Tag: JFK ASSASSINATION

  • 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)

  • Matt Stevenson, Counterpunch, and Double Cross

    Matt Stevenson, Counterpunch, and Double Cross


    If the reader recalls, the last time we visited Matt Stevenson it was to comment on his so called “Letter from Vietnam”, a semi-regular installment in his ‘zine CounterPunch. In 2018, I replied to his fact-fudged and data-barren “letter” in these pages. (Click here for the article)

    Well, Matt is at it again. But this time, mercifully, it’s not a sustained machine gun attack on the record. This time it’s a brief drive-by sniping. On June 17, 2020, Stevenson wrote in CounterPunch that in contemplating the upcoming choice of Donald Trump vs Joe Biden, this drove him to question whether we should just replace the whole institution of the presidency. In getting to the point of his essay, he traces how he came to this conclusion. This is how he begins, “For some time now, but maybe since the Kennedy administration (which ended in a hail of voter-suppressed gunfire) …”

    This seems to me to be referring to the mythological rigging of the election of 1960 in Illinois. It seems to refer to that whole sorry thesis from the 1992 fiction written by Chuck and Sam Giancana, Double Cross. If one recalls it, somehow the Mob had gotten votes for Kennedy, they then felt screwed over by the policies of Bobby Kennedy, so they decided to revenge themselves “in a hail of voter-suppressed gunfire,” although Matt himself seems confused about what he is talking about. Later in the piece, he goes back to this point by saying that Mayor Daley had dead men voting in Cook County. Matt, do you want us to think Mayor Daley arranged the shooting in Dallas? But this is a sample of the kind of thinking one gets on the left about both President Kennedy and his assassination.

    I don’t think that even Matt Stevenson thinks that Daley was involved. The only way this makes a modicum of sense at all is with the Giancanas’ meme, except Matt misses a major point in the argument, one that defeats the thesis. Even if Richard Nixon had won in Illinois, the vice-president still would have lost the election. As Matt knows, the Electoral College rules in presidential elections. When one does the arithmetic, even without Illinois, Kennedy cleared the 270-elector bar one needs to win. So, his particular argument is flapdoodle at its base.

    But I should address the Chuck/Sam Giancana meme, since it’s a popular one on the left. I have only addressed it as part of another review before. But since, in addition to Stevenson’s rather confused instance, I have heard it expressed by the late Gore Vidal and also the late Christopher Hitchens, I will make Double Cross the main point of this essay. It appears that, somehow, one cannot carry any status on the doctrinaire left unless one takes shots at the Kennedys. Even if they are false, they make you look chic: which is kind of puzzling.

    As most of us understand, what the left is supposed to stand for is rigor of academic analysis and a consequent moral and intellectual honesty, as opposed to the kind of analysis that proliferates on the right, which usually ignores this kind of vigorous digging into the record, preferring to come to a conclusion first. A good example of this was the infamous Trish Regan screed that somehow COVID-19 was part of a Democratic hoax to derail President Trump.

    This is the problem that someone like myself has with the mindless voicing of the Stevenson claims without any analysis. And I must also note the inconsistency involved. Stevenson referred to all the evidence adduced for the Vietnam withdrawal as, in his terms, often heard speculation. When, in fact, as James Galbraith shows us above, much of this is in black and white declassified documents. One of them was the declassified record of the May 1963 Sec/Def conference in Hawaii, with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara requesting withdrawal schedules from each agency convened there from Vietnam, e.g. CIA, Pentagon, State Department. To use just that example: this is not speculation. It is one fact in a chain of facts.

    What is speculation—I would call it a fairy tale—is the Vidal/Hitchens endorsed novel, Double Cross. If one recalls, in the wake of the sensation caused by the release of Oliver Stone’s film JFK, scores of books were either released or republished in order to capitalize on that publicity wave. Many of these were utterly worthless, but that did not matter to the MSM. Since Chuck Giancana had a famous last name, he got exposure. Chuck was the half-brother of “Momo” Giancana, the Chicago don. Sam was his half-nephew and they co-authored the book. Therefore, these two collaborators were taken at their word, without any due diligence done by the media or any consultation with experts in the field who could give them such analysis.

    I read Double Cross twice. Once when it came out and more recently in preparing a book review for this site. I had little regard for it when I first read it; I have less for it now. In fact, today, not only do I think it is mythological, I think it is scatological. It has the historical value of a Harold Robbins novel.

    The underlying idea for the Giancanas’ tall tale is this: Joseph P. Kennedy was in the bootlegging business with the Mob. There is a serious problem with stating this as a ground level thesis, from which all else arises. Because he was appointed to six government agencies, Joe Kennedy underwent six investigations into his background under three presidents, both Republican and Democratic. Each one of these appointments occurred after Prohibition was both enacted and repealed. Therefore, if the Double Cross concept were true, there should have been plentiful evidence uncovered about Joe’s ties to organized crime and bootlegging. Yet, as both Daniel Okrent and David Nasaw have written, there was nothing uncovered. Joe Kennedy’s first three appointments occurred right after Prohibition had been repealed. Therefore, if what the Giancanas were selling was kosher, there should have been a lot of people just waiting to rat out Kennedy. Where were they? Okrent, for example, looked at literally hundreds of pages of documents and found nothing. (Okrent, Last Call, p. 369)

    But in addition to that, there were many journalists operating in the forties and fifties who did not like Joe Kennedy. None of them, like Drew Pearson, wrote anything about this and, recall, both John and Robert Kennedy were establishing high profile names in the fifties.

    So when did this story about Joe Kennedy first appear? In October of 1960 in the St. Louis Post Dispatch. (Ibid) For anyone in the know, what happened is pretty obvious. Realizing he was in an unexpectedly close race, one of Nixon’s hatchet men got this story into the press late in the race to hurt Kennedy. As Okrent traces the mythology, it was from this point that mobsters publishing books now began to finally remember, oh yeah, oh yeah, we dealt with Joe Kennedy in his bootlegging, e.g. Joe Bonanno and Frank Costello. As anyone can understand, these unfounded accusations are clearly a way for these men to get back at the Kennedy administration, especially at Bobby Kennedy’s ruthless and almost obsessional attack on the Mafia. For by 1963, there was evidence that the American Mob was on the ropes due to RFK’s full court press. (HSCA Vol, 5, p. 455)

    Joe Kennedy did get into the liquor business, but it was only after Prohibition was repealed. Therefore, his business was not bootlegging at all. It was legal. (Okrent, p. 367)

    But here is my question to all of this, especially the MSM which reported it as true back in 1992:  why would Joe Kennedy ever think of doing such a thing? David Nasaw did the most extensive survey of how Joe Kennedy attained his wealth. It goes beyond any previous biography of the man, including Richard Whelan’s The Founding Father. Joe Kennedy got into the world of high finance after graduating from Harvard with a degree in economics. His first job was a bank examiner. Now familiar with their internal workings, he borrowed the money to buy a controlling interest in Columbia Bank Trust. He quickly became the president of the bank at age 25. He then got into real estate. In 1919, he joined Hayden/Stone, the largest stock brokerage house in New England. Recall, 1919 is when Prohibition was passed. Does anyone think that Hayden/Stone would have allowed its members to moonlight in bootlegging? Does anyone think it would have been a wise thing for Joe to do so?

    As Nasaw writes, in reality, Joe Kennedy was investing in the stock market and distressed properties at this time. He then decided to get into the movie business. He constructed a distribution and exhibition company and he purchased theaters in the northeast. (Nasaw, The Patriarch, pp. 59-76) Joe Kennedy made so much money on a booming stock market that he reinvested it into the film business. And Nasaw makes a key point: insider trading was legal at that time. (Ibid, p. 78)

    How well was Joe Kennedy doing by 1922? He resigned Hayden/Stone and opened his own banking business. He made tons of money in the film business and he moved to New York—and then bought a second place in Beverly Hills on Rodeo Drive, which is like Fifth Avenue in NYC. Both estates had chauffeurs and servants. Joe Kennedy needed one, since he had purchased a Rolls Royce. (Nasaw, pp. 87-89) But here is the key revelation about how well Joe Kennedy was doing in films. In just one year, Kennedy’s company distributed 51 pictures. (Ibid, p. 107) In the twenties, there were over 20,000 movie theaters in America, as opposed to less than 6,000 today.

    If you know anything about the film business, you will understand how important that is. It’s the reason that, when the studios had to divest themselves of one aspect of the business, it was exhibition, not distribution. In the movie business, distribution is where the cash money is. What happens is that the theater owner signs a contract with the distributor to exhibit his film. Most of the time, there is a descending split on the gross. It begins highly in favor of the distributor and then goes down after a few weeks to say 50-50 and then it goes in favor of the theater to 40-60, 30-70, etc. But Kennedy also profited in two other ways from the film business. First, through his insider knowledge, he purchased stocks in other movie companies. Second, he was in demand as an executive:  he eventually ran three companies. As an executive he got a sizeable salary—today in the millions—but more importantly, he was allowed to purchase stock options. This meant he could choose when to sell them or even sell short. (Nasaw, pp. 119-27)

    The idea that he would jeopardize all the legal millions he was making to get into criminal bootlegging—and make less—is too ridiculous to even consider—except for perhaps the MSM. Especially when we throw in the fact that one reason he worked so hard at making hundreds of millions is so his offspring could pursue political careers without having to worry about money. It worked out fairly well with John Kennedy. So, with the evidence advanced above, the reader can see that the whole basis of Double Cross is nothing but patent nonsense.

    Let us briefly deal with three other tendrils from the book.

    Joe Kennedy decided to request help from Momo Giancana for the upcoming election of 1960. At a meeting in Florida in 1959, the mobster tells Senator Kennedy he is working for the CIA. (Giancana, p. 279) Does anyone do fact checking anymore? Because the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro did not begin until August of 1960. (CIA Inspector General Report, p. 3) But the authors of Double Cross simply cannot help themselves. In their insatiable hunger for trash, they now add the lying Judith Exner into the mix. And they say that Exner was actually carrying messages about the plots to Kennedy! (Giancana, p. 283) This is:

    1. Before the plots have even begun
    2. Three years before the Kennedy White House was even alerted to their unauthorized existence.

    There have been two exposures of the chronically fabricating Exner. One by Michael O’Brien in The Washington Monthly (December, 1999) and one by this author as part one of the essay, “The Posthumous Assassination of John F Kennedy.”

    And now the alleged vote heisting begins. Double Cross and, previously, Exner had both said that the Mob helped Jack Kennedy win the primary in West Virginia. And in all of these tales, that state is deemed crucial to Kennedy winning the nomination, even though there had been ten primaries up until that one and JFK had won seven of them—the only ones he had not won are the ones he had not entered. There was a deal for the Chicago Don to send his agent Skinny D’Amato to West Virginia to help JFK win the state. (Giancana, p. 284) Dan Fleming wrote a good book on the West Virginia primary of 1960. He interviewed over 80 people. He looked high and low for anyone who recalled D’Amato doing anything, anywhere. No one recalled the man, even though Fleming went to some rather unsavory places looking for the information. (Kennedy vs Humphrey, West Virginia, 1960 pp. 170-71)

    As Fleming wrote in his exhaustive book on the subject: no subsequent inquiry by the FBI or the state Attorney General ever revealed anything illegal about the race. Nothing was found, even when Barry Goldwater hired a former FBI agent to do the same thing. (Fleming, pp. 107-112) Consequently, this is why the Nixon campaign did what it did in planting a false story. As a former Humphrey advisor later told Fleming, Bobby Kennedy ran a smart race, “and if we had the money they had, we would have spent it too.” (Fleming, p. 151)

    “I help Jack get elected, and in return, he calls off the heat.” (Giancana pp. 279-80) As we have seen, there was no evidence for this in West Virginia. And the same deduction applies to Chicago. Because as author John Binder has shown at length, there is no evidence in the Mob-oriented wards that Giancana delivered any advantage to Kennedy in 1960. From his statistical study, Binder determined that the numbers did not indicate any kind of decisive influence in the allegedly Giancana-controlled wards. Let us make no mistake, according to Double Cross, Momo and his Mob allies did a lot: fraudulent voting (perhaps this was what Stevenson meant about dead men) and goons placed inside polls to intimidate voters, to the point of making naked threats. (Giancana, pp. 289-90) Gus Russo, in his book The Outfit, backs up Giancana, but goes further. He says that from information passed indirectly through a Chicago mobster, Murray Humphreys, the word was supposed to have gotten out nationally to all mob infiltrated unions. (Russo, p 379, 401)

    But as Binder writes, Len O’Connor, an expert on Chicago voting, notes that, in at least three Mob-controlled wards, the results for Kennedy in 1960 were below what was to be expected. He concluded the Outfit was wary of Kennedy and especially displeased with Bobby Kennedy. (Binder, p. 5) In fact, O’Connor found evidence to contradict Russo. Charlie Weber, a ward alderman, told him that his pal Humphreys advised Weber to oppose Kennedy’s candidacy. (ibid)

    This is important, because, as Binder notes, the Mob controlled the practical machinery in only five of the fifty wards in Chicago. Binder also writes that it is highly implausible that Momo Giancana could have influenced other American Dons to back this idea, especially with Jimmy Hoffa publicly endorsing Richard Nixon. As per Chicago, Binder concluded that the Mob did little or nothing for Kennedy in 1960. (Binder, p. 15) It’s not like they could not have done so if they tried, because, as Binder shows, the Mob really did want to defeat a Republican Cook County state attorney and they achieved that. Since his opponent was a Democrat, whatever impact JFK got was a bleed over from that vote. (Binder, p. 16) As per the claims of Giancana and Russo, after his analysis, Binder wrote that they “appear to have no basis in fact.” (Binder, p. 18) (Click here for that study)

    Double Cross also stated that the Outfit owned the contract of Marilyn Monroe. As the esteemed Don McGovern notes in his book on the subject, this is more bunk. On pages 394-427 of his fine volume Murder Orthodoxies, the reader will learn that Giancana had nothing to do with Monroe’s career. The two influential men who did help her were producer Joe Schenck and agent Johnny Hyde. McGovern actually renders the Double Cross version of Outfit influence on Monroe to be utterly ridiculous, because it would have extended all the way back to before her acting career began, when she was married to Jim Dougherty and lived as a housewife in Van Nuys. (See especially, pp. 410-13) McGovern goes on to demonstrate how Double Cross libels Schenck and Monroe about both their personal reputations and professional careers. As McGovern also notes, if the Outfit had anything to do with Monroe’s career they would have had an interest in her eventual production company. (McGovern, p. 414. Monroe was the second woman, after Mary Pickford. to have one.) Certainly, if Double Cross was right about this, they would have at least mentioned that company. The book does not.

    If that is not goofy enough for you, how about this. The book claims that Giancana had Monroe killed on orders of the CIA. The Don sent four assassins to her house and they killed her with a rectal suppository. As McGovern notes, Momo Giancana must have had some great chemist working for him, because the type of suppository described in the book was not invented at the time of Marilyn’s death in 1962. (McGovern, pp. 511-14) I won’t even go into the issues of why the CIA would want Monroe killed or why, of all people, they would contract that assignment out to Giancana. I will say, though, that when Double Cross came out in 1992, there were multi-segment specials about it on the programs ET and Hard Copy. They accepted the book at virtually face value. This while people like Oliver Stone, Fletcher Prouty and John Newman were being attacked nearly non-stop. Thus is the culture we inhabit.

    Sorrowful Addendum: Martin Scorsese included this Joe Kennedy/Giancana Double Cross rubbish in his film The Irishman. (Click here for a review) That film was made from another piece of legerdemain, Charles Brandt’s I Heard You Paint Houses. Scorsese later related that Brandt is now working on a book about the JFK case. Mercy on us all.

  • 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)