double-booking.”

    I said, “So this is a software problem?”

    She said yes.

    OK, look.

    Here’s what’s going on. First of all, the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination here could be nothing. Half a century is a long time. Maybe by now most people alive in the world think JFK is a clothing brand.

    But given the level of interest at the precursor anniversaries like the 30th and 40th, given the ongoing rate of publication and film-making on the topic and given the consistent popularity of Dealey Plaza as a draw for international tourism, it’s more likely that Dealey Plaza on the 50th will be the focus of significant international attention, if only for that moment.

    Somebody — it’s not clear who yet — has the very un-bright idea that the way for Dallas to handle that moment is by being authoritarian, exclusionary and massively uptight. In other words, if Oliver Stone, director of the 1991 movie JFK, had sent down to central casting asking for a bunch of dull-eyed right-wing stiffs, they might have sent whoever the people are behind giving the Sixth Floor that permit.

    Talk about playing to your stereotype.

    On the other hand, it is precisely that stereotype that could spark a reaction here far greater than anything based merely on JFK conspiracy theories. What Dallas really risks is planting its glass jaw deliciously in the path of a crushing generational left hook based on free-speech issues.

    Free speech will be important on the 50th for the same reason it has been so urgently important to the Occupy movement all along: because young people in particular already think the nation’s leaders are liars. They see those liars trying to hide the ball, as in the Obama administration’s recent decision to move the upcoming G8 World Economic Summit away from the potential reach of protesters in Chicago to the militarily protected confines of Camp David.

    But worse, they see those leaders as leading them by the snout to a dismal future of despair.

    “The real impulse behind the Occupy movement,” Lasn said, “and I think the real impulse behind anything that may happen in Dallas next year, is that hundreds of millions of young people around the world look into a future that does not compute.

    “They’re looking at a lifetime that is going to be completely different from the way their parents lived, a life of ecological crisis and political crisis and financial crisis, of not being able to pay off their loans and never having a decent job, and in the meantime having to live in a world that’s getting hotter and hotter and lousier and lousier.

    “Young people of the world are waking up to the fact that if they don’t stand up and start fighting for a different kind of future, they’re not going to have a future.”

    I also spoke last week with Stephen Benavides, who was one of the early organizers of Occupy Dallas. You’ll remember him: Dallas cops tossed him in jail for attacking an officer, but later a citizen video proved that the attack had gone the other way around.

    Benavides told me that if events here transpire in just the right away — if Dallas continues to go hard-case on access to Dealey Plaza for the 50th — he could see something really jumping off.

    “It depends on what the city does,” Benavides said, “and it depends on what everybody’s doing a year and a half from now. If they want to pose a free-speech challenge by trying to cordon off the area based on appearance or the political content of your speech or any of those kinds of things, then, hell yeah. Then there is a definite ability to organize and make that into a confrontation.”

    In fact, Benavides said that if that’s how the cards are dealt a year and a half from now, “We would have a responsibility to challenge the state.”

    If Lasn is right and young people look ahead to see only a path to the howling void, then civil action to change the direction of that path is the one thing that will lift them up out of despair and paralysis. And the rest of us will have a commensurate responsibility to support them.

    In that sense, Dealey Plaza is a golden opportunity, capable of providing precisely the kind of flashpoint needed for real change to occur.

    “The leaders of America are running scared,” Lasn said. “In Dallas they’re running scared. On Wall Street they’re running scared. It’s almost like that wonderful tipping point that could happen, when the young people of America rise up and start pushing the country to a different path.”

    We saw it just beginning to rise in Occupy. It might be a little geocentric of us to think Dealey Plaza is going to be any sort of culmination, but Dealey Plaza could be one of many places and points where the movement for change picks up steam, gains courage, learns some footwork and how to throw that mean left hook.

    I don’t want to be clandestine about my own hand here. I am talking to people about setting up a steering committee to prepare for a people’s action at Dealey Plaza on the 50th. I tell them the first thing I will do, once such a thing is up and running, is resign from it.

    Speech is speech. Everybody must be welcome, from the Birthers to the Birchers. Lasn pointed out that the Tea Party, while coming at the problem from the other end of things, has concerns about the future that are just as deep and sincere as anything Occupy has on its mind. So I guess they have to be there, too, if they so desire.

    The main thing is this. For one shining moment on November 22, 2013, Dealey Plaza has a chance to be center-stage in the history of the nation. That is something worth helping along.

    Read this article online.

  • Robert Groden Arrested

    Robert Groden Arrested

    groden
    Robert Groden in Dealey Plaza
    (CTKA file photo)

    Longtime Kennedy assassination critic and author Robert Groden is among Dealey Plaza vendors who are under renewed pressure from Dallas authorities.

    Groden was arrested in Dealey Plaza on June 13 and jailed for nearly nine hours.

    In a communication with CTKA, Groden discussed a posted story about a crackdown on JFK vendors in Dealey Plaza. He says he was arrested because of a complaint by the Sixth Floor Museum transferred to the Dallas Police.

    Groden says he was arrested for selling a single magazine on the grassy knoll.

    As described in the article “How Gary Mack Became Dan Rather”, Groden was ticketed by the Dallas Police Department 80 times between 1995 and 2006, and arrested on the grassy knoll for the first time in 1998. All 80 tickets (and the arrest) were thrown out of court as being invalid. Groden told CTKA that a city Judge stated, “I can’t believe that the police would arrest anyone for a class ‘C’ misdemeanor. This is ridiculous”.

    In 2003, Groden began filing a first amendment lawsuit against the city of Dallas and the police department for violation of first amendment rights of free speech, press and assembly. An agreement was reached between Mr. Groden’s attorneys and the Dallas city attorney’s office that the police would cease such ticketing actions. And for the past seven years the police and the city had honored the agreement.

    Groden theorizes that this may be because next year Dallas will be the site of the Super Bowl, drawing tens of thousands of tourists to the city. The number one tourist attraction in Dallas is Dealey Plaza. If all the other independent vendors are essentially stopped from selling anything, the Sixth Floor will be able to be the “one-stop”, so to speak, for potentially thousands of new visitors on the JFK case.

    Groden says most of the Dallas media are reporting that all of the “peddlers” in Dealey Plaza are refusing to obtain vendor permits from the city. What they fail to say, he goes on, is that there are no vender permits available from the city for printed material and that the city ordinance states that none is needed. In fact, Groden has been trying to access the process for getting one for 15 years. He hasn’t been able to find it. So up until now, although the city has ticketed him about 80 times, each attempt ultimately was dismissed and Groden returned to Dealey Plaza.

    Groden adds that the fig leaf for the crackdown is the fact that there are three or four homeless transients that frequent the area and get pushy with visitors from time to time. Groden doesn’t know these characters and has nothing to do with them. And his work is of a different quality and class than theirs. He insists there should be a legal way to differentiate between the two.

    Robert Groden is a recognized photo expert and author of The Killing of a President and several other books.

    ~Jim DiEugenio

  • The new Dallas DA Files: Craig Watkins vs. Henry Wade

    In November of 2006 the citizens of Dallas elected Craig Watkins their first African-American DA. The 40-year-old Democrat defeated his Republican rival Toby Shook in a close election even though he was outspent by a factor of 18-1. Clearly, Watkins benefited by the wave generated against the Bush administration. But he also ran a reform-minded campaign that clearly appealed to a segment of the population.

    Watkins vowed to place as much focus on crime prevention and redemption of criminals as possible. Many in the district attorney’s office resisted this. Many of them worked for Shook. Shook was perceived as the heir apparent to retiring DA Bill Hill. Hill, in turn, represented the legacy of longtime DA Henry Wade. Wade, of course, was the DA at the time of the Kennedy assassination who — within 36 hours — broadcast to the world that he had no doubt Oswald was the killer of President Kennedy. Wade’s office once issued a memo instructing assistant DA’s not to take Jews, Negroes, Dagoes, Mexicans or members of other races on a jury, no matter how rich or well educated.

    Unlike many other candidates who promise reform, Watkins has, so far, followed through, to the point where many of the lawyers in the office who backed Shook have left. For instance, Watkins set up a task force to partner with the Innocence Project of Texas to do DNA testing for convicts on death row. Several of them have had their verdicts overturned. He also issued new guidelines on how Dallas DA’s would perform interrogations and how line-ups would be conducted, two procedures with which Kennedy researchers were quite familiar with. He even fired those who were not content with his accent on protecting the rights of the accused.

    Now, as the accompanying story details, Watkins has focused his reform attitude on the assassination of President Kennedy. He has made public the existence of a secret stash of both exhibits and 15, 000 pages of documents that his office has been holding for over forty years. The trivial media has made much of a supposed transcript between Ruby and Oswald discussing the murder of President Kennedy on 10/4/63 at the Carousel Club. This document is clearly some kind of play on the dubious testimony of attorney Carroll Jarnagin. Some problems with this testimony are 1.) Jarnagin admitted he was drunk that night 2.) His companion did not recall any such conversation 3.) He failed a polygraph test. (See Seth Kantor, The Ruby Cover-Up, pp. 391-392).

    This has distracted from the real question that should be asked about this disclosure. Namely, why did neither Wade nor Hill turn over this evidence in the decades preceding? They could have done it on at least four separate occasions: in 1964 to the Warren Commission, in 1977 to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and in the nineties, to local and federal agencies.

    In January of 1992, the Dallas City Council passed a resolution directing the City Manager to collect all documents related to the Kennedy assassination in the Dallas Police Department, Sheriff’s Department and the Dallas DA’s Office. They were to be turned over to the Secretary of the Records Management Division at city hall. There they were archived and indexed by the city archivist Cindy Smolovik. There was much publicity generated by this event since it was the first such collection done in the wake of Oliver Stone’s film JFK. The DA’s office was disobeying the City Council and hiding artifacts from the City Manager. But then later, in 1993, the Assassination Records Review Board was constructed. They actually visited Dallas, held a public hearing, and asked for cooperation from anyone who had any more hidden documents or evidence. Obviously, the DA was not listening or forthcoming. Even though this hidden collection is actually larger than the one archived by Smolovik.

    It’s a sorry tale. Over forty years after the fact and the public is still learning that trusted officials are keeping private potentially important records dealing with the unsolved murder of President Kennedy. And pundits and politicians wonder about why the citizenry has grown cynical about the process. At his press conference, Watkins said that he never believed Oswald acted alone. He added, “I believe in conspiracies. I think that’s just too simple of an explanation.”

    Finally, after 44 years, the people of Dallas get a DA who thinks like the majority of them do.

  • Hugh Aynesworth: Refusing a Conspiracy is his Life’s Work

    Hugh Aynesworth: Refusing a Conspiracy is his Life’s Work

    hugh
    Hugh Aynesworth

    At the time of the assassination, Hugh Aynesworth was a reporter for the Dallas Morning News. He has maintained that on November 22, 1963 he was in Dealey Plaza and a witness to the assassination — although there is no photograph that reveals such. At times, he has also maintained he was at the scene where Tippit was shot — although it is difficult to locate a time for his being there. He has also stated that he was at the Texas Theater where Oswald was arrested — although, again, no film or photo attests to this. Further, he has written that he was in the basement of the Dallas Police Department when Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby. Like Priscilla Johnson, Aynesworth soon decided to make his career out of this event. As we shall see, it is quite clear that he made up his mind immediately about Oswald’s guilt. Long before the Warren Report was issued. In fact, he tried to influence their verdict.

    On July 21, 1964 Aynesworth’s name surfaced in the newspapers in Dallas in a column by his friend Holmes Alexander. Alexander implied that Aynesworth did not trust Earl Warren and therefore was conducting his own investigation of the Kennedy murder. He was ready to reveal that the FBI knew Oswald was a potential assassin and blew their assignment. He also had talked to Marina Oswald and she had told him that Oswald had also threatened to kill Richard Nixon. Alexander goes on to say that these kinds of incidents show the mind of a killer at work. That “of a hard-driven, politically radical Leftist which is emerging from the small amount of news put out by the Warren Commission. If the full report follows the expected line, Oswald will be shown as a homicidal maniac.” Holmes concludes his piece with a warning: If the Commission’s verdict “jibes with that of Aynesworth’s independent research, credibility will be added to its findings. If [it] does not there will be some explaining to do.” Clearly, Aynesworth contributed mightily to the article, had decided Oswald had done it even before the Commission had revealed its evidence, and was bent on destroying its credibility if it differed from his opinion.

    The story about Marina and Nixon was so farfetched that not even the Warren Commission bought into it (Warren Report pp. 187-188). It has been demolished by many authors; most notably Peter Scott who notes that to believe it, Marina had to have locked Oswald in the bathroom to keep him from committing this murderous act; yet the bathroom locked from the inside. Also, as the Commission noted in the pages above, Nixon was not in Dallas until several months after the alleged incident. Further, there was no announcement in any local newspaper that Nixon was going to be in Dallas at this time period — April of 1963. Since Aynesworth was quite close to Marina at this time (he actually bragged to some friends that he was sleeping with her) it may be that he foisted the quite incredible story on her in his attempt to portray Oswald as the Leftist, homicidal maniac he related to Holmes Alexander.

    Aynesworth was also out to profit personally from the tragedy. In late June of 1964, Oswald’s alleged diary from his Russian days appeared in Aynesworth’s newspaper with a commentary by the reporter. Two weeks later it also appeared in U. S. News and World Report. An FBI investigation followed to see how this material leaked into the press. In declassified documents, it appears that the diary was pilfered from the Dallas Police archives by the notorious assistant DA Bill Alexander and then given to his friend Aynesworth. Aynesworth then put it on the market to other magazines including Newsweek. It eventually ended up in Life magazine also. Alexander, Aynesworth and the reporter’s wife Paula split thousands of dollars. Oswald’s widow was paid later by Life since, originally, Aynesworth had illegally cut her out of the deal. In another FBI report of July 7th, it also appears that Aynesworth was using the so-called diary for career advancement purposes. A source told the Bureau that part of the deal with Newsweek was that Aynesworth was to become their Dallas correspondent. As the Bureau noted, Aynesworth did become their Dallas stringer afterward. (It is interesting to note here that the “diary” has been shown to have been not a real diary at all. That is, it was not recorded on a daily basis but rather in two or three sittings.)

    Right after this, in August of 1964, another trademark of Aynseworth’s Kennedy career appeared: his penchant to attack and ridicule anyone who disagreed with him. Aynesworth published a review of Joachim Joesten’s early book on the case entitled Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy. The review is not really a review at all, it is just a string of invective directed at the author for believing such silly notions that Oswald could have been innocent and that he could have been an agent of the FBI and/or CIA. When rumors circulated that Oswald had been an FBI informant, which he apparently was, Aynesworth went to work discrediting them saying that it was all a joke he had made up — even though he was not the source of the quite specific information.

    In December of 1966, Aynesworth surfaced again on the Kennedy case. At this time Life was doing its ill-fated reinvestigation of the murder led by Holland McCombs and Richard Billings. Somehow, probably through McCombs who was a good friend of Clay Shaw, Aynesworth was a part of this investigation. Aynesworth began informing on the intricacies of the probe to the FBI. For instance on December 12th, Aynesworth informed the Bureau that they had discovered a man who connected Oswald with Ruby. Aynesworth turned over a copy of this report to the FBI. He also then told the Bureau that Mark Lane was a homosexual and had to drop his political career because of these allegations. At the end of the interview Aynesworth “specifically requested” his identity and his sources not be disclosed outside the Bureau.

    Billings’ investigation eventually and perhaps inevitably ran into the initial stages of the secret probe being conducted by District Attorney Jim Garrison. And because a mutual acquaintance of Billings and Garrison, David Chandler, was involved, Aynesworth was one of the first people to discover what Garrison was doing. The unsuspecting Garrison actually granted the duplicitous reporter an interview in his home. After the interview, Aynesworth wrote a note to McCombs that they should not let the DA know they were playing “both sides.” Recall, this was the first time they had met face to face! So much for a modicum of objectivity.

    Almost immediately Aynesworth set out to smear Garrison in the national press, to obstruct him by cooperating with law enforcement agencies who were opposed to the DA, and to defeat him in court by extending his services to Shaw’s lawyers. All of the above is readily provable today as it had not been before the releases of the ARRB. It would not be hyperbole to write that no other reporter in recorded history had as much to do in opposing a DA both covertly and overtly as Aynesworth did in New Orleans from 1967-71. Especially when one extends Aynesworth’s actions to connect with his two allies in this effort, namely James Phelan and the late Walter Sheridan. (Significantly, when the ARRB requested the files of Sheridan on the 1967 NBC special he produced, Sheridan’s family sent them to NBC. And the network refused to turn them over.) Aynesworth’s actions are too lengthy to be discussed here but they are recorded in detail in Probe Magazine (Vol. 4 No. 4) and also in the book The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X (pp. 24-29). Aynesworth published an attack on Garrison in Newsweek on May 15, 1967 (about a week after Phelan’s broadside had appeared in The Saturday Evening Post.) The “report” was clearly a venomous hatchet job that had one aim: to stigmatize Garrison and, by doing that, to neutralize his investigation by turning the public’s attention away from his discoveries and toward the controversy being manufactured by Aynesworth, Phelan, and NBC’s special which was to follow the next month. The article depicted Garrison as a modern day Robespierre whose investigation had bribed witnesses into making false claims, whose staff had threatened to murder a witness, and finally that Garrison was so possessed he held the entire city in thrall by terrorist tactics.

    We have seen how Aynesworth informed on the Billings investigation with the FBI. On the Garrison case, he extended his reach. Before his article was printed, he forwarded a copy to George Christian who was press secretary for the White House. But not before he had called him and discussed his inflammatory and deceitful article. The actual telegram he sent is interesting in revealing his psychology. He tells Christian that he is informing because he is aware of what Garrison is up to. What, in Aynesworth’s view, is he up to? He is trying “to make it seem that the FBI and CIA are involved in the JFK plot.” But further, “he can —and probably will — do untold damage to this nation’s image throughout the world.” Finally, he tells Christian that although Garrison wants the government to defy him or to pressure a halt to his probe, that is not what they should do, “for that is exactly what Garrison wants.” Of course, he again asked that his role be kept a secret. These last two assertions imply that Aynesworth would serve as the intermediary to obstruct Garrison clandestinely while claiming to be a reporter so that the government could keep its hands clean as he did their dirty work for them.

    Further insight into Aynesworth’s peculiar psychology came in an interview in 1979 on KERA, the Dallas PBS affiliate. He said there, “I’m not saying there wasn’t a conspiracy. I know most people in this country believe there was a conspiracy. I just refuse to accept it and that’s my life’s work.” In other words, what the facts are do not really matter to him. It’s keeping the lid on a conspiracy to commit homicide that matters. (Wouldn’t it have been interesting if Jennings would have confronted Aynesworth with that statement and asked him to explain his view of journalism in light of it?)

    By the 1990’s Aynesworth’s role had been so exposed to those in the know that he couldn’t appear at research conferences. So he did not show up at them himself — as he may have, for surveillance purposes, earlier. Instead he arranged other conferences to eclipse them, as he did in 1993 for the 30th anniversary of the assassination. At this one in Dallas, someone asked him this: Had he ever cooperated with the government on a story prior to its publication? He denied it of course. Then the questioner read him the Christian memo quoted above.

    Why couldn’t Jennings do the same?