Tag: MEDIA

  • Roads to Memphis (PBS)


     

    A bit more than two years ago, the Public Broadcasting System’s series The American Experience helped bring us Robert Stone’s cover – up documentary on the assassination of President Kennedy entitled Oswald’s Ghost. This was a skillfully done program that slickly recycled the Warren Commission verdict on the JFK case. While at the same time, the director got out a not so subliminal message: those who publicly doubted that verdict were actually undermining America. In my review of that program (which you can read here), I wrote that one of the more disturbing things about Oswald’s Ghost was that there was no discussion of the new evidence that the Assassination Records Review Board had declassified ten years previous. In fact, Stone seemed to have an aversion to any discussion of either the House Select Committee on Assassination’s inquiry or the ARRB’s declassification process. Because he failed to mention either in his film. The other disturbing aspect of Oswald’s Ghost was that Stone gave much more screen time to the Warren Commission advocates than he did its critics. Consequently, there was no debate on the evidence. The film essentially recycled the Commission’s caricature of Lee Harvey Oswald through the likes of prominent talking heads like Priscilla Johnson, Edward Epstein, Hugh Aynesworth and the late Norman Mailer.

    PBS and The American Experience are at it again. In May of this year, they did a historical whitewash on another major assassination of the sixties. This time it was the Martin Luther King case. The pretext for this disservice is the publication of a book by Hampton Sides called Hellhound on his Trail. After watching this documentary, Roads to Memphis, culled from his book, there is no need for anyone to read that volume. From the film, Mr. Sides has essentially taken his cue from William Bradford Huie’s earlier disinformation volume He Slew the Dreamer, which was originally published in 1970. This, of course, was right after alleged assassin James Earl Ray had been railroaded by his second lawyer Percy Foreman – with the help of Huie. Foreman had essentially told Ray that he would sabotage his case, and he would probably die in the electric chair, unless he pleaded guilty. This is something that his first legal team advised him not to do. Since they did not think that the state had anywhere near a good case against him. In fact, based on the evidence Arthur Hanes and his son had developed, the state offered a plea bargain with which Ray would have been out in ten years. Hanes advised Ray to decline, since he thought he could do better at trial. (See the book, The 13th Juror, p. 208)

    Ray made a terrible error when he decided to dismiss the Hanes team for the celebrity attorney Percy Foreman. All one needs to know about Foreman’s defense of Ray is this: after telling Ray he would hire a Memphis lawyer to do the pre – trial work, Foreman then arranged with Judge Preston Battle to get Ray a public defender. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 464) Then, even though Hanes offered Foreman the use of his case files, Foreman looked at them for all of ten minutes. And he never copied or used them. (ibid, p. 465) Although Foreman told Ray he would beat the rap, Foreman never planned on going to trial. (ibid, p. 464) Once he had the public defender in tow, he told him to begin negotiations with the DA’s office. (ibid,p. 464) The capper is this: Ray has stated that Foreman never even asked him “if he had fired the fatal shot at King or if he had been part of a conspiracy.” (ibid, p. 465)

    And this is where Huie comes in. Huie negotiated a deal with Foreman in which the attorney would share in all funds “accrued to Huie by sale of all rights to Ray’s story, including motion picture sales.” Foreman made about a hundred grand for his non – defense of Ray. (ibid) From his cooperation with the sabotaging Foreman, Huie then wrote his “Ray did it” tome. But that was not enough for the wealthy writer. For in 1977, during the initial phases of the HSCA, Huie got in contact with a representative of Ray named Jack Kershaw. They met at Thomas Nelson Publishing Company in Nashville. Huie relayed an offer to Ray through Kershaw. He said that if Ray would state in public that he had killed King, he would give him a check for $25, 0000. Kershaw then asked what good the money would do Ray if he was in prison. Huie replied he would also get him a pardon. Ray’s reply to Huie tells us a lot about both Huie and Ray’s case. When Kershaw informed him of the offer, Ray said he wanted no part of it. (The 13th Juror, p. 393)

    All one needs to know about Roads to Memphis is this: it deals with all the above events in three end titles at the finish of the program. They say that Ray pleaded guilty, that he then tried to change his plea, and that he died in jail in 1998. After covering up all I described above about what Huie and Foreman did – and more – the show essentially follows the paradigm that Huie established in his book: Ray was a piece of southern racist white trash. He had stalked King through the south, and then killed him by himself in Memphis on April 4, 1968. The guilty Ray then tried to escape through both Canada and England. But he was caught through an FBI manhunt using an alias at Heathrow Airport. It’s all cut and dried. What Huie did is similar to what the likes of Priscilla Johnson and others have done in the JFK field. Huie caricatured Ray, cut him off from any contacts except his brothers, supplied a motive which really was not there, and then concealed the actual circumstances of the crime. That is, he shoved all that rather interesting evidence under the rug. You know, the evidence that Arthur Hanes was set to go to trial on.

    And that is what Roads to Memphis does: it shoves the evidence under the rug. Except this program is even worse than Stone’s in its choice of talking heads. After beginning with a clip of Ray’s arrival in Memphis after being extradited from England, the first onscreen commentator is none other than Mr. CBS cover up himself, Dan Rather. Director Stephen Ives then tries to top himself. For the third talking head is the now disgraced plagiarist Gerald Posner. The fifth talking head is the Rev. Billy Kyles. Kyles was a Memphis pastor and a friend of King’s. At the 1999 civil trial of Loyd Jowers, Kyles was exposed to some rather strong cross examination and testimony as to some of his weird actions in Memphis on the eve of King’s assassination. (See these in section 2 of my 13th Juror review by clicking here.) So, with this source material, this attitude toward the evidence, and these commentators, the result was preordained: Huie is recycled. We get Ray the southern trash racist who stalked King.

    Let’s go over some of the things that Hampton Sides uses to try and incriminate Ray. For instance, he says that when Ray went through Atlanta in March of 1968 he happened to leave an Atlanta map behind. On the map, places like King’s office and home were marked. (He leaves out the fact that there were seven other maps found. Maps of places like California and Mexico. Only the Atlanta map was marked.) Of course, this story originated with William Bradford Huie. (Harold Weisberg, Martin Luther King: The Assassination, p. 279) Yet as Weisberg notes, this map was not found before, but after the fact. It was found by the FBI in the room Ray rented after King’s murder. (ibid) Even though the landlord, Billy Gardner, did find a note in the room at the time Ray left. (Weisberg, p. 190)

    Huie also wrote that Ray’s fingerprints were on the Atlanta map. Yet, as Weisberg notes, this is not accurate. Ray’s prints were found on a map of Mexico. (ibid) Further, if Ray had been to Atlanta to monitor these locations, why would he need to mark them on a map? Why didn’t he just write down their addresses and then dispose of the notepad?(ibid, p. 280)

    Mr. Sides also adds that, while in California, Ray asked two friends to register to vote for George Wallace in return for a ride to New Orleans. As Weisberg notes, this story – which originated with Charles Stein and his sister – surfaced after much contrary evidence, showing Ray was not a racist, appeared in the newspapers. Stein also tried to convey the impression that many people at Wallace headquarters knew Ray. (ibid, p. 360) But when Weisberg followed up on this he found out that Wallace’s California campaign coordinator stated that none of his staff knew Ray. And that a check of their files shows no one even associated with him. (ibid) In fact, Ray did not even take the brief moment required to apply his name, or any of his aliases, to any Wallace petition! (ibid) In truth, this anti – black motive was not even used by local DA Phil Canale at the mini – trial that Foreman agreed to. (ibid) And Stein was not called by the state as a witness. (ibid, p. 188) Further, there is really no serious indication to show that Ray was ever politically engaged, involved, or interested. Finally, no credible black witness who ever associated with Ray has ever stepped forward to say he was prejudiced.

    Yet, in the face of all the above, the program uses dramatizations showing Ray in a rented room watching Wallace rant on TV sets. It then juxtaposes these “broadcasts” with some of King’s speeches at the time. The unsubtle message being that Ray was admiring and agreeing with the former, and then angered and disturbed by the latter. And somehow, this drove him to murder. As Weisberg writes, this is all specious. But even if it were true, wouldn’t it describe literally hundreds of thousands of Americans at the time?

    The other technique used to ascribe a motive to Ray is the old Posnerian standby, which he also uses in the Kennedy case. Namely that Ray was such a loser with so little self – esteem that he killed King to add meaning to his existence. Presumably he would now go down in history as a “big man”. But then, after the shooting, Dan Rather tells us that Ray realized there was a slight miscalculation. He would not be hailed as a hero. Therefore he hightailed it out of Memphis. Dan the Man now comments that Ray must have breathed a sigh of relief that he was not caught. And he must have privately gloated that he had outwitted the SOB’s again. (Rather is some corner bar psychologist eh? This is what this goofball got paid seven million a year for?)

    But yet, the program is so desperate to establish a motive that it covers another base. Near the beginning of the show, when describing Ray’s stay in prison in the early sixties, Sides and Posner say that Ray probably heard of a bounty on King’s head by some Klan type groups in the south. And this may have inspired him to do what the did. But as several people have commented, if that were so, then why did Ray never even try to attempt to collect his cash reward, reportedly of about $50, 000? After all, Ray was free to do so for about two months after King’s death. King was shot on April 4th. Ray was not apprehended at Heathrow until June 8th. Further, there is no evidence that either of his two brothers, John or Jerry, attempted to collect it for him.

    Sides also adds that upon his return east from Los Angeles, Ray took out a General Delivery post office box in Atlanta. In this regard, it is appropriate to note that during the entire hour long show, there was not one mention of the name Raul. This is the man that Ray said maneuvered him from Canada into the USA from the second half of 1967 until the murder of King. This void is even more startling in light of the fact that TV producer Jack Saltman appears to have found out who Raul actually was. Further, that Ray had pointed out his picture back in 1977 and the HSCA appears to have known who he was. But further, even the Memphis Police seemed to have leads on him back in 1968! (See part 4 of my review of The 13th Juror.)

    Toward the end of the show, Sides very briefly comments on the whole conspiracy angle of the King murder. He gives it the back of his hand by saying that it is much too complicated. The implication being that such a conspiracy could not be kept straight by the perpetrators. To be fair to Sides, let us not argue that here. (See The 13th Juror for the actual details of how it worked.) But since the program unambiguously states that Ray did kill King, let us discuss that crucial point. Does the evidence actually make that case beyond a reasonable doubt? The viewer has no chance to judge for himself, since the evidence for the prosecution – let alone the defense – – is never presented. In light of that, let us present a small amount of it here.

    Is there a witness who places Ray in the bathroom at the time of the shooting? Well, sort of. His name is Charlie Stephens. Unfortunately for Sides, the man was dead drunk at the time. Though he still cooperated with the prosecution. Further, his common law wife, Grace Stephens – who would not cooperate – was sent to a mental institution for ten years. (DiEugenio and Pease pgs. 462, 466, 500 – 501)

    What about the rifle in question? What the show eliminates is that the Game Master 30.06 was not the first rifle Ray picked up. Ray picked up a different rifle first and then returned it a couple of days later. Why would one do such a thing if one was not following orders from above? Further, as Judge Joe Brown testified at the Jowers vs. King civil trial, the Game Master is a weapon that cannot be manually sited in to ensure the telescopic site is accurate. This rifle has to be machine calibrated. If not, the aim will very likely be off. (ibid, p. 469) The place where Ray bought the rifle did not have this machine.

    Third, if Ray shot King from that communal bathroom, he would have had to be standing in a bathtub. When Paris-Match tried to simulate this position, “they had to pose their model on the rim of the tub toward the back, and then contort him into a position to lift the rifle to the window.” (ibid, p. 462) I should add here, the state of Tennessee understands this problem. So today when you visit that exhibit at the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis, the tub has been moved further away from the window.

    Fourth, if Ray did the shooting, why could the FBI never positively match up the fatal bullet to the Game Master? And when Judge Brown wanted to proceed with conclusive tests which would prove this point once and for all, he was removed from the King case. (ibid, p. 453) I should add here, one of the local DA’s involved in removing Brown at the time – John Campbell – is one of the main talking heads on this show. For PBS, Sides, Rather and Posner were not imbalance enough.

    Finally, if one is to believe the official story, one has to believe that when Ray escaped the boarding house after shooting King, he did something unbelievably stupid. He dropped a bundle of his belongings on the ground outside Canipe’s Novelty store before jumping into his white Mustang. As Mark Lane has stated, if Ray did that he should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. (ibid, p. 462) But it’s actually worse than that. For at the civil trial it was revealed that the owner of Canipe’s, Guy Canipe, told Arthur Hanes that the bundle of articles was deposited in front of his store ten minutes before the shooting took place. (ibid, p. 500)

    So just with these few points, we have established that the case against Ray is a weak one. Consider the following:

    1. No credible witness places Ray in the bathroom at the time.

    2. The aim of the rifle in evidence was not properly calibrated and therefore was not accurate.

    3. Ray could not have positioned himself atop the bathtub in order to get an accurate shot fired.

    4. The fatal bullet was never matched to the rifle

    5. The rifle in evidence was dropped in front of Canipe’s store before the shot was fired.

    Not one word of any of the above is mentioned in this show. Even though all of it has been proven, and most of it was presented under oath, subject to cross – examination, at the civil trial. If it had been presented, then of course, there probably would have been no show. Since the program’s thesis would have been seriously undermined.

    And this is what is most troubling about this program. Like Robert Stone’s rigged film on Oswald, there is no real debate or dissent allowed. Thus there is no opportunity to challenge the nonsensical comments of buffoons like Dan Rather.

    Yet, recall, this is not CBS. This is PBS. Which is billed as alternative broadcasting. It is supposed to be something different than the mainstream. Dan Rather is not different than the mainstream. He is the mainstream. He epitomizes everything that was wrong with broadcast journalism for the past fifty years. While he did quite well shilling for his corporate sponsors, he is one of the reasons the rest of us are not so well off today. Yet here he is, on so – called alternative TV reciting the same script he did for CBS. Repeating the same lies he did back in the sixties and seventies on another outlet in the new millennium.

    What a disgrace. PBS should be ashamed of itself. The worst part of this sorry production though is this: they aren’t. That’s how compromised American Experience is on the assassinations of the sixties.

    Don’t ask me why.


    Addendum to Roads to Memphis

    I should have added three other points to the above review. They show just how intent on ignoring the 1999 King vs. Jowers civil trial director Stephen Ives was. For from the very title, the program tries to insinuate that James Earl Ray was following King through America in the last several months of his life. As I noted, the program completely eliminates the personage of Raul, the apparent CIA contact who manipulated Ray at his time. Therefore it cuts off the reason for Ray’s maneuverings. But it’s worse than that. As Ray’s lawyer William Pepper stated at trial, when King arrived in Los Angeles, Ray left the city. (The 13th Juror, p. 741) Further, there were several places that Ray was not in at all when King visited them in those months: Selma, New York, Chicago, and Florida.

    Secondly, the program’s use of the map found by the FBI in Atlanta is even worse than Harold Weisberg described. As Pepper told the jury in Memphis, “The Atlanta map is nowhere related to Dr. King’s residence. It is three oblong circles that covered general areas, one where he was living on Peachtree.” (ibid)

    Finally, I should have noted an extraordinary stroke that director Ives used in his “recreations”. During the speech that King gave the night before he was shot-the famous “Been to the Mountaintop” speech-Ives clearly insinuates that Ray is standing outside the door of the church. The problem with this “recreation” is that there is no evidence in the record for it. Even though there were 2,000 people in attendance, there is no witness who saw Ray at the Mason Temple Church. (Philip Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, p. 2) Secondly, at the civil trial, in a video taped posthumous deposition, Ray gave a complete, hour by hour chronicling of his comings and goings in Memphis once he arrived at the New Rebel Motel on April 3rd. The opposing attorney never even asked Ray if he was at the Mason Temple Church. He knew he wasn’t. (The 13th Juror pgs. 658-673) Let us recall: this is a documentary into which Ives is inserting something for which he has no factual basis. We’re in John Hankey country.

    Any serious student of the King case should ignore both this program and the book by Hampton Sides. Instead, read The 13th Juror.

  • Dean T. Hartwell, Dead Men Talking: Consequences of Government Lies


    How did it happen? How did this country get into the sorry state it is? America today is a place where presidential elections are stolen in broad daylight – and the Supreme Court then sanctions the thievery. Where a debacle like 9/11 takes place, and yet not a single person gets fired. A country where an administration can launch a phony war with Iraq – needlessly losing thousands of young men and women and countless billions in dollars – yet the Speaker of the House says that giant fraud was not grounds for impeachment. A country in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased over 1,000% since 1972 – yet both the middle class and working class are worse off now than they were then. A country where a con artist like Bernie Madoff could actually rise to be president of NASDAQ. A nation whose politicians allow casino-like gouging on Wall Street, and then when the bubble bursts, the tax-payers bail out the looters to the tune of a trillion dollars. And they have to, because if they don’t their IRA’s, pensions, and annuities could disappear. It’s a country where the moderate Republican Party of Eisenhower became the extremism of Gingrich and DeLay. The US is a place where a right-wing foreign billionaire like Rupert Murdoch can convince a large part of the public that somehow his interests coincide with theirs. It’s a nation whose populace is so cowed and misinformed that they could consider a shallow frat boy like George Bush Jr. for president – not once, but twice. And then, when he cheats his way into office both times, the MSM actually tries to cover up for him. After all, the only price paid was the financial bankruptcy of the USA. A country, which, as conservative banker Charles Morris has written, is “hopelessly in hock to some of the world’s most unsavory regimes.” And part of that transfer of wealth was made possible by companies like the Carlyle Group, led by former “representatives of the people” like George Bush Sr., James Baker, and John Major.

    In other words, the USA today is a second-rate nation which veers violently from national scandal to senseless war back to national scandal. And the purveyors of neither the wars nor the scandals are ever actually called to account for their sins. Consequently, the cycle continues downward. With no real light at the end of the tunnel. When you can pull off a crime like what just happened on Wall Street, and make average Americans foot the bill – well, that should tell you what the USA has become: a giant ATM machine for the wealthy. Except in the end, you find out they had access to your account. And the politicians in Washington don’t really give a damn.

    How did things go so awry? To the point where, to use some appropriate hyperbole, America reminds some of the last scene of fire and smoke in Nathanael West‘s memorable apocalyptic novel The Day of the Locust. Many people are aware of the condition of course. Which is why alternative forms of media have arisen. Because, to put it mildly, the MSM has not done a very good job keeping the wolf from the door. In fact, many citizens think they helped the animal up their sidewalk.

    For me, alternative media has not been up to the task, at least not yet. As I have noted on this site, the likes of blogs like Firedoglake and Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo have been rather disappointing. For me, before a nation can deal with its present, it has to be able to face its past. Its real past. In other words, the public has to be made to understand the depth and breadth of the historical crimes in order to explain how, for instance, an administration can simultaneously fire eight US attorneys and lie about it before Congress. And the following Democratic administration chooses not to try any of the perjurers or the perpetrators. This is pretty much saying that the law is what the occupiers of the Department of Justice say it is. And in the case of Don Siegelman, Cyril Wecht, and others, new Attorney General Eric Holder replies, “Well, too bad, but I guess it was.”

    For those of us who recall a better America, this will not do. Therefore we have tried to give history back to the people in an honest and investigative way. We did it when Lisa Pease and myself published Probe bi-monthly. We tried to do it in our book, The Assassinations. And John Kelin and I do it here on this site, e.g., Roger Feinman’s fine essay on Sonia Sotomayor.

    Dean T. Hartwell has now made his contribution.

    His short book, Dead Men Talking, is subtitled Consequences of Government Lies. It is a concise attempt at what some people call revisionist history. Except that it stretches across the decades from 1963 to 2001, nearly forty years. The Assassinations, was also an attempt at revisionist history. But it only covered five years: 1963-68. It took in the murders of President Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Senator Robert Kennedy. We did that because we thought that by centering on those four people, we could concentrate on both one time period, and also one method of covert operation: the assassination of political leaders by gunfire. Then, in the Afterword of that book, I tried to isolate these events by saying they constituted a landmark in American history. Hartwell decided to take two of these assassinations – the Kennedys – and combine them with the attacks on the USA of September 11, 2001.

    Hartwell begins the book by countering the mocking tone that the MSM uses to discount the idea of “conspiracy theories.” One method he uses is rather simple: If the official story is harder to swallow than an alternative theory, then the public has every right to question the official story. Especially when it makes no sense anyway. The idea that a mediocre – or worse – rifleman like Lee Harvey Oswald could actually better the performance of almost every marksman who ever tried to duplicate his alleged feat is hard to swallow. And when you add in the fact that the Warren Commission could never duplicate the condition of the magic bullet, i.e., CE 399, in any of their tests – and actually tried to cover that fact up – well that gives us reason to wonder. He also mentions the recurrent use of a patsy, or what he terms a scapegoat. The labeling of Oswald as an anti-social Marxist helped to compensate and distract from the weakness of the evidentiary case against him. The author also notes that the official investigations often fail to properly address relevant and controversial facts that are necessary to uphold their stories. In the JFK case for instance, an example would be the location of Oswald in the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting.

    Hartwell also mentions other precedents for government officials lying to the public about acts of state. Two being the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and the 18 1/2-minute gap in the famous Nixon-Haldeman tape three days after the Watergate break-in.

    I am not going to analyze in any depth his discussion of what happened on September 11, 2001. I have read only two books on that subject, plus a few essays on the web. If you can believe it, I have never even read anything by David Ray Griffin. And Griffin is the 9/11 equivalent of Mark Lane. Hartwell lists some of the most common anomalies that the critics of the official story have enumerated: the ignored warnings both domestically and from abroad; the failure of any interceptor jets to get close to either Washington or New York; the acrobatic tight turn taken by Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon: the confluence of war games that morning which tended to confuse radars; the incredibly fast collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by any planes. (I must note in this regard, when Tucker Carlson had scientist Stephen Jones on his show, he showed this collapse. But he edited out the complete fall. All you saw was the beginning of the collapse, and the actual bouncing of the rubble.)

    I cannot make any real judgment about Hartwell’ s work on this case since, as I said, I am in no way an authority on it. And I don’ t feel ashamed in admitting that. One can only thoroughly investigate so many of these scandals. And I feel I have done that with the JFK, MLK, and RFK cases. But it seems to me that Hartwell has hit the highlights and used the work of some of the credible critics e.g. Griffin, Mike Ruppert, Michel Chossudovsky.

    Let me add one last thing about this case. I managed to watch some of the live hearings of the 9/11 Commission. It convinced me that the days of so-called Blue Ribbon Commissions should be officially ended. This was especially obvious during the questioning of Condoleezza Rice, which I thought was actually kind of embarrassing. I later learned that the Executive Director of the Commission, Philip Zelikow, had 1.) Worked on the transition team of George Bush Jr., 2.) Been appointed to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and 3.) Co-written a book with Rice. In fact, after the attacks, Rice had him rewrite the initial report on what the American response should be to the new threat of terrorism. In light of all this, even Warren Commission sycophant Max Holland – who knows Zelikow personally – has declared that Zelikow should not have been the director of that Commission.

    II

    In his discussion of the assassination of President Kennedy, Hartwell first lists the main official findings about three shots and three shells. He then brings in the common questions about this. Namely that some people heard more than four shots, and that the presence of the shells do not prove they were fired that day. He then begins to critique the work of Gerald Posner and his accent on the presumed psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald. Hartwell notes that Posner’ s intent is somehow to denote a motive. He adds that this is “misplaced since motive makes no difference in a criminal conviction.” (p. 73)

    He then shifts the focus and adds that what occurred both directly before and after is quite important. (p. 74) In other words, where was Oswald at the time of the shooting? Hartwell, relying somewhat on the work of noted critic Howard Roffman argues that he probably was not on the sixth floor. He then goes after the Commission’ s star witness in this regard, Howard Brennan. (p. 76) For instance, Brennan once said that he actually saw the fatal shot hit JFK, and that he also saw the assassin stay at the window for three or more seconds after the fatal shot hit. (ibid) Both are dubious since they seem mutually exclusive.

    Hartwell then goes into Oswald’ s alleged movements after the shooting, concentrating on the testimony of policeman Marrion Baker. This is the motorcycle officer who stopped his vehicle and then climbed the stairs in the Texas School Book Depository. He allegedly encountered Oswald at the second floor lunchroom. Hartwell questions the efficacy of the timing of the reconstructions. (p. 77) Hartwell then uses the testimony of Dr. Robert Hunt before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. After studying the photos of the boxes in the so-called sniper’ s nest, he concluded that someone had moved the boxes about two minutes after the shooting. As Hartwell writes, that person could not have been Oswald. (p. 79)

    From here, Hartwell briefly discusses the provenance of the alleged rifle that was supposedly ordered by Oswald. He acutely states that no one at the post office recalled handing the rather large and bulky package to Oswald. (p. 80) And he also notes the problem of the post office box being signed for in Oswald’ s name only. Yet the rifle was ordered in the name of A. Hidell. If Oswald picked up the rifle, he would have had to show that he actually was the bearer of both identities. An event which probably would have gone up to the supervisor and which surely would have been remembered.

    Hartwell then goes on to the highly controversial palm print evidence. He notes that the palm print was taken off a part of he rifle that was only exposed when the rifle was taken apart. Which, as Ian Griggs has shown, was very hard to do. He also asks why did the Dallas Police not match this alleged palm print off the rifle to Oswald’ s on the 22nd. Especially since Oswald had given the police such a print that day. (p. 81) He also asks a pertinent question first posed by the illustrious Sylvia Meagher. How did the FBI later match the palm print taken from the rifle to a palm print taken from a card? Wouldn’ t the first be curved? (p. 82) I should add here, Hartwell mentions in passing the Barr McClellan/Walt Brown story about the matching of a previously unidentified print from the sixth floor to the late Mac Wallace. (p. 85) This was featured during the (quite disappointing) 40th anniversary installment of Nigel Turner’ s The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Since I have taken a lot of time criticizing Reclaiming History, I should note here that Vincent Bugliosi does a creditable job on this issue. He called McClellan’ s fingerprint expert Nathan Darby and told him there was a problem in his forensic methodology. The unidentified print from the sixth floor was a palm print. Yet, the prints Darby had from Wallace were his 1951 fingerprints. He asked Darby if he had developed some new technology to compare the two. Darby pleaded blind innocence. He said he was only given two fingerprints, one from a card and one a latent. He said, “I wasn’ t given any palm print. They were both fingerprints. Of course, you can’ t compare a palm print with a fingerprint.” (Bugliosi, p. 923) Let me add this about the matter: from the moment I first saw him, I never liked Barr McClellan. He was too glib, too fast-talking, too confident and oh so convenient. He arrived out of the woodwork to attract and confuse the masses on the fortieth anniversary.

    Hartwell goes on to raise some familiar questions about the murder of Officer Tippit, also – according to the Warren Commission – allegedly killed by Oswald. He recites the argument about the time factor working against Oswald. He was last seen by his landlady standing outside his rooming house at 1:04. Yet the most credible time placements of the Tippit murder are at around 1:09 or 1:10. The Warren Commission’ s “probative” witness, Helen Markham, said the shooting happened at 1:06, a fact that Commission supporters, like Dale Myers, manage to discount when they defend her. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 254) Witness T . F. Bowley looked at his watch when he saw Tippit’ s dead body on the street. It said 1:10. (Ibid) The late Larry Harris, a foremost expert on this case, told me that he thought the time of the murder was 1:09. This all makes it hard to believe Oswald could have been involved since the necessary distance traversed by him was about 9/10 of a mile. (Hartwell, pgs. 90-91) He would have had to be running or jogging the whole way. Which no one saw him do. (Meagher, p. 255) The author then goes into the confusing mélange of the ballistics evidence in the case. The bullets could not be matched to the gun, and the cartridges do not match the bullets: the shells were 2 Westerns and 2 Remingtons, while the bullets were 3 Westerns and 1 Remington. And he thankfully brings up the matter of the Oswald wallet found at the scene. (p. 92) Which creates an insurmountable problem for the Commission stalwarts. Because a.) Oswald would have never done this if he was the actual killer, and b.) The official story has Oswald’ s wallet being discovered on the way to the station – while he left another wallet on the dresser at the Paines that morning. Which equals Oswald as the Man with Three Wallets. (See Reclaiming Parkland, First edition, pp. 101-105). This is powerful evidence that Oswald was not at the scene and was framed.

    Using this as a cue, Hartwell then takes up an alternative view of the crime. He mentions the famous testimony of the witnesses who saw a man who resembled Oswald running down an embankment outside the Texas School Book Depository a few minutes after the murder. People like Roger Craig, Helen Forrest, Marvin Robinson, and Richard Carr all said essentially the same thing on this point. (p. 99) This Oswald double could have then been used in the Tippit murder, and then been the man who was seen early, at 1:00, by attendant Butch Burroughs at the Texas Theater. He was then escorted out of the back of the theater and was seen by witness Bernard Haire. (pgs 100-101)

    Hartwell ends this discussion by asking some sensible questions about the Commission’ s story. First, if Oswald was an ideologically motivated killer, why didn’ t he admit it like other assassins e.g. Booth, James Guiteau, and Leon Czolgosz. (p. 101) If he meant to disguise his act why did he have the rifle and handgun shipped to a post office box with his name on it? When he could have purchased the rifle over the counter with cash, no questions asked. If he was planning on killing Kennedy, why is there no credible evidence of him target practicing in advance? How could he have been so sure that no one in the building would see him unwrap the weapon and assemble it? If he had planned the assassination, why didn’ t he wear gloves? Why did he first drive in the taxi past his rooming house, and then rush inside it and leave so quickly? If he really shot both Kennedy and Tippit, why did he then not try and leave Dallas via bus? (pgs 103-104)

    Hartwell concludes that the failure of the Commission to adequately address any of these important issues shows that their purpose was not to solve the crimes but to disseminate a cover story to be in turn picked up by the major media and force fed to the public. (p. 105) He also notes, as Deputy Consul for the House Select Committee on Assassinations Bob Tanenbaum did: the amount of evidence slanting used by the Commission was enormous. In other words, the Commission never selected evidence favorable to Oswald. If the case were as easy as the Commission states, this practice would not have been necessary. (p. 114)

    III

    The final case discussed by Hartwell is the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy in June of 1968. The author begins by outlining what most citizens consider the open and shut case against the convicted gunman Sirhan B. Sirhan: He was standing in the kitchen pantry of the Ambassador Hotel with a gun amid 73 witnesses. Kennedy was struck down and later died. He then tells us Sirhan was convicted at trial after his lawyers stipulated to the evidence the prosecution presented against him. Hartwell notes this was done to aid in their plea of diminished capacity, which would have been difficult if they outlined a conspiracy. Sirhan was then sentenced to death but had his sentence altered to life in prison by decree of the Supreme Courts of both the United States and California.

    The author begins to chip away at the prosecution’ s case using the autopsy of Dr. Thomas Noguchi. Hartwell shows how the findings of Noguchi contrast significantly with what the best and closest eyewitnesses said happened. The four shots into RFK (one actually went through the top of his jacket) all came from behind and at very close range. Yet no witness said that Sirhan ever got behind Kennedy or that close to him. (p. 119) He also uses the quite credible testimony of hotel maitre d’ Karl Uecker who said he grabbed Sirhan’ s gun hand after the second shot. Therefore how could Sirhan have delivered the others with any degree of accuracy? (ibid)

    Hartwell outlines the pros and cons of the case against security guard Thane Eugene Cesar as the actual assassin. (p. 122) And he later adds that the Los Angeles police treated him way too gently. He then goes to the testimony of Sandra Serrano and Lt. Paul Sharaga. (pgs. 123-124) These two witnesses begin to outline the role of the two accomplices who probably entered the Ambassador that night with Sirhan. And they also begin to outline the role of the Girl in the Polka Dot Dress. This is the woman seen with Sirhan prior to he shooting and who is part of his last memory before the shooting. A memory of drinking coffee with her and then following her out of the room and into the pantry. Properly, Hartwell then sketches the ordeal Serrano was put through at the hands of Lt. Hank Hernandez to make her withdraw her testimony. Lawyer Hartwell notes, this kind of brutal treatment is usually reserved for suspects, not witnesses. He also adds, that sometimes witnesses do misrepresent. But there is usually a discernible motive. There is none with Serrano. (p. 126)

    Hartwell then describes how there were too many bullet holes in the pantry than were possibly emitted by Sirhan’ s eight shot revolver. (p. 128) He even quotes infamous LAPD criminalist DeWayne Wolfer on this point: “It’ s unbelievable how many holes there are in the kitchen ceiling.” (p. 128) He adds that it turned out the LAPD could never clearly link any of the bullets in RFK to Sirhan’ s weapon.

    The author then analyzes four points offered up by critics of the LAPD: 1.) There were more than eight bullets fired, 2.) There was another gunman besides Sirhan 3.) There was a non-shooting accomplice 4.) Sirhan was hypnoprogrammed to do what he did. (p. 130) After giving the pluses and minuses of these issues he decides that the official theory does not hold up, and neither do the arguments of its supporters like Dan Moldea. (pgs 130-140) Finally, he uses the now famous Stanislaw Pruszynksi tape, recorded the night of the murder, as tested by audio technician Phil Van Praag. This tape is powerful evidence for there being too many shots fired that night and for them being too close together. (Click here for more on this.)

    Hartwell produced this book on his own. There are the spelling mistakes, typos and spacing errors to prove it. And as I wrote in part 6 of my review of Reclaiming History, the issues involving the testimony of Wesley Frazier and Marrion Baker in the JFK case are even worse than what he deduces. But these things are easily forgiven since this is not a corporate effort, but a citizen’ s book. A citizen who is greatly bothered by what has happened to his nation. How voting, as proven by Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, cannot be relied upon anymore. (p. 151) How trying to get elected officials to do something about serious government crimes does not work, since there is no upside in it for them. (p. 152) How the rather attractive alternative of moving elsewhere means leaving these troubling issues in America behind. And, as everyone knows, the MSM is no help. He proposes taking advantage of the new media to spread the word to others and the rest of the world. (ibid) It won’ t be easy, but it is necessary. If not we will maintain the system that allows these crimes and they will continue to pollute the body politic. Which, as we see now, is harmful to us all. The evidence for that, as I noted at the start, is all around us.

    When I finished the Afterword to The Assassinations I wrote that, as in Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus, after the murder of RFK, those who believed in him and his cause felt like the stone was at the bottom of the hill. And they were alone. Today, we are not. History has caught up with some of the public. They don’ t like what America has become either. In that regard, we need more people like Dean Hartwell. Because if The Assassinations was a pebble thrown into the polluted stream, this book provides another stepping-stone beyond it. And hopefully, one day, a man the stature of Carroll Quigley will arrive to trace the decline from November 1963, to March of 2003, filing out the entire canvas with color and perspective. In order to make the public face the fact that, yes the forces that killed the vibrant progressive energy of the sixties won, but what did they bring us? The answer is: Less than zero. Or as James Joyce once wrote for his alter ego, Stephen Dedalus: “History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awaken.” Few who were alive in 1963 would argue the fact that the country we live in today does not resemble what we had then. Hartwell’ s effort is that of a true patriot offering an attempt to bridge that gap and explain how it all happened. For the benefit of us all.

  • The Lost JFK Tapes


    Of the three new documentaries broadcast over the last JFK anniversary, National Geographic Channel’s The Lost JFK Tapes was clearly the best. It had to be. It was not on Discovery Channel. As readers of this site know, that channel has become the media ghetto for those who still adhere to the discredited Warren Commission. Which was turned into mythology over four decades ago. But through a kind of institutional agreement with another body that lies about the JFK case, The Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, Discovery is involved in producing propaganda tracts like Inside the Target Car,The Ruby Connection, and Did the Mob Kill JFK? These have all been thoroughly exposed as deliberate deceptions elsewhere on this site. Along with Discovery Channel’s phony contraptions that try to support the lies of the Commission, that channel also chooses to withhold from the public the voluminous declassified files made available by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). These were the tens of thousands of documents declassified in the wake of Oliver Stone’s film JFK. These documents further reveal that the Warren Commission was nothing but an elaborate cover-up, often in the Commissioners’ own words. But you won’t even hear about the ARRB on the Discovery Channel.

    You won’t hear about the ARRB on The Lost JFK Tapes either. But at least you won’t have to suffer through the god-awful Dale Myers type manipulation of fact that produces an unsupportable conclusion. What this show does is present the record of that tragic weekend of November 22-24th of 1963. It treats that film and audio record with respect and lets it speak in its own words. Whether it complies with the 1964 Commission official story or not. And because that weekend was so tumultuous, so solemn, so epoch changing, the program has a quiet power to it – a power that comes from commemorative reverie. The people who made it respected the event. And they were out to preserve and honor it for what it was. For certain segments described later, its not the type of film you will see on Discovery Channel, or even featured at the Sixth Floor. The latter is too busy promoting atrocities like Oswald’s Ghost (See here for the reasons why).

    The film bills itself as being made up largely of unseen footage from that weekend. Yes, a lot of it was. But some of it I had seen before. I should also note that some of the new tapes are audio. And as we shall see later, the fact may be that they were not lost, they were suppressed. But nonetheless, it was all adroitly, and at times poetically, put together.

    It begins with a beautiful overhead shot from the clouds as Air Force One descends into Fort Worth. Along with this aerial shot we hear some Errol Morris style documentary background music on the sound track: both pulsating and vibrant. After their arrival, we see the breakfast at the Hotel Texas in Fort Worth with President Kennedy making his famous jokes about the attractiveness of his wife, “No one wonders what Lyndon and I are going to wear.” We then cut to the arrival in Dallas, and we see a problem the Secret Service had with Kennedy. After the Fort Worth breakfast and upon the arrival in Dallas, the president went ahead and walked into the awaiting crowds to shake hands. As the commentator adds, this made it difficult for the Secret Service to enforce a stricture of theirs: anyone shaking hands with the president had to have both hands exposed in advance.

    We then cut to an aerial shot of the motorcade route through Dallas. But not before we see the famous black and white footage of the visibly upset Secret Service agent Henry Rybka being asked by Emory Roberts to leave the escort detail at Love Field.

    The actual assassination sequence is also skillfully done. The editors intercut black and white stills with color motion picture footage to convey the impact. Some of the motion picture footage is of those dozens of bystanders running toward the grassy knoll and the sound of the shots. The program then shows regular programming being interrupted on local station WFAA-TV while program director Joe Watson announces the shooting of President Kennedy and Governor Connally. We then cut to Parkland Hospital with doctors arriving and people crying outside. Senator Ralph Yarborough stated that he found a Secret Service agent outside of Parkland hospital pounding the car in despair. He himself said that what had happened is “Too gruesome to describe.”

    We then watch as the Newman couple – Bill and Gayle – are called to local television to tell the public what had happened. This clip reveals why they are not mentioned in the Warren Report and although interviewed by the FBI, were not called to testify before the Warren Commission. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 70) The Newmans were standing on the north side of Elm Street, just west of the Stemmons Freeway sign. Bill Newman told the TV audience that, as Kennedy was hit, he heard shots come from behind him. This, of course, would have been up on the grassy knoll, behind the picket fence.

    The program then cuts to the Texas School Book Depository a few minutes after the assassination. They say attention was attracted there by the testimony of photographers Malcolm Couch and Robert Jackson who said they saw a rifle barrel being withdrawn from a window on the fifth or sixth floor. Very quickly about two dozen police cars are parked near the intersection of Elm and Houston, with police standing outside the building with shotguns. There is a roof to basement search while employees like Danny Arce and Bonnie Ray Williams are escorted away as witnesses. I should also note in this regard, the show depicts at least two other people being arrested by the police: one for the murder of Officer Tippit, and one for the assassination.

    At about this point, Dallas Police inspector J. Herbert Sawyer speaks in front of a TV camera. He says that the assassin’s rifle shells were found on the fifth floor. (In Michael Benson’s book, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, he incorrectly quotes Sawyer as saying the shells were found on the third floor. p. 409) Right after this Watson is interviewing WFAA cameraman Ron Reiland. Reiland tells the audience that the weapon discovered at the Depository was an Argentine Mauser. Two more startlers follow: a broadcaster says the shots came form the fifth floor (matching the location of the shells), and the police say they had given the president’s trip the maximum security arrangements possible. Which, in retrospect, and with the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, is a little humorous.

    The next stage of the film is the reporting of the death of Tippit in Oak Cliff. It is interesting to note here that the immediate reaction of the police to this report is this: Whoever shot Tippit, had to have been Kennedy’s assassin. So I wish the program had shown Reiland’s film of a wallet containing Oswald’s ID being passed among the law enforcement officers at the Tippit scene. Meanwhile, the narrator could have announced that the police were taking his wallet from Oswald on the way to City Hall.

    After this the police report says that an armed man had entered the Texas Theater. It is not explained how they knew the an was armed. Oswald is then apprehended and policeman Paul Bentley addresses the reporters about his arrest. Oswald is then driven to City Hall and arrives at about 1:55 PM. The charge at this time is only the murder of Officer Tippit. One of the things that I thought was memorable about this sequence is the number of times that Oswald denied his guilt in either of the shootings. He complains about being given a hearing “without legal representation.” When asked if he shot Kennedy, he says, “I did not shoot anybody.” His answers are always cool, clipped, with nearly no hesitation.

    Oswald’s demeanor is contrasted in the film with what can only be called the utter bedlam of police HQ. This is rendered almost palpable in this film. That the police let all these bystanders into HQ at this time is simply unfathomable. There seemed to have been no control on this until Sunday morning. To have their most famous and important prisoner in inexplicable. Because, as the film also makes clear, that very afternoon the legend that Oswald had built up began to be circulated through the press with a speed that was startling. The whole thing about moving to Russia, his membership in the FPCC, his being fined for an altercation with anti-Castro Cubans in New Orleans, all this gets circulated into the local media. Both incriminating him and creating bias in the minds of the public.

    The film now shows Kennedy’s body being removed from Parkland Hospital and transported to the airport. We watch the casket being uploaded onto Air Force One while Judge Sarah T. Hughes swears in LBJ. As we watch the plane lift off into the sky, a newsman appropriately intones that this is “One of the blackest days in the history of the United States.”

    After the plane arrives in Washington and Johnson speaks from Andrews Air Force Base, the film returns to the Dallas Police HQ. The police have called and maintained a Justice of the Peace there late at night since they are going to charge Oswald with Kennedy’s assassination. And at this point, the film begins to take up the litany of certainty about Oswald’s guilt that DA Henry Wade, Capt. Will Fritz, and Police Chief Jesse Curry began to drum into the media. And through them to the public. For example, Curry says that the police can place Oswald on that floor at the time of the murder, that they can put him in the window, and that he ordered a “similar rifle”. Well, the first two are simply false, and the third is a queer choice of words. Did Curry still think the actual weapon was a Mauser? Henry Wade proclaims that no one else was involved in the shootings but Oswald. Which rules out the possibility of accomplices within ten hours of Oswald’s arrest. Meanwhile, we see Oswald still denying the alleged “air tight” case against him and still requesting legal representation.

    The film then moves to Saturday and Mayor Earle Cabell declaring it a day of mourning in Dallas and that all churches and synagogues stay open. We then listen as the news comes down that Governor Connally will recover. We learn that Connally asked his wife Nellie about the president. She told him he was dead and he replied, “That’s what I was afraid of.”

    On this day, the famous backyard photographs are now in evidence and the FBI says that it has the documentation about Oswald’s ordering of the rifle. Curry again declares Oswald as “the man who killed the president.” He then describes him as very arrogant during questioning. A reporter then asks Wade how many time he has requested the death penalty. He replies 24 times. He s then asked how many times he achieved it. He replies 23. Oswald is being prepared by the DA for the gallows. Right after this, a reporters prophetically asks Curry if he is worried about Oswald’s safety considering the high level of feeling against him in Dallas. Curry replies that no he is not. The proper precautions will be taken and he didn’t think anyone in Dallas would try and do away with Oswald.

    The film then moves to Sunday at City Hall. The reporters comment on the precautions taken by the police: cars are being checkedbefore entering the basement, no on can get in without press or police ID. We then watch as Oswald is escorted out the elevator, through the office, down the corridor, and shot by Jack Ruby. Incredibly, one newsman named Bob Huffaker says that he thought Ruby was a Secret Service man. What a Secret Service man would be doing in the parking lot at that time is a mystery. And right after this, we see the cover up about Ruby beginning in the ranks of the DPD. For, as most informed observers know, half the police in the parking lot knew who Ruby was. But all the police say is that the assailant was a resident of Dallas, and known to some of the police but his name will not be revealed at this time.

    Now that Oswald is dead, the local media, like Bob Walker, immediately proclaim him “the assassin.” Then, in defiance of what we just saw, Walker declares that the police had provided more caution and protection for Oswald than any other prisoner in their history. Then, just as absurd, the police finally pronounce Jack Ruby as the “suspect” in Oswald’s murder. To top it off, policeman Jim Leavelle says he recognized Ruby, “If in fact he did it.” This is the cop who stood right next to Oswald as Ruby shoved a gun into his stomach.

    After this, one of the most startling pieces of reportage in the entire program is revealed. The report comes on that one of the only clear things said among the police is that none of them “believes [Ruby] killed Oswaldäout of patriotic fervorä.it is for one reason and that is to seal his lips.” This, of course, directly contradicts the future verdict of the Warren Commission. And it reveals that there was a vow of silence taken within the DPD shortly after. Its that kind of revelation that have led Tina Brown’s investigative reporter Gerald Posner to try and counter this film. (See here.)

    The program winds down by showing us the internments and funerals of Tippit, Oswald and Kennedy. Then we watch as on the 27th, Johnson addressed a joint session of Congress and made his famous statement, “All I have I would give gladly not to be standing here today.”

    In the last several years, this is the only documentary on the subject that I have seen that is both objective and worth watching. The producers, Tom Jennings and Ron Frank, deserve our thanks and encouragement. They have treated a serious subject with respect and skill. One of the achievements of the film is that I have left many fine human-interest touches out of this description. There is a memorable moment when the news of Kennedy’s death comes into the Trade Mart where he was to speak. A black waiter begins to quietly weep and then wipe away his tears. After, a man quietly takes down the seal of the president on the podium where Kennedy was to address the crowd.

    Let me close with another fine moment from the film. The afternoon of the murder, a reporter was roving in Dealey Plaza trying to get the general feeling of the populace to what had happened. A young man states, “Why would anyone shoot President Kennedy. He’s done so much for us.” A woman then says that it’s one of the most terrible things to ever happen. A young woman comments that “This is doom for our city.” Finally, a middle-aged man with the gift of seeing into the future states: “A great man is gone. We are all going to suffer for this. And we all should.”

  • Did The Mob Kill JFK?


    Did the Mob Kill JFK? was broadcast right before another Discovery Channel program entitled JFK: The Ruby Connection in November and December of 2009. At the end of this review, I will specify why I find that to be retrospectively interesting and what it says about Discovery Channel. But first, let me answer the question posed in the show’s title: Nope, not by themselves. In fact, I can think of no credible, respected JFK researcher on the scene today who thinks that the Cosa Nostra pulled off Kennedy’s murder alone. Yet this program seems to foster that idea in a truly offbeat, even bizarre kind of manner. How does it do so?

    By using three main talking heads who have serious credibility problems that the producers never tell us about. They are Robert Blakey, Lamar Waldron and Gerald Posner. With the choice of these three men, the Discovery Channel lets us know that, as far as they are concerned, they have no interest in dealing with any of the compelling new discoveries unearthed by the Assassination Records and Review Board (ARRB). This was the body constructed by congress to declassify thousands of documents on the JFK case that were classified until 2029. But alas, the program cannot inform us of that salient fact. Because if it did, Blakey would have to explain why he did it.

    I

    See, Blakey was the Chief Counsel of what Gaeton Fonzi memorably termed The Last Investigation. This was the congressional inquiry into the deaths of both President Kennedy and Martin Luther King by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). To say that he helmed that committee in an unsatisfactory and controversial manner is somewhat of an understatement. And to go into all of the shortcomings of the HSCA would take an essay about ten times longer than this one, and it still would not do it justice. (For a summary of the HSCA’s failings, see The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pgs. 51-89) But I should note just one aspect in this regard. When the Warren Commission published its final report, it issued 26 volumes of evidence with it. When Blakey published his report, he issued only 12. Further, the HSCA saw many more declassified government files than the Warren Commission did, from agencies like the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service and the State Department. They also conducted many more independent interviews with important witnesses and in crucial areas. For instance, the medical interviews the HSCA did went much further than the shameful dog and pony show orchestrated by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission. For instance the interviews done by the HSCA staff prove that there was a large avulsed wound in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which indicates that there was an exit wound there. And therefore an entrance from the front. To point out another area, the HSCA investigation of Oswald’s background was much more extensive than the Commission’s. They actually reviewed many CIA and FBI files about the pinko Marine who defected to Russia at the height of the Cold War, and then decided to return with a Russian wife. They also interviewed and investigated many more witnesses in New Orleans than the Commission did. And they went much further in uncovering Oswald’s activities there. For example, they built upon the fascinating evidence first accumulated by Jim Garrison about the sighting of Oswald with David Ferrie and Clay Shaw in the Clinton-Jackson area.

    Yet after seeing many, many more documents and conducting many more searching interviews than the Commission, Blakey then classified a larger volume of material than the Warren Commission had previously. And most of it, like the two instances described above, clearly pointed away from the Mob-did-it theory that Blakey came to advocate. By ignoring the files that Blakey agreed to classify – and that reveal a true conspiracy and cover-up in the JFK case – the show can avoid asking Blakey two questions: 1.) Why did you do it?, and 2.) What was hidden?

    Let’s go to the next cultivator of cover-up. What can one say about Posner? Except the obvious. His discredited book, Case Closed, was designed to detract from the creation of the ARRB and to counteract the gale impact of Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK. And we have this from the horse’s mouth so to speak. (Although, with Posner, I would use a different pack animal’s name.) After Jim Marrs debated Posner on the Kevin McCarthy show in Dallas, he asked him how he came to do the book. Posner told him that the project was brought to him by longtime CIA crony Bob Loomis, the backer of such compromised “investigative” reporters as James Phelan and Seymour Hersh. (DiEugenio and Pease, p. 369) Posner’s book was and is an embarrassment today. One reason being that it relies so much on both the evidence in and the claims of the Warren Report. It also tried to uphold the unsustainable Single Bullet Theory, which today – with the discoveries of Gary Aguilar, Josiah Thompson and John Hunt – is simply not possible to do. (ibid, p. 284) Finally, as more than one commentator has pointed out-including Aguilar-there is a serious question about whether or not Posner actually talked to the people he said he interviewed. Because at least three of them say they don’t recall the conversations.

    Here is a writer who made the oh so definite statement, on page 428 of the hardcover version of his book, that there was no evidence that David Ferrie knew Lee Oswald. This was right before a Civil Air Patrol picture surfaced depicting both Oswald and Ferrie at an outdoor CAP barbecue. This was also right before the ARRB declassified several statements that CAP members made to the HSCA that they knew Ferrie had met Oswald in their troop. Posner is the same writer who tried to explain the lack of copper on the James Tague bullet curb strike in Dealey Plaza like this: See, the bullet went through the branches of an oak tree and the branches sheared off the copper jacket as the bullet passed through. To anyone who has seen said bullets, this is nothing but balderdash. Posner’s phony book was nothing but a PR counter by Bob Loomis. Final proof: the book went on sale the same week the ARRB declassified its first batch of JFK assassination files.

    Which brings us to the third member of this circle, Lamar Waldron. Here is a guy who wrote two books trying to sell the idea that Kennedy was preparing for an invasion of Cuba in the first week of December 1963. That the Mafia found out about it, and that they then arranged for his death since they knew that the security about this plan would guarantee a cover up of what they did. Except that in all the years since, there has never been any evidence that this was a cause of the JFK cover up. Today, we have literally thousands upon thousands of pages of FBI, CIA, State Department, Warren Commission, and HSCA declassified files. None of them indicate this is the case. So Waldron now sells another talking point: See, there are files the ARRB did not get, and it must be in there someplace.

    The problem with that is what Bill Davy revealed on this web site. Waldron misrepresents the very title of those plans. The title is not, as he says, “Plan for a Coup in Cuba.” The full and proper title is “State-Defense Contingency Plan for a Coup in Cuba.” With that proper title in mind, a natural question arises: What would be the national security need to tell the Warren Commission about a contingency plan? None that I can imagine. Which is why in the now declassified executive session hearings of the Commission, you will not read one reference to them. Neither it is mentioned in any communication between J. Edgar Hoover and the Commission that I have seen.

    Waldron and his co-author Thom Hartmann had further difficulty deciding on how to sell the so-called “coup leader” on the island of Cuba. This is the guy who was supposed to kill Castro, blame it on the Russians and then convince the Cuban public that a band of former Batista followers from the CIA would continue Castro’s revolution. In their first go round, called Ultimate Sacrifice, they strongly hinted the leader was Che Guevara. When people like David Talbot pointed out how ridiculous this was, the coup leader was changed to Commander Juan Almeida. Yet, one of the since declassified CIA files reveals a serious problem with their replacement choice for coup leader. According to a National Security Agency intercept, Almeida was not on the island at the time of the alleged coup. He was on his way to Africa. Can one get any more preposterous than this? Think of it all: Castro was going to be murdered, the blame had to be placed on the Soviets, there was going to be a flotilla of Cuban exiles boating to Cuba. And the necessity of holding this explosive situation together was with a guy who wasn’t there. When someone pointed this out to Waldron, he was momentarily shaken. But only momentarily. His self-admitted CIA associated co-author Hartmann must have bucked him up with: “Well, we already wrote two books, we can’t admit we were wrong now.” They continued on this path even when former military officer and guardian of the plans Ed Sherry revealed the following: JFK was so uncomfortable with the contingency plans that he cancelled them.

    In the face of all this these two still insist on the efficacy of this downtrodden idea. Today they must remind us of the likes of David Belin and Wesley Liebeler upholding the Warren Commission after it was thoroughly discredited.

    As I wrote in my reviews of both the Hartmann/Waldron farces, once the coup idea is done away with – which it is today – the two books are nothing but pretenses for still another discredited idea: the concept that the Cosa Nostra alone killed President Kennedy. There has never been any volume that argued this theory convincingly: not by Dan Moldea, David Scheim, John Davis, Blakey, and certainly not Frank Ragano. What these two poseurs did was to throw them all of them into a Waring blender together. Twice. As I showed in my two reviews (click here and here), it still did not work.

    If the idea behind the show was to give us a three headed hydra even worse than Gary Mack, then they may have done it.

    But the ideas of the three men do not coincide. Posner is an Oswald as demented Marxist man. To my knowledge, Robert Blakey has never said one word about the Waldron/Hartmann construct. As Bill Davy noted, in Waldron’s latest revision – which may change at any moment – he now says the Kennedy assassin was E. Howard Hunt’s friend Bernard Barker. Neither Blakey nor Posner would agree with that. So how did this show work around that serious problem? Let’s see.

    II

    It begins on the wrong foot almost instantly. After introducing the Warren Commission, and saying most people don’t believe the Commission today, we cut to Robert Blakey. He says that the Commission conducted what he calls “a shooter investigation.” In other words: Who pulled the trigger?

    There is one thing Blakey is not, and that is stupid. But I feel about him as I do Allen Dulles: I respect his brains as much I don’t the uses to which he puts them. As we shall see, with this statement Blakey tells us two things: 1.) He is doing a limited hangout on the Warren Commission, and 2.) He does this limited hangout because he wants to stick with Oswald as the killer, but impose his own agenda over his alleged act.

    The problem with saying the Commission did a “shooter investigation” is that they never looked at anyone else as the shooter. So what kind of investigation was it? One that had Oswald in its sights almost from the beginning. And no matter how much the evidence of Oswald as the assassin did not add up, that is how much the Commission went into denial about it. If the FBI came up with no fingerprints on the rifle, that was no problem. If, after the murder, two women were allegedly on the same stairs with Oswald, but did not see him or hear him, that was no problem. If the Commission could not get anyone to match Oswald’s shooting exhibition of two head and shoulder hits in six seconds, that wasn’t a problem. If the paraffin, spectrographic, and neutron activation analysis all showed Oswald did not fire a rifle that day, that was not a problem. If no credible witness could put Oswald in the proper window in the building, that was no problem. If Oswald never purchased the bullets for the rifle, that was not a problem. If the bullet originally discovered at Parkland Hospital that went through Kennedy and Gov. Connally does not match the bullet in evidence, that is no problem.

    The above is what Blakey calls a “shooter investigation”. He can get away with this malarkey because the show protects him by not telling the viewer any of the above facts. Which tells us a lot about its honesty.

    Right after this, the show shifts to Cuba in the late fifties. It tells us that if there was a conspiracy in the JFK case, it probably came from the conflict there. After depicting the overthrow of Fulgencio Batista by Fidel Castro, it tells us that Castro decided to clamp down on the Cosa Nostra interests there, which he did. (I should add, this is one of the few accurate, non-debatable statements on this show.)

    This accent on Cuba as the sole provenance of President Kennedy’s assassination is the cue to bring in Waldron. He begins almost immediately with a misrepresentation as to why the Bay of Pigs invasion failed. He chalks it up to the fact that word of the invasion had leaked too much. This is true but it is not the main reason the invasion failed. In fact, Lyman Kirkpatrick’s CIA Inspector General report downplays that as the reason for the failure. (See Bay of Pigs: Declassified, edited by Peter Kornbluh) If one reads that report closely, one comes to the conclusion that even if the word had not leaked out, even if the invasion had proper air support, even if the landing had been made at a more suitable beach, even if the supply boats had not been damaged, the invasion would have failed. Why?

    1. There was little or no chance of mass uprisings in Cuba (ibid, p. 55)
    2. The logistical advance planning was so poor (ibid, pgs. 83-95) and
    3. The Cuban forces simply overmatched the size and firepower of the invasion force by a huge margin. (ibid, p. 41)

    Kirkpatrick’s report implicitly says that the invasion could not have succeeded without overt and direct support from the Pentagon. (ibid, pgs. 13-15, p. 146) David Talbot made what was implicit in the report explicit in his book Brothers. He wrote that in 2005 the CIA declassified a memo that showed that they had lied to Kennedy about the operation. As early as November of 1960, the CIA had admitted internally that the objective of holding the beachhead could not be achieved without joint CIA/Pentagon action. (Talbot, pgs. 47-48) Or as Kornbluh told Talbot, “The CIA knew that it couldn’t accomplish this type of overt para-military mission without Pentagon participation-and committed that to paper – and then went ahead and tried it anyway.” Yet Kennedy was not told about this admission. To put it plainly, the Agency was trying to hoodwink the young president and banked on him caving in to pressure when he saw the invasion collapsing. Did Waldron miss that terribly important point? Probably not. Because elsewhere he admits he read Talbot’s book. But since it does not fit his agenda, and in fact detracts from it, he doesn’t tell the viewer about it.

    Waldron then tells the viewer that the CIA had been working with the Mafia to kill Castro since the summer of 1960. (Actually there is evidence that the plans were in effect as early as 1959, see the 5/23/67 Inspector General Report, p. 9) Posner then chimes in by saying that the CIA does these kinds of things occasionally. That is, signing up with unsavory characters to do ugly jobs. He then adds that this is not surprising. Well Jerry, yes it is. Especially in light of the fact that these plots secretly continued even after the CIA knew that Attorney General Robert Kennedy had declared all out war on the Mafia.

    Waldron then adds that RFK’s campaign targeted three particular mobsters: Sam Giancana, Santos Trafficante, and John Roselli. The first two seem accurate enough. But if you look at the chapters dealing with this issue in Arthur Schlesinger’s two-volume biography of RFK, Roselli is not mentioned as an RFK target. (Robert Kennedy and His Times, Chapters 8 and 13) In fact, the only instances where Schlesinger mentions Roselli is as a go-between for the CIA-Mafia Castro assassination plots. This gets distorted in Waldron World presumably to play up a motive for Roselli’s alleged later retaliation with Trafficante and Carlos Marcello against the Kennedys.

    With the Bay of Pigs and the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro now noted, the show brings in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Now everyone knows that this was a great foreign policy highlight of the Kennedy administration. But in Waldron World it really wasn’t. Why? Because Waldron pulls out the old chestnut about Castro not allowing on site inspections to be sure the missiles were removed. This has been a canard tossed around by the rightwing since 1962 in order to tarnish Kennedy’s triumph. And even encourage an invasion of Cuba. In fact, this never really bothered the Kennedys very much since they realized that aerial reconnaissance would do the job adequately. (Schlesinger, p. 551) What bothered the Kennedys was Castro’s insistence on keeping the IL-28 bombers, capable of delivering nuclear weapons. They insisted to their Russian contact, Georgi Bolshakov, that the bombers be removed. And Khrushchev convinced Castro to do so. (ibid, p. 550) And as James Douglass’s fine book JFK and the Unspeakable thoroughly documents, it was this diplomatic resolution to the crisis that allowed for a quest for dÈtente between not just Kennedy and Khrushchev, but also one between Kennedy and Castro.

    In both of their books, Waldron and Hartmann deliberately distorted this clear and important development at the ending of the Missile Crisis. Why? Because their invasion creation could not live beside it. For why would President Kennedy want to launch an unprovoked attack on Cuba and therefore wreck his quest for dÈtente, which he so eloquently elucidated in his famous American University speech? So with Waldron and Hartmann, Kennedy’s back channel to Castro gets discounted. And here it gets substituted for the whole diversion about Castro not allowing on site inspection. Why does reality get upstaged for fiction in Waldron World? Because then you can bring on stage the infamous C-Day Plan. Or the plan for the coup in Cuba. Which, as I said, Waldron and Hartmann misrepresent by leaving out the words “contingency plan”.

    And this is what this show now does. It brings on the late Enrique Williams. Williams allegedly told Waldron and Hartmann about C-Day before he died. Yet, somehow, in all the hours Williams talked to Bill Turner for his fine volume The Fish is Red (later retitled Deadly Secrets), he never mentioned C-Day once. And as one can tell from reading my review of Legacy of Secrecy, what Waldron and Hartmann posthumously did to Williams’ credibility is a real shame. Turner considered him spot on until those two got to him.

    III

    At this point, Waldron tells us that the Mafia found out about C-Day because it was leaked to them by the likes of Bernard Barker and David Morales. Which is one of the great paradoxes of Waldron World. As one can see from my review of Ultimate Sacrifice, Barker and Ferrie and Jack Ruby somehow knew about C-Day. But people like National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, and Secretary of State Dean Rusk did not. To preserve its credibility, the show doesn’t ask Waldron how that could possibly be.

    Bypassing that impossibility, the show says that the Mafia’s aim was now to assassinate Kennedy and then use the C-Day Plan to camouflage that murder attempt. Except, as I noted previously, there is no evidence in the millions of declassified pages for this having happened. Waldron then tells us that Dallas was not the first attempt to kill President Kennedy. There were previous Mob attempts to murder him in Chicago and in Tampa. Waldron then says, with a straight face, that the Mafia’s models for assassination in these places were all the same. It’s just the personages that were different.

    The reason I find this risible is that the show then brings on former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden for a few short minutes. Bolden is the agent who tried to tip off the Warren Commission about the plot to kill JFK in Chicago. His is by far the most valuable segment on the program. When I talked to Bolden at the Lancer Conference in Dallas recently, I asked him how many times author Edwin Black interviewed him for his excellent 11/75 Chicago Independent essay on the subject. He said Black talked to him three times and gave him a polygraph examination. Now, as I showed in my review of Ultimate Sacrifice, Waldron and Hartmann did everything they could to keep the reader from reading Black’s very important essay. To prevent the reader from finding it, they footnoted Black’s essay to a book which had no relation to the subject, and was not even written by Edwin Black! As I mentioned in my review, the perceptible reason for this is that the Waldron World plot has little relation to what Black wrote about. Black did not describe a Mafia plot. What he described clearly outlined a military intelligence type of operation. This did not fit their agenda so the Waldron/Hartmann deliberately disguised their source. (To read the essay Waldron didn’t want you to find, click here.)

    Waldron next discusses the so-called Tampa murder attempt. The implication being that this somehow resembles Chicago (the plot he tried to disguise) and Dallas. I say “so-called” because, as Bill Davy points out, there is a debate about whether any such attempt actually occurred. Waldron’s main source here is one of his posthumous sources, a police chief he said he talked to. As Davy notes, Ken Sanz, a special agent for the state who is both alive and working as a consultant on a book about Trafficante, has never come across any evidence for such an attempt. This is problematic for the Dynamic Duo. In their first tome, Ultimate Sacrifice, they actually tried to use the hoary Joseph Milteer episode as their pretense for a Tampa plot. This is difficult because other authors who have analyzed the Milteer evidence – Henry Hurt, Tony Summers, Michael Benson – have concluded that it is difficult to specify any city for a location Milteer is discussing. But if you had to underline one, it would be Miami, not Tampa. The other problem is that Milteer was a southern racist, not a Mafiosi. In Ultimate Sacrifice, the Waldron/Hartmann Dynamic Duo used their usual nonsensical Six Degrees of Separation method. Roughly speaking, they pulled names out of a hat to connect Milteer with the Mob. Yet this program lets Waldron get away with this “Tampa plot”, and proclaim its resemblance to Chicago and Dallas.

    Posner chimes in again at this point. He tries to say that there is only a superficial similarity between Chicago and Dallas. That you cannot specifically link Oswald to Chicago. Which, as is standard for this show, makes no sense, since that is not the point. The real point is this: the patsy chosen for Chicago, was a man named Thomas Vallee. As Edwin Black makes clear, Valle had several similarities to Oswald. (See Black, pgs. 5,6, 31) In addition, he worked in a tall building which was right along the motorcade route that Kennedy was supposed to traverse on his Chicago trip. As for a direct linkage, actually there is one, which Black revealed. Yet, the Dynamic Duo, with Black’s article in front of them, tried to hide it. The original FBI informant who tipped off the Secret Service about the assassination plot in Chicago had the codename of “Lee”. (Black, p 5) Posner couldn’t bring himself to say that. And neither could anyone on this show. Which tells you a lot about its objectivity, honesty, and quality of research.

    But the program then gets worse. It actually lets Waldron drone on about President Kennedy’s speech in Miami on November 18th. Waldron repeats what he and Hartman wrote in Ultimate Sacrifice: that a small part of the speech was a message to Almeida about the C-Day plot being ongoing. Which is absolute silliness on the surface. This guy is going to be running a coup attempt in 12 days in Cuba, and you have to encourage him to stay involved by talking to him in a speech from Miami? Maybe JFK was trying to tell him not to go to Africa?

    But it’s even worse than that. In Ultimate Sacrifice, the Dynamic Duo admitted that supposedly only Arthur Schlesinger and Dick Goodwin worked on the speech. So what they did was they used Seymour Hersh’s pile of rubbish, The Dark Side of Camelot, to say that CIA officer Desmond Fitzgerald had a minor hand in inserting a paragraph into the speech. But they gave no page number in Hersh’s book as a reference for this. As in their subterfuge with Edwin Black, this was another trick by the Dynamic Duo. Because when you find the material in Hersh you will see that he is not even talking about the same speech. (p. 440) He is referring to a talk Kennedy did in Palm Beach ten days earlier. Further, Hersh sold his particular version of the CIA insertion as a message not to Almeida, but to CIA agent Rolando Cubela as part of an assassination attempt on Castro. Somehow, the producers of this show never asked Waldron to explain this huge discrepancy before he talked about it on the air.

    IV

    At this juncture, the program turns slightly away from Waldron and Hartmann. The major talking head in the last segment is Blakey. It’s easy to understand why. This last part will deal with the actual assassination. In their particular disinfo strain, Waldron and Hartmann postulate someone other than Oswald as the assassin. In his disinfo strain, Blakey doesn’t. So what this show concludes with is the scenario that Blakey has been selling since the late seventies, right after he closed down his spectacularly disappointing congressional inquiry. Blakey says Oswald was the assassin, but he did it as an agent of the Cosa Nostra. Specifically for Trafficante and Marcello. But this show even curtails that. Because the HSCA ultimately concluded that in addition to the Texas School Book Depository, there was a shot from the picket fence, which missed. Blakey does not discuss that here. (Dr. Cyril Wecht is brought on to talk about his interpretation of the Zapruder film and how it indicates two assassins, but this is not followed up on. He is left hanging out there almost like he’s from a different show.)

    Blakey begins this segment by saying if the Cosa Nostra was going to try and kill President Kennedy they would do it with someone who would not be easily or directly related to them. They had the motive to kill JFK since he and his brother were helming a war on organized crime. The show then notes that both Roselli and Sam Giancana were murdered in 1975 and 1976. Incredibly, Waldron now chimes in and says that a famous Marcello adage was ” Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead.” Which is ridiculous even for Waldron and this show. The implication that Marcello would or could have Giancana and Roselli knocked off is silly. A decision like that could be made only at the highest level of organized crime-if that is how it happened at all. As I noted in my review of Ultimate Sacrifice, Marcello was never considered in that stratosphere. He has been aggrandized into that stature by those writers, like John Davis, who have tried to make him into the main driving force behind the JFK murder.

    Now the show brings in Jack Van Laningham. This is the FBI informant who talked to Marcello toward the end of his life when he was in prison. Laningham was in jail on an armed robbery charge. He was told his sentence could be lessened if he turned informant. According to Laningham, Marcello told him that he had JFK killed. And that Ruby and Oswald worked for him in that caper.

    After watching some forty minutes of this witless farrago, I was not really surprised that they stooped to this. For those who read my review of Legacy of Secrecy, you will understand why this is all so specious. As I explained there, although the Dynamic Duo trumpeted the Laningham surveillance as a great discovery they had uncovered, it was anything but. In 2007, Vince Bugliosi discussed it in Reclaiming History. Before that, researcher Peter Vea had sent me the documents in the late nineties. Peter and I had put together the materials with the obituary notices about Marcello and concluded that the mobster was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease at the time he talked to Laningham. Somehow, the producers of this show couldn’t figure that out. So when Laningham asks why Marcello was not arrested for what he said to him, my reply is: And do what, send him to a mental asylum? There is no real treatment for Alzheimer’s anyway.

    It’s appropriate though that the show intercuts Laningham with Blakey near the end. Because Blakey’s theory could only be endorsed by a guy with Alzheimer’s. Blakey says that Oswald was recruited by Cubans who were operating under a false flag: They approached him posing as Marxists, but they were really working for the Cosa Nostra. (Wisely, Blakey does not tell us who those Cubans were.) So the show’s implication is that the Mafia picked Oswald to kill Kennedy for them. No one asks Blakey the obvious question: Why would the Mob pick a presidential assassin who was such a lousy shot? Would you pick a guy who not only was a lousy shot but who would use a cheap manual bolt-action rifle to do the job? Another question: Who were the Cubans who controlled Oswald in Dallas? And if they were controlling him for the Mafia, wouldn’t they steer him toward at least using a professional rifle?

    Blakey then says that Oswald realized he had been duped when famous leftist lawyer John Abt did not get back to him while he was in jail. But the reason Abt did not get back to Oswald was because he wasn’t in his office, he was out of the city on a weekend getaway.

    At the end Waldron says that Trafficante toasted JFK’s death that weekend. This is from Frank Ragano’s rather late rendition – by about thirty years – of what happened. As I explained in my Ultimate Sacrifice review, Ragano has about as much credibility on this subject as Posner or Blakey. Waldron also says that RFK came to believe that Marcello had killed JFK and that the AG was part of the cover up. This is more obfuscation by the Dynamic Duo. As Talbot’s book shows, Bobby Kennedy never came to a definite conclusion about who killed his brother. And if Waldron and Hartmann can show me how RFK participated in the Warren Commission cover up, I wish he would show me. He and Hartmann had almost 2,000 pages to do so in their two books. They didn’t. (Hartmann makes an appearance on the show, probably because the producers could not get anyone else to vouch for Waldron’s goofy theory. He comes off with all the slickness and credibility of a snake oil salesman.)

    As I said at the start, this show aired right before Gary Mack’s latest fiasco, JFK: The Ruby Connection. (For that review, see here.) So, by putting together a show that says Oswald killed JFK for the Mafia, and then running a show that says Ruby had absolutely no help in killing Oswald, what is the underlying message? Oswald might have killed JFK for the Mafia, but that is the length and breadth of any possible conspiracy. And since upon inquiry or analysis, this idea falls apart, what is the real aim of the two shows? In my view it is to extend the confusion and cover-up about he true circumstances of President Kennedy’s death.

    Consider this: In the three programs that Discovery Channel has broadcast in the last two years – Inside the Target Car, and these two – what has been the amount of declassified ARRB documents that they have used or shown us? Of about two million pages, we have seen almost none. And the ones Discovery Channel has shown are the misrepresented ones that deal with Waldron’s discredited theory. As Bill Kelly and John Simkin have pointed out, like Gus Russo, Waldron and Hartmann have become the MSM’s new go-to guys for the Kennedy cover-up. A job they seem all too willing to perform. As many have pointed out, including Jim Garrison, the actual perpetrators had given us a series of False Sponsors to cover their tracks. The first was Oswald, the second was Castro, and the third was the Cosa Nostra. Of late, Gus Russo specializes in proffering Castro. Waldron and Hartmann give us the Cosa Nostra, sexed up with a non-existent Coup Plan. A plan in which the coup leader wasn’t even in town to run the coup.

    In combination, it’s evident that these three shows reveal a rather unwelcome truth. That is, today’s cable TV companies are just as psychologically and socially incapable of telling the truth about President Kennedy’s death as the networks were in the sixties and seventies. In fact, what they are doing amounts to a smelly cover-up. In light of that fact, its better that no programs be broadcast on this subject than those as bad as this one.

  • JFK: The Ruby Connection – Gary Mack’s Follies Continued, Part Three


    Part Three, Gary Mack Replies: Doctor Faustus Defends His Deal


    Researcher Pat Speer also wrote a critique of Gary Mack’s latest concoction. His was briefer and it appeared quickly after JFK: The Ruby Connection was broadcast. He posted it at John Simkin’s Spartacus JFK forum on November 24th. Pat posed some valid criticisms of the show: both what was in it and what was left out of it. He made some of the same criticisms that I did, only in more concise form. For instance, he noted the acceptance of the Warren Commission’s version of Jack Ruby entering the police department basement via the Main Street ramp, the testimony of Bill Grammar about the Ruby phone call, and the exclusion of the very suspicious behavior of policeman Patrick Dean, in charge of security on 11/24, a man who even the Commission had doubts about. Speer went on to wonder about Mack’s contractual bona fides on this case today. That is, does his agreement with the Sixth Floor Museum require that he appear in public as the contemporary purveyor and extender of the cover-up about President Kennedy’s murder, i.e. a combination of David Belin/Dan Rather. And he closed with a reminder of how bad Dallas law enforcement is and was by recommending the reader view firsthand the miscarriage of justice in the frame-up of Randall Adams as depicted in the Errol Morris documentary The Thin Blue Line.

    Gary Mack – real name Larry Dunkel – e-mailed a reply to Speer. The reply makes clear why, in some quarters, his new nickname is Larry Fable.

    Mack/Dunkel/Fable characterizes JFK: The Ruby Connection as a “look at some of the details surrounding the shooting” of Oswald. Elsewhere he has said that the show was not a complete look at the case. But there is a problem with saying that. The program does directly comment on all three major events of that traumatic weekend: the killing of President Kennedy, the murder of Officer Tippit, and the shooting of Oswald. And, as I noted in my two-part review, in all three cases Mack/Dunkel stands firmly beside the Warren Commission. There was no conspiracy in the Kennedy murder, Oswald did it alone. Oswald also killed Tippit. And Ruby shot Oswald because he was temporarily deranged by grief over Kennedy’s death. And as I mentioned in Part 2, the show actually went further than that by mimicking the Commission’s cartoon portrait of Oswald as a both a “marksman” and “Russian exile” among other things. So, even though it dealt briefly with the Kennedy and Tippit murders, the show toed the Commission line on both. It also used the Commission’s now obsolete-and actually dishonest – misrepresentation of Oswald as the backdrop. And in its presentation of the murder of Oswald, it was ridiculously one-sided.

    Mack/Dunkel then tries to discredit the testimony of both Seth Kantor and Wilma Tice, who both swore they saw Ruby at Parkland Hospital. He says he made a timeline about Ruby’s activities after Kennedy’s murder. His timeline precludes Ruby meeting up with Kantor. Sorry Gary, but as you can see by my critique, after having experienced your timelines, I have to be a wee bit skeptical. So I will side with Kantor, Tice, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

    Mack/Dunkel then questions Billy Grammar’s testimony about the call by Ruby to the Dallas Police Department (DPD) trying to talk them out of transferring Oswald. His reason for skepticism is a real doozy. He says that Grammar did not tell anyone about this call until later: Grammar should have told DA Henry Wade about it earlier. I am presuming that Mack/Dunkel kept a straight face while typing this – but I hope not. In my review I discussed the cover-up that went on inside the DPD about the murder of Oswald. One aspect of the DPD cover-up was the concealment of the testimony of Sgt. Don Flusche. This is the man who told Jack Moriarty of the HSCA that he was standing on Main Street, right outside the ramp. Flusche said that Ruby did not come down Main and he did not get anywhere near the ramp. (HSCA Vol. IX, p. 134, Anthony Summers, Conspiracy, p. 462) Flusche did not keep his testimony a secret from his colleagues, yet it was not part of the police investigation and was not mentioned by the Commission. Why? The HSCA sure found out about it. And it was quite significant to them. Furthering this point, when Commission Counsel Burt Griffin wanted to make Patrick Dean a target since he knew he was lying, the Dallas authorities applied the pressure to keep the cover-up about themselves intact. Who personally applied the heat? Mack/Dunkel’s buddy, DA Henry Wade. So the idea that Grammar’s testimony would be welcome and then trumpeted by the DA or the police is just nonsense. Especially since Grammar stated that the caller said that “We are going to kill him”, thereby denoting a conspiracy. With the near-unanimous oath of silence taken by the DPD, I am amazed Grammar’s testimony ever surfaced at all. (See Part 6, of my review of Reclaiming History for the details about Wade and Dean, especially Sections VI and VII.)

    Mack/Dunkel then tried to dispute the fact that there was no discussion on the show about the dispute over whether Ruby came down the ramp or through an alley door to enter the basement and kill Oswald. He actually said that they reconstructed the alternative route and there was very little difference in timing between the two routes Ruby could have taken. Therefore the tests proved nothing one way or the other!

    This is really something – which is why I placed it in italics. First of all, after Inside the Target Car, and The Ruby Connection, how can anyone trust a “reconstruction” by Mack/Dunkel, Discovery Channel, or the production entity Creative Differences? It’s like trusting the Warren Commission’s recreations. But secondly, to say that the timing was roughly the same and that therefore it’s not worth mentioning, that is just off the wall. The main point about Ruby coming in the alley door is this: It would clearly imply that he knew it was accessible at that time. In other words, that Dean and his cohorts on the security detail did not do their job. Or why risk it? And to know that would necessitate having an inside man. Which is why Burt Griffin was so suspicious about Dean. And once that particular line would have been crossed, it would have opened up a whole new inquiry. For example, did Dean signal Ruby from the back door once he knew the side entrance was unlocked and Oswald was coming down? And this appears to be why Wade strongly resisted Griffin’s targeting of Dean. And this is probably why Dean failed his polygraph. And it’s also the likely reason that Dean failed to appear before the HSCA. Because with the testimony of Flusche now clear of the DPD cover-up, they believed that Officer Roy Vaughn did not let Ruby come down the ramp.

    But then Mack/Dunkel makes himself look even worse. He actually says that he personally believes that Ruby did come in through the HSCA’s alley door, not the ramp. Which puts him in a class with the likes of Gus Russo and Dale Myers and their ilk. He knows better but he doesn’t care. (I have it on good sources that he used to communicate with them regularly about keeping up a propaganda barrage.)

    Mack/Dunkel then tries to dismiss Ruby’s suspicious phone calls in the month before the assassination. He uses the stale, tired excuse that it was all about a labor dispute over his employees and the unfair trade practices of his competitors. Really? And he had to call Teamster enforcer Barney Baker and his gambler-idol Lewis McWillie over that? David Scheim thoroughly exposed this union dispute as a cover-up many years ago in his book Contract on America. For Mack/Dunkel to still maintain this smoke screen shows just how compromised and untrustworthy he has become.

    Pat Speer also scored the show on not mentioning the HSCA’s experts who concluded Ruby very likely lied during his polygraph exam. Dunkel’s comments on this issue were rich, even for him. He says that Ruby’s polygraph test was useless based upon standard practices at the time and that the polygraph remains of little value. Again, can this man be that obtuse without being compromised? As I discussed at length at the end of Part 6 of my Reclaiming History review, the HSCA report went way beyond that point. When one reads the report closely they are saying something beyond that: that the many violations of normal procedure, plus the deliberate turning down of the GSR machine (Galvanic Skin Response), suggest that the test was rigged in advance. The combination of the GSR malpractice, plus the ludicrously overlong nature of the questioning, these almost guaranteed that – exaggerating only slightly – that after about 1/5 of the test, Ruby could have been asked if he was the Governor of Texas, said yes, and would have still passed the test. That is the real point of the HSCA report. One that Larry Fable, in his front man pose, cannot admit.

    In an exchange with longtime researcher Ed Tatro, Mack has also tried to dismiss the exquisite timing of the two horns as Oswald is escorted out the door and down the corridor. He first called it a coincidence, then he said it was a signal from the awaiting car. With Tatro, he ignored the fact that Ruby specifically mentioned the “horn-blowing” in correspondence he wrote from jail in 1965. In a letter secured by Bill Diehl of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Ruby talked about being gravely ill and going to a hospital. He closed with, “If you hear a lot of horn-blowing, it will be for me, they will want my blood.” As I said in Part 6, Section VII of my review of Reclaiming History, one could argue that he was referring to St. Gabriel, but 1.) Ruby did not strike me as being very religious, and 2) He was Jewish. But the fact that Mack was fully aware of the two horns and then both distorted and eliminated them anyway shows the thorough dishonesty of the program.

    How far is Mack/Dunkel willing to go in doing dirty work for the Dallas Police? He even tries to dismiss the numerous reversals of Henry Wade’s convictions. He says that every city has problems like that, and that at least Wade preserved the evidence to mount the reversals upon. Gary or Larry: Each city is supposed to preserve evidence until the defendant’s appeals process has run out. Not destroying evidence is not something to be congratulated upon. Second, yes many cities have problems with a compromised police force but a.) Not to the degree that Wade’s regime maintained, and b.) Only with a police force that bad could the nightmare of November 22-24 have happened. But third is a point that Mack/Dunkel has to ignore. If Craig Watkins had not been elected in 2006, we almost certainly would have never known about Wade’s perfidy. Because the lying, dirty, unethical, Old Boys Network Wade had established would have surely not exposed itself. And Mack and Vince Bugliosi would have been free to expound upon what a wonderful operation Wade and Captain Will Fritz had run.

    Elsewhere, Mack/Dunkel has written that people like Pat Speer and myself have attacked him only because we disagree with him. Not true. The critiques that Milicent Cranor, David Mantik, Speer and myself have made of Mack’s Discovery Channel debacles cannot be reduced to that. They are not really based on a disagreement over conclusions, but with the methods by which the conclusions were reached. When CTKA reviewed last year’s ludicrous Inside the Target Car, the authors indicated numerous points where the show clearly broke from the record to make their simulation work. (See here.) Yet, all those now exposed falsifications did not stop Discovery Channel from repeating that ridiculous show this year. As I pointed out in relation to the more recent show, this same unscholarly and dishonest process was repeated there. It is that kind of performance-the adulteration of the record, with key facts omitted – that drove the reputation of the Warren Commission into the ground.

    But with the present perpetrators, I think it is even worse. Why? Because now, through the releases of the Assassination Records Review Board, there is much startling new evidence that we know the Commission did not have. But yet with Mack/Dunkel, the production entity Creative Differences, and Discovery Channel, that monumental declassification process did not happen. In my 30 minute essay for the DVD version of the film JFK, I used about twenty times as many of these newly declassified documents as are in the combined three hours of The Ruby Connection, Inside the Target Car, and Did the Mob Kill JFK? And the few documents that the last show used, were misrepresented.

    In light of that unsavory fact, Mack/Dunkel, Discovery Channel and Creative Differences deserve everything that has been thrown at them. Because the only thing worse than an uninformed public is a misinformed one. And that is the true sin behind what these shows do: They deliberately mislead the public about an epochal event in twentieth century history. In light of that, the word “sin” is the proper word to use in this regard. As I indicated in my essay on Mack and his guru Dave Perry, Mack/Dunkel, like Doctor Faustus, has sold his soul. In his case, Perry was his Mephistopheles.

  • JFK: The Ruby Connection – Gary Mack’s Follies Continued, Part Two


    As I proved in Part One, the title to this documentary is a misnomer. Since it deliberately shears off all the possible connections Jack Ruby could have to the Kennedy assassination i.e., to the Cosa Nostra, to the CIA, to Oswald, and finally to the Dallas Police. In Part One, I presented only a précis of the multitude of connections Jack Ruby had to those three entities and to Oswald. Other authors, like Jim Marrs and John Armstrong, have done longer and fuller examinations of what those ties were. For instance, Armstrong traces Ruby’s gun-running activities with the CIA back to the late fifties. But how could that be if Castro was not in power at the time? Because, as it often does, the CIA was playing both sides in the Batista/Castro struggle. So they were actually sending some aid to Castro at the time. And Ruby appears to have been part of it. (See John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pgs. 177, 586)

    The Warren Commission attempted to conceal almost everything I dealt with in Part One. But since they published 26 volumes of evidence, some of it managed to slip through. In the intervening years, due to declassification, field investigation, and the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the final Commission cover-up about Ruby fell apart. (I say “final” because as we have seen, even the assistant counsel of the Commission understood that, with Ruby, it was just a matter of how hard you wanted to dig.) With his low-level ties to the CIA, and mid-level ties to the Cosa Nostra, plus his ties to the Dallas Police as a source of information about narcotics – and probably as a source of graft in more ways than one – Ruby seems a logical choice to enter the basement of City Hall on 11/24 and polish off Oswald.

    Like the Warren Commission, Gary Mack leaves all this out and reduces Jack Ruby, the man who Henry Hurt called, “A Pimp for All Seasons” , to a cipher. When, in fact, as far back as November of 1973 in Ramparts, Peter Dale Scott described Ruby as being part of the “longest cover-up”, and that Ruby’s sinister connections were even harder to conceal than Oswald’s. Scott wrote about the Ruby cover-up in 1973. This Discovery Channel program is being broadcast in November and December of 2009! Thirty six years later, they are continuing the Ruby cover-up.

    As with Inside the Target Car, once you understand the objective, you can understand why the show does what it does. Like the Warren Commission, if you conceal who Ruby is, then it is much easier to portray what he did as something like a random act of violence. Or as the Commission said, and Oliver Stone parodied so memorably, you can disguise Ruby killing Oswald as the desperate act of a patriotic bartender who wanted to spare Jackie Kennedy the pain of sitting through a trial. But by depriving Oswald of his day in court, what the Commission and Ruby actually accomplished was this: Oswald may very well have been acquitted at trial. Or worse, he may have talked during or before the proceedings. In that sense, Ruby’s silencing of Oswald can be seen as a way of sealing off the best attempt at cracking the conspiracy. If you do what this show does, that is send Ruby through a twenty dollar car wash, dry him off, spray deodorant all over him, and give him a makeover, then you mislead the audience as to any motive Ruby could have besides sparing Jackie Kennedy.

    But that is what this show does. And, as we shall see, Gary Mack knows better.

    I

    One of the more gassy and pretentious devices the show uses is a sub-titled timeline combined with a glass map over which the stage named Gary Mack (real name Larry Dunkel) traces with his finger. In other words, an event will be time stamped on the screen and then Mack/Dunkel will trace and match that with what the other party, say Ruby, was doing at the time. Or else he will trace the path that Ruby traveled from say his apartment to the Western Union station on Sunday morning. I think this was done to give the show a veneer of scientific investigation. In other words, to convince the audience that, as in Dragnet, the show was after “Just the facts, m’am.” The problem is that what matters are which facts you choose to time stamp, and how you figure that particular time. And the problems this show has in that regard are revealed very early.

    For instance, the narrator intones that Oswald took a bus, then a taxi out of Dealey Plaza after the assassination. He then arrived at his rooming house at about 1:00 PM, then Officer J. D. Tippit was shot at 1:15 at 10th and Patton. No surprise, the show agrees with the Warren Commission: Oswald shot him and then fled the scene. I exaggerate very slightly when I say that this is all dealt with in about a minute. In other words it is completely glossed over in order to incriminate Oswald in the Tippit murder. It is never explained that Oswald took a bus headed the wrong way, apparently realized it, and then walked back to the Dealey Plaza area. That he next hailed a taxi, and then offered to give up the taxi to an elderly lady who declined. When she did, he then took the taxi to a point actually past his rooming house. I believe all this is shoved under the rug so the viewer does not ask the logical questions which would follow: 1.) If he shot Kennedy why didn’t Oswald stay on the bus and take it to the outskirts of town? 2.) If he was in a hurry to leave the area, why did he return to it? 3.) If he wanted faster transportation out of town, why did he offer to give up the cab ride? 4.) Did he take his taxi past the rooming house in order to scope out if anyone was there?

    Once Oswald left his rooming house, why was he then last seen waiting for a bus going the wrong way from 10th and Patton, the scene of the Tippit murder? Mack/Dunkel then chose his time of Tippit’s murder to roughly match the Warren Commission’s time for the shooting. His 1:15 time is specious. But since Mack/Dunkel is protecting the official story he has to do it. But the two most reliable times at the scene of the shooting would make it nearly impossible for Oswald to arrive at the scene of the crime in time to kill Tippit then. Those would be T. F. Bowley and Helen Markham. (Markham did not become hysterical and unreliable until after the shooting.) Bowley said he looked at his watch after he stopped his car near the scene of the shooting. It said 1:10. (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 848) Markham had a regular routine where she washed her clothes at the washateria on the first floor of her building, then went to work. By this, she placed the time of the shooting at 1:06. (ibid, Armstrong) It would be incredible for Oswald to have traversed nearly a mile in the time period provided by these witnesses. So the Commission did two things. First, it ignored the actual time of its own reconstruction of the walk from the rooming house to 10th and Patton. It cut about five minutes from it. (Harold Weisberg Whitewash II, p. 25) As Weisberg writes, the Commission “staff got Oswald to the scene of the Tippit murder five minutes after the murder was broadcast on the police radio.” (ibid) Second, the Warren Commission requested a verbatim transcript of the police log. They ended up getting three versions of it: one in December, one in April, and one in August. The transcripts did not match each other. For instance, the order for Tippit to move into central Oak Cliff was absent from the first transcript. (See Weisberg, p. 24; Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 261) Further, the Secret Service “improvement” of the transcripts began as early as December 6th. (Weisberg, p. 25)

    The ballistics evidence at the scene of the crime exonerates Oswald further. So much so that it clearly suggests a cover up by the Dallas Police. There were two early reports by the police that the man at the scene was carrying an automatic pistol. In fact, Gerald Hill actually reported that the shells at the scene indicated the suspect was armed with an automatic. (Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins, p. 198) As both Garrison and Robert Groden (in his book The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald) show, it is hard to believe that anyone who could identify an automatic could mistake it for a revolver. And second, could mistake automatic shells for a revolver’s shells.

    The next Tippit anomaly was that the shells did not match the bullets. The police said there were two Winchester/Western shells and two Remington-Peters shells found at the scene. Yet, turned over to the Commission, were three Winchester copper bullets and one Remington lead bullet. (Armstrong, p. 850) As many have commented, since when does Remington put Winchester bullets in their shells?

    I say “turned over to the Commission” because the bullets had a strange chain of custody. Instead of sending all the bullets to the FBI lab, the Dallas Police sent only one. (Garrison, p. 199) Probably because they did not want to advertise the fact that the shells and bullets did not add up. They also held up the release of Tippit’s autopsy report for three weeks. (Weisberg, p. 28) This tardiness caused errors in the first Secret Service report of Tippit’s murder, which said he was shot only twice. When he was actually shot four times. (ibid, p. 26) The absence of an autopsy report also allowed the police to tell the FBI that this was the only bullet found in Tippit’s body. (Garrison, p. 199) Which was false. (Weisberg, p. 29)

    This bullet did not match Oswald’s revolver. The reason given was that the bullet was too mutilated. (Armstrong, p. 850) So now the Commission asked the FBI to find the other bullets. Four months later they were found in the files of the Dallas homicide office, the domain of Capt. Will Fritz – aka Barney Fife. (Garrison, ibid) There has never been any cogent reason proffered as to why they were kept from the Bureau and the Commission for that long.

    But the FBI told the Commission that they still could not find a match. The reason given was that the revolver attributed to Oswald was a .38 Special that had its bullet chambers slightly enlarged so the identification markings were difficult to decipher.(Armstrong, ibid) So now the ballistics evidence relied on the cartridges to link Oswald to the crime. The cartridges, unlike the bullets, were in the province of the police from the time of the murder. At the scene of the crime, the police are supposed to make out a report listing the evidence recovered there. The police did not list any cartridges as first day evidence. (Garrison, p. 200) It was not until six days after the police sent the single bullet to the FBI that the cartridges made it into the evidence summary. Again, why this was so has never been adequately explained. Once they arrived, presto! The FBI said they matched the revolver in evidence.

    Except there was a huge cloud over this alleged match. At the scene of the crime, Gerald Hill told officer J. M. Poe to mark the shells for identification purposes. (Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, p. 153) This was a routine matter for a homicide detective, which Poe was. In 1984 Poe told author Henry Hurt that he was certain he had done this. When Hurt inspected the shells at the National Archives, Poe’s initials were nowhere to be found. (ibid, p. 154) As both Hurt and Garrison write, the ballistics evidence more than suggests that the murderer was not Oswald. That the Dallas Police understood this. That they then fired the revolver in evidence after the fact in order to finally produce shells that matched the revolver.

    I could go into other aspects of the Tippit murder that exculpate Oswald. A witness said that the killer came up to the right side of the car and might have touched it. Fingerprints were later recovered from that part of the cruiser car. They did not match Oswald’s. (Armstrong, p. 861) There was also the allegedly discarded jacket with a laundry tag. The Commission checked 293 laundries in both New Orleans and Dallas but was unable to match the tag or laundry mark on the jacket to any of them. (ibid p. 855) But for me the clincher is the following.

    When FBI agent Bob Barrett arrived at the scene of the murder, Captain Westbrook asked him two odd questions: “Do you know who Lee Harvey Oswald is?” and then, “Do you know who Alek Hidell is?” Barrett said no to both since Oswald has not been charged yet with the Tippit murder. So how could Westbrook know about him at that time? Because Westbrook had a wallet with both of those name identifications inside. (ibid, p. 862) He found it near a puddle of blood where Tippit’s body was. WFAA-TV cameraman Ron Reiland shot film footage of the wallet being passed around to various law enforcement agents at the scene. But the official story has Oswald’s wallet being discovered on his person as he was driven from the Texas Theater, where he was apprehended, to City Hall. It was then turned over to Officer C. T. Walker. (ibid, p. 868) Yet, according to the Warren Report, Oswald allegedly left his wallet in a dresser drawer at the Paine household that morning. (p. 15)

    What kind of a person maintains three wallets? And then carries two wallets to work with him? But worse, if Oswald shot Tippit, why on earth would he leave his wallet at the scene of the crime?

    In the face of the evidentiary mess above, Mack/Dunkel says that the Tippit murder is an open and shut case: Oswald did it. To which I reply: “Are you for real?” Which, as we shall see, this program is not.

    II

    Mack/Dunkel begins the program with the complaint that Jack Ruby cheated history. Which might be a good way to open a show that was open ended in its discussion of the Kennedy case. Maybe we will now see both sides of the argument and be allowed to come to our own conclusions. But Mack/Dunkel quickly reveals this will not be the approach. He quickly adds that Ruby cheated history only insofar as the public will never know what drove Oswald to do what he did that day. You mean like murdering Tippit? Question to Gary/Larry: Would you like to explain to a jury how Oswald had three wallets on the morning of November 22nd? Would you also like to explain to them how Detective Poe’s initials disappeared from the shells? Or how a jacket with a laundry tag never got laundered?

    The show also says that Oswald was 1.) a rabid Marxist, 2.) a Soviet exile and 3.) a Marine marksman. My reply to this is: Three strikes and you’re out. He was none of these. A rabid Marxist who knew no other Marxists, eh? When was Oswald exiled from the Soviet Union? The record says he left on his own with a Russian wife. Finally, he may have technically qualified as a Marine marksman since that was the lowest qualifying category. But everyone, even members of the Commission like Wesley Liebeler, understood he was not a good shot. And no one who saw him fire could believe he pulled off the extraordinary feat of sharpshooting that killed President Kennedy. (Hurt, p. 198)

    Mack/Dunkel keeps up the program’s low level of scholarship by saying that, when Oswald was arrested at the Texas Theater, he drew his handgun and attempted to fire at a cop. Gil Jesus, among others, has shown that this was later exposed as a likely fabrication. Testimony by the FBI said that the firing pin never touched any of the bullets in the chambers. So what did the Dallas Police come up with as a fallback? That Oswald’s skin got caught in the mechanism. Hmm.

    One of the strangest and most shameful episodes in the program is how it deals with Ruby’s presence at the press conference on the evening of November 22nd at Dallas Police HQ. They acknowledge that Ruby was there. They even show two still photographs of him. But Mack/Dunkel can’t bring himself to tell the American public two crucial facts about his presence there. First, that Ruby attempted to disguise himself as a reporter while in the gallery of DA Henry Wade’s press conference. (Hurt, p. 185) By ignoring that, Mack/Dunkel does not have to explain why Ruby would do such a thing.

    But second, and even worse, Mack/Dunkel does not tell the public that Ruby actually said something during this conference. In briefing the press about Oswald, Wade mistakenly said he belonged to the Free Cuba Committee, which was a rightwing, anti-Castro group. Ruby quickly corrected this error and said that Oswald belonged to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, a leftist pro-Castro group. (Hurt, p. 186) Ruby apparently knew the difference between them. But further, he wanted the record to show that Wade was wrong and there should be no confusion about Oswald. By depriving the public of this crucial information, Mack/Dunkel cuts off any curiosity about how Ruby could know such a thing about Oswald and why he would be determined to correct the record. No one else did.

    Throughout this coverage of Friday, Mack/Dunkel is hard at work on his See No Evil-Hear No Evil-Say No Evil time line showing no relation between Oswald and Ruby’s activities. Let’s make a different time line of Ruby’s Friday activities. One that is not censored by a preconceived agenda. Let’s start with Julia Ann Mercer’s testimony. Remember, the Commission did not call her as a witness and she is not mentioned in the Warren Report. (Hurt, p. 114) So apparently, for this program, she doesn’t exist. Mercer said that a little before 11:00 AM, she was driving west on Elm Street, a little beyond where President Kennedy would be killed. Once she got past the triple underpass, traffic was slowed by a green truck stopped in her lane. As she waited, a young man got out of the passenger’s side and went to the side tool compartment. He then took out a long package and walked up the embankment to the grassy knoll area. As she tried to pass the truck, her eyes locked onto the driver. She got a good look at him. She later identified this man as Ruby. (ibid, pgs. 114-115)

    Ruby was next seen at the offices of the Dallas Morning News. This was right around the time of the assassination. One reporter said that Ruby disappeared for about 20-25 minutes, and then reappeared after the assassination. There is a photo of a man who looks much like Ruby in Dealey Plaza. And the newspaper offices were only four blocks away. If the idea was to give himself a convenient alibi, but to be in relatively close proximity to the crime scene, this fit the bill. (ibid, p. 184)

    After the assassination, at around 1:30 PM, Ruby was seen by two reliable witnesses at Parkland Hospital. One of the witnesses, reporter Seth Kantor, said he actually exchanged words with Ruby. (ibid) The Warren Commission bought Ruby’s denial about this incident. The House Select Committee on Assassinations didn’t buy it. They believed Ruby was there. As some have speculated, it may have been Ruby who planted the Magic Bullet on the wrong stretcher at Parkland Hospital.

    After Oswald was apprehended and paraded out for his first line up, there are reports of Ruby being at the police department. This was about 4:30 and “he spoke and shook hands with people he knew.” (ibid, p.185)

    That evening, Ruby decided to take some sandwiches up to the police department for those cops working over time on the JFK case. He called in advance and was told this was not necessary. But he showed up anyway. (Ibid) He ended up on the third floor, mingling with reporters. He then followed the reporters to the basement and did his reporter impression. Except, at that time, he knew more than either Wade or the reporters did about Oswald.

    Talk about connections. There is a barrel full of them. You have Ruby possibly delivering a weapon to the crime scene, allowing himself an alibi for being near the actual shooting, following Kennedy’s body to Parkland – and perhaps planting a false bullet – monitoring Oswald’s movements at the Dallas Police HQ, and finally sneaking into a press conference and maintaining Oswald as a fake Marxist by correcting an error by the DA. If the program had given us Ruby’s true background, as I did in Part One, and then drew this particular time line, the audience could have come to a more informed opinion about Ruby’s possible connections to the JFK murder. In regards to that, I must quote Mack/Dunkel’s comment: “The problem for those investigating the assassination is whether or not to put Ruby involved in a conspiracy with Oswald: how do they mix the two together in a way that makes sense today?” My reply: Did you ever hear of the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro? If so, why did you not mention them?

    In light of what the show actually does, the real title of the program should be: “How to Erase Ruby’s Connections to the JFK case”.

    III

    As with the Tippit killing, the show assumes Oswald killed Kennedy. Mack/Dunkel has former Dallas cop Jim Leavelle say that if Oswald had not been killed, he would have been convicted and may still have been incarcerated and running out his appeals. Mack/Dunkel echoes this by saying that many people wonder what would have happened if Oswald had gone to trial. He then adds that a good lawyer would want to keep Oswald off the stand and that a lot of testimony would have been presented as to what did and did not happen.

    By doing this, the show cuts off any possibility of a conspiracy in the JFK case. Which, of course, makes the whole “patriotic nightclub owner” façade possible. Personally, if I was on the defense team, I would have put Oswald on the stand. One question I would have asked him is this: Did you ever live at 544 Camp street? If not, then why did you stamp that address on the flyers you handed out in New Orleans? This would have shown Oswald for who he really was. I then would have handed him a hunting round, like the one Parkland security officer O. P. Wright found and gave to the Secret Service. I would then have produced the rifle in evidence and asked Oswald if he thought that round would work in that rifle. I would then have asked him if he ever purchased the proper ammunition for that rifle, which an investigation showed he did not. I then would have recalled Wright to the stand and asked him if the FBI ever showed him CE 399-the so-called Magic Bullet that went through President Kennedy and Gov. Connally – and if so, had he identified it as the bullet he turned over to the Secret Service. After he said he did not, I would have exposed the FBI as liars in that regard. (Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 175) Then, to further decimate the ballistics evidence, I would have called FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd to the stand. I would have shown him the FBI document that says he placed his initials on CE 399. I then would have handed him CE 399 and asked him where those initials were. After he failed to locate them, since they are not there, I would have further exposed the FBI frame up of Oswald. I then would have shown Todd the receipt that says he got CE 399 at the White House from the Secret Service at 8:50 the night of the 22nd. I then would have shown him Robert Frazier’s work log which says he received the stretcher bullet at FBI HQ at 7:30, an hour and twenty minutes before Todd gave it to him. (See my Reclaiming History series, Part 7, Section three) I would then have asked Todd how Frazier could have been in receipt of CE 399 before he gave it to him. When Todd got tongue-tied, I would have asked the judge to throw out the prosecution’s case. The prosecution would have probably offered no objection. If the judge was anyone besides Mack/Dunkel, he would have granted the motion.

    So much for the empty, unchallenged claims of Dallas cop Jim Leavelle.

    From here the show moves to Mack/Dunkel’s grand finale. Which he actually called a “recreation” of Ruby’s killing of Oswald. It has about as much credibility as his recreation of Kennedy’s assassination for Inside the Target Car. Which is none.

    Mack begins with the call from Ruby employee Karen Carlin to Ruby’s apartment on the morning of the 24th. This was a request for an advance on her salary. By beginning with this, Mack/Dunkel informs the knowledgeable viewer that he has no intention of telling the whole story. By beginning here, he leaves out the fact that Ruby had arranged a smaller payment to Karen the night before. (Commission Exhibit 2287) So she could have asked him for this further advance on Saturday night. Mack/Dunkel then adds that without this call, Ruby would not have been at City Hall to kill Ruby. What he leaves out is that during Karen’s Warren Commission testimony, it became evident that Ruby himself had arranged the Sunday morning call in advance. (WC Vol. XV, p. 663) Which turns the program’s thesis in this regard on its ear.

    Another thing left out by beginning where he does is the testimony of Bill Grammar. Grammar was a police dispatcher. He was on duty Saturday night. He got a call then concerning Oswald’s Sunday transfer. The message was something like: “You have to change the plan. If not, we are going to kill him.” (italics added) Grammar knew Ruby, and he said the caller called him by name. The next day, when he heard that Ruby had shot Oswald, he retroactively put the voice together with the man who called him. He concluded the murder was planned. (see an interview with Grammar.)

    Another key point left out by beginning here is the fact that there is uncertainty about Ruby’s activities that morning. This is something that even the Warren Report admitted. (WR p. 352) As Anthony Summers wrote, the Carlin call was preceded by a call from Ruby’s cleaning lady. She later said that the voice on the other end sounded terribly strange to her. She wasn’t sure it was Ruby. (Summers, Conspiracy, p. 460) Three television technicians – Warren Richey, Ira Walker, and John Smith – said they saw Ruby that morning before ten o’clock. He asked them, “Has Oswald been brought down yet?” (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 418) At around this same time, a church minister said he was on an elevator with Ruby and his destination was the floor where Oswald was located. (op cit, Summers) Its interesting that Mack/Dunkel places the Carlin call at 9:30. But his Bible, the Warren Report, places the call almost an hour later. (WR p. 353) Mack/Dunkel might have moved up the call in order to clash with the four witnesses who place Ruby at City Hall at the earlier time.

    Let’s stop here and measure the evidence the program has left out before Ruby even left for Western Union.

    1. Bill Grammar says that Ruby called him to stop the transfer to prevent Oswald from being killed.
    2. If that failed, Ruby had arranged for an employee to call him that morning so he would be in close proximity to police HQ.
    3. There is testimony that Ruby was at police HQ before the Carlin call.

    The show then says that the police tried to guard the basement from false entry and believed all the doors were secure. Which, as both Burt Griffin of the Commission and the HSCA discovered, they were not. Griffin told Summers that he thought the police lacked credibility about the security of the basement at the time of the transfer. (p. 463) Griffin’s suspicions centered on officer Patrick Dean. Dean told Griffin that Ruby would have needed a key to enter a certain door in the basement. This was wrong. (HSCA Vol. IX, p. 143) Griffin grew so frustrated at Dean’s answers that he blew up at him and repeatedly called him a liar. (Meagher, pgs. 412-13) He then wrote a memo to Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin in which he said that Dean had been derelict in securing the basement. That Griffin had reason to believe Ruby did not come down the Main Street ramp. Finally, that he suspected Dean was now part of a cover-up and was advising Ruby to say he did come down the ramp even though he knew he had not. (Seth Kantor, The Ruby Cover-Up, p. 20)

    If you can believe it, the names of Patrick Dean and Burt Griffin are not mentioned in this program. By doing this, Mack/Dunkel eliminates any possibility of Ruby having an inside man at the police station.

    The program then gets worse. As I noted in my Reclaiming History review (Part Six, section 6), once Ruby got to the Western Union station, it was easy for him to be hand signaled from the rear of City Hall and then let inside through an alley door. The program leaves this out and opts for the Warren Commission scenario of Ruby coming straight down the Main Street ramp. But then, in a shocking stroke, they leave out the testimony of Roy Vaughn, Don Flusche, and Rio Pierce. They had to in order to make their “reconstruction” digestible. In the spirit of free speech and honest debate, let us reveal what JFK: The Ruby Connection chooses to conceal from the viewer.

    Vaughn was the officer at the top of the ramp who stopped any unauthorized person from entering the basement. He staunchly denied Ruby came down the ramp and passed a polygraph on the subject. (WR pgs. 221-22, Meagher p. 407))

    Sgt. Don Flusche was an officer stationed outside the ramp and had a clear view of both Main Street and the ramp prior to the shooting. His testimony was kept from the Commission. But he told Jack Moriarty of the HSCA that there was no doubt in his mind that Ruby did not walk down the ramp. Further, he was sure that Ruby did not come down Main Street. (HSCA Vol. IX, pgs 138-39)

    Pierce was the driver of the car that came out the ramp and according to the Commission blocked Vaughn’s view of Ruby coming down the ramp. Nobody in the car said he saw Ruby coming down the ramp. (Meagher, pgs 404-405) How can anyone make a show about Ruby’s shooting of Oswald and leave this testimony out? It was because of the weight of this evidence, plus the fact that Dean refused to appear before them, that the HSCA concluded Ruby did not enter the basement by way of the ramp. (op. cit. HSCA, p. 140)

    The fact that Mack/Dunkel keeps the crucial testimony of these three men from the viewer tells us all we need to know about the honesty of this program.

    IV

    At the end, Mack/Dunkel puts together his “reconstruction” of the murder of Oswald. In defiance of all the above, he has Ruby coming down the Main Street ramp. He then says that instead of having the Carlin money transfer stamped at 11:17 from Western Union, Ruby should have been in the basement of the police station at that time. This ignores two salient facts. First, if Ruby had been hand signaled from the back of the building, that would not have been necessary. Second, the longer Ruby was in the garage, the higher the risk that an honest cop could have spotted him.

    The show then intersperses scenes of the actual shooting with the program’s modern day reenactment. And I must comment on something that seemed odd to me as I watched the intercutting. The two settings did not seem to match. The walls of the corridor did not seem to extend as far outward into the actual parking area as the 1963 films seem to show. It appears that either the area was remodeled or the little playlet was staged in a different place. There was no explanation given for this apparent discrepancy.

    The show tries to place the blame for the shooting of Oswald on the fact that the transfer car was not in its proper place at the time Oswald was escorted down the corridor. Which, as I said, is foreshortened here. This takes away the depth factor that is apparent in the actual films. But if the depth factor was there, this ersatz point about the car would be vitiated. In boxing, there is a term called “shortening the angle”. This refers to a fighter who, instead of throwing a punch from the front, steps to the side of his opponent to shorten the distance to deliver the blow. Well in the actual films, its clear that Ruby could have done this if the car had been in its right spot. That is, instead of looping out from the front, he could have just slid down to his right, stepped into the corridor, and fired. The fault was not in the angle, or the car. The fact that made the shooting possible was something that, unbelievably, Mack/Dunkel never mentions. Even though it is obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.

    As Australian researcher Greg Parker has noted, the police had planned a four point pocket around Oswald as they escorted him down the corridor. This meant one man behind him , one on each side, and another in front. If this would have been maintained, it would have been difficult for Ruby to kill Oswald no matter where the car was. In all probability, Ruby would have had to delay the attempt until after the transfer, later at the press conference at the county jail. But what made that unnecessary for him was the fact that the man in front broke protection and separated himself from Oswald by several yards. This allowed Ruby enough space to kill Oswald from any angle from the side he was on (which would be Oswald’s left). The man who broke the protection pocket, allowing Oswald to be shot, was Capt. Will Fritz (Barney Fife). It is very hard to believe that Mack/Dunkel never noticed this as he watched this film over and over. In fact, I will say here and now that he did notice it.

    Why am I sure? Because as I watched this scene, I had a similar shock as I did when watching Inside the Target Car. When Mack/Dunkel drew his imaginary line back to the sixth floor window in that show, my eyebrows arched upward. Because I noticed he had moved the exit wound on Kennedy’s skull in order to make that line possible. Well here, I watched the “reconstruction” over and over and I saw that Mack/Dunkel had completely eliminated Fritz from the recreation. Yep. He did. So the viewer has the most crucial flaw – the one that made Ruby’s shooting of Oswald possible – removed from his consciousness. If I say so myself, even for Mack/Dunkel and the Sixth Floor Museum, that was an Orwellian stroke.

    The other thing he does is to rearrange the two horns. As I have written, in the unedited version of the shooting there are two horns that go off. Once you are aware of them, it is almost eerie to watch the shooting. The first goes off at almost the instant Oswald emerges from the office and into the corridor. The second goes off a brief instant before Ruby plunges forward to kill Oswald. It is possible to see the first one as a signal for Ruby to move into position, and the second as the signal to fire. In the first run through, Mack moves the first horn way past the point where Oswald has come into view from the office. In the second run through, the first horn is much closer in accuracy but the second horn, like Fritz, is just eliminated.

    The show also tries to cloud the idea that Oswald recognized Ruby and that is why he turned sideways at the last instant – which made the shot fatal. As Dr. Robert McClelland said at the 2009 JFK Lancer Conference, if the angle of the shot had been straight on, there is a possibility Oswald could have survived. The program tries to say that Oswald could not have seen Ruby because the media lights were too powerful. First, it appears to me that the “recreation” does not position those lights as accurately as possible. It makes it look like someone like say, Oscar winning cinematographer Haskell Wexler, was lighting a movie set. Second, even on the show’s own lighting terms, Oswald would have been able to recognize Ruby as he got in front of him.

    One last point about this issue: Mack/Dunkel tries to seal this point by having the ever cooperative Leavelle say that it was he who turned Oswald sideways when he saw Ruby approach. But its obvious from still photos that when Ruby plunges the gun into Oswald’s stomach, Leavelle is not looking at Ruby, but at the car.

    Mack/Orwell then tries to wrap it all up with two specious closing pronouncements. First, he says that the conspirators could not have known when Oswald was going to talk. He could have talked the first day. Really? Oswald was not charged with the Kennedy murder until late Friday night. In fact, he actually seems to be a bit surprised when a reporter tells him this. Second, Oswald had been paraded around the station, going to line ups and interrogation sessions, throughout Friday and Saturday. And Wade and Fritz were giving impromptu and formal press conferences throughout both days. This provided good monitoring of the situation. But the clincher here is something that, of course, this show eliminates. On Saturday night, Oswald tried to make his call to John Hurt, the former military intelligence officer who was stationed in North Carolina. The man who former CIA officer Victor Marchetti says was likely part of the false defector program at the naval station at Nag’s Head. (James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 366) In other words, it was the first sign that Oswald was trying to contact someone through an intelligence cut-out. That call was aborted by the Secret Service. It was never let through. The next morning Oswald was dead. Gary or Larry, I think that timing is kind of important.

    The last piece of obfuscation the show uses is the old standby: Too many people had to be involved for this to happen. Well let’s see: If there was one man on the police security team who failed to secure the basement, and then this guy signaled Ruby from the back, and then let him in the alley door … well that would be a grand total of two people, if you count Ruby. Way back in 1964, Burt Griffin had a suspect as Ruby’s accomplice. His name was Patrick Dean. Dean reportedly flunked his polygraph. The results of which are nowhere to be found today. (Summers, p. 464, HSCA Vol. IX p. 139) Roy Vaughn, the man who the Commission tried to pin Ruby’s entry into the basement on, passed his test.

    Let me conclude with another key event this show leaves out. It indicates Ruby’s mindset at the time, something the show also tries to confuse. Detective Don Archer was with Ruby after he was in custody after the murder. Ruby was very nervous: “He was sweating profusely. I could hear his heart beating. He asked for one of my cigarettes. I gave him a cigarette. Finally … the head of the Secret Service came up-and he told me that Oswald had died. This should have shocked Ruby because it would mean the death penalty … .Instead of being shocked, he became calm, he quit sweating, his heart slowed down. I asked him if he wanted a cigarette, and he advised me he didn’t smoke. I was just astonished … I would say his life had depended on him getting Oswald.” (Marrs, pgs. 423-424)

    In light of Archer’s assertion, it’s hard to see Ruby’s act as anything but a necessary silencing of Oswald. The viewers of this show are deprived of that knowledge by censorship. They are also deprived of the reasons Ruby would feel that way, which I provided in detail in Part One. But Ruby himself succinctly summarized them when he said: “They’re going to find about Cuba. They’re going to find out about the guns. They’re going to find out about New Orleans, find about everything.” (Armstrong, p. 193) If I was doing a documentary about Ruby, I would place this on screen as a closing quote. Like just about everything else in JFK: The Ruby Connection, it is nowhere to be found.

    Larry Dunkel and the Sixth Floor are involved in serious, no-holds barred psychological warfare against the American public on the Kennedy case. In their brazen disregard of any journalistic integrity, their script and techniques might have been written by the likes of Allen Dulles or James Angleton.

    How the Discovery Channel got involved in this dirty work is a mystery that needs to be addressed.


    Go to Part Three

  • JFK: The Ruby Connection – Gary Mack’s Follies, Part One


    All you need to know about the value of the Discovery Channel program JFK: The Ruby Connection is this: Gary Mack is the main talking head, host, and interviewer. If one recalls last year’s Discovery debacle, Inside the Target Car, Mack used a series of tricks and omissions to achieve a preordained goal. As they say in the computer programming business it was garbage in, garbage out. In that show, Mack bamboozled the uninitiated in the audience by placing Jackie Kennedy in the wrong position in the limousine (even though Robert Groden told him about this error in advance); he put the exit wound in the wrong place on JFK’s head; and he used “replica” skulls that could not have been actual replicas.

    These “errors” were all done with apparent objectives in mind. The first was to make the audience believe that if an assassin fired from a certain position from the right front, he would have hit both President Kennedy and Jackie. The actual frames from the Zapruder film prove this is false, Jackie was out of the line of fire. And Gary Mack has watched that film dozens of times. Further, as I said, , Bob Groden alerted him about this on the set. But the truth didn’t seem to matter. Mack then placed the exit wound in President Kennedy’s skull in a different place than the autopsy report. This second “error” allowed Mack to draw a trajectory line back to the sixth floor. Something he could not have done with the exit location described in the autopsy report, which – on camera – Mack said he had read. Third, he also contracted out with an Australian defense company, to construct “replica” skulls which – as it turned out – were not replicas. As Milicent Cranor pointed out, Mack’s own experiment proved they were not. For the bullets fired through the ersatz “replica” skulls did not break apart. But the Warren Commission said that the bullet that killed Kennedy did. Afterwards, Gary Mack said he couldn’t figure out why they did not. That’s funny. Milicent and I sure could. As I noted, what this experiment actually proved is that: 1.) Either President Kennedy was not hit by Mannlicher Carcano bullets, or 2.) The “replica” skulls were replicas only in the mind of Gary Mack. That is they deliberately did not have anywhere near the density they needed to shatter a bullet. This was obvious in the section of the show where a hunting round was fired at the phony replicas. The ersatz skulls completely shattered like a special effect out of a slasher movie. Not in real life.

    I could go on and on about how bad this show was. But I refer you to our gallery of reviews, which deals with that now notorious program. Evidently, like John Lattimer, Gerald Posner, and Dan Rather before him, Gary Mack is being well paid for his sales services. Since it looks like he didn’t care about being exposed on each and every level and from multiple angles for Inside the Target Car. If you can believe it, he is at it again. This time, instead of the murder of President Kennedy, his subject is the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. The guy who Mack – in his new incarnation – now says shot Kennedy.

    At this point, it is important to remind the novice reader of an important fact about Gary Mack. Like Gus Russo and Dale Myers before him, Mack used to be a Warren Commission critic. That is, he used to think Oswald did not shoot Kennedy and the Warren Commission was full of bunk. Around the time of Oliver Stone’s JFK, Russo’s lifelong friend Dave Perry became his guru during Mack’s conversion period. And, according to Perry, he himself was instrumental in getting the reincarnated Gary Mack his present position as Curator of The Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. (After Perry’s confession about this emerged, Mack denied Perry’s self-admitted role in his job hunt. So they probably have their stories straightened out by now.)

    But the important point about Mack’s conversion is this: Like Russo and Myers, Mack knows what the holes in the official story are. He knows how the critics – with very little money or media exposure – have connected with the public on them. Now that he has flipped sides, he uses the finances of the MSM to mend those holes in the official story. But like Lattimer, Posner, and Rather before him – and as profusely demonstrated by Inside the Target Car – the holes are simply too large for any kind of simple stitching. So what Mack creates is a kind of diaphanous crazy quilt that falls apart at the slightest poke.

    I

    “What concerned Moroccan officials … was a letter they discovered on Davis … dealing with “Oswald” and the assassination.”

    —Henry Hurt, describing Ruby’s friend Thomas Davis

    One of the problems with this show is that its very title is deceptive. Because there is simply no exploration of who Jack Ruby was and what his connections to the John F. Kennedy case were or may have been. I say “may have been” because, as with Oswald, the Warren Commission’s exploration of Ruby’s actual background was, to be kind, cursory. To be unkind, today it looks humorous. For instance, the Commission famously wrote that Ruby had no significant link to organized crime. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 389) Yet the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) listed a series of phone calls made by Ruby in the month leading up to the murder of Kennedy. It clearly exposes that assertion as dubious. In fact, the House Select Committee specifically criticized both the Warren Commission and the FBI for “failing to analyze systematically … the data in those records. ” (Vol. V, p. 188) Ruby’s phone usage went up by a factor of 300% in November of 1963. (ibid p. 190) At this time, Ruby was in phone contact with the likes of Irwin Wiener, Barney Baker, Nofio Pecora, Lewis McWillie, and Dusty Miller, all of who had ties to organized crime. (ibid pgs. 193-195) And as Jim Marrs writes in Crossfire, “the record shows his involvement in a number of criminal activities including gambling, narcotics, prostitution, and gun running.” (Marrs, p. 389) But, as the quote above shows, these activities were not done only with the Mafia.

    Ruby’s gun running was at least partly done with former CIA agent Thomas Eli Davis. (Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, pgs 401-405) And Davis’ connections reportedly went all the way up to the CIA assassin famously code named QJ/WIN. Davis had a slight resemblance to Oswald and he used the name Oswald at times in his work. (ibid, p. 402) In fact, Ruby was so close to Davis that, after he shot Oswald, Ruby actually volunteered Davis’ name to his attorneys. Incredibly, Ruby said that if he beat the Oswald rap he wanted to go back into the gun running business with Davis. (ibid) Both Davis and Ruby had been involved with another gun runner named Robert McKeown. (ibid) McKeown had run guns to Castro and during one of Ruby’s contacts with McKeown, Ruby offered him 25,000 dollars for a letter of introduction to the Cuban dictator. (Hurt p. 177) Where Ruby would get that kind of money and why he himself needed to contact Fidel so badly is something that we will mention later, but which Gary Mack never brings up in this show that supposedly tells the viewer about Ruby’s connections to the JFK case.

    Neither does Mack explain another interesting riddle. Less than three weeks after the assassination, Davis was attempting to sell guns in Morocco. He was arrested. While he was searched, the authorities found a strange handwritten letter on him referring to “Oswald” and the assassination. (ibid p. 403) In fact, there is evidence that on the day of Kennedy’s murder, Davis was in Algiers for gun-running activities, and was released with the help of QJ/WIN himself. (ibid p. 404) Geez, those are interesting Ruby connections to the JFK case: Castro, the Mafia, the CIA, and the usage of Oswald’s name. They aren’t on this program though.

    Ruby also lied about how many times he had been to Cuba. He said he had been there only once, in August of 1959. (ibid, p. 178) Yet there is evidence Ruby was there two times just in that same year. Again, it appears the Commission tried to cover up this fact about Ruby. How? By blending the two trips, which took place in August and September, into one. (Warren Report, p. 370, p. 802, WC Vol. XXII p. 859) Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel of the HSCA, once wrote that it was “…established beyond doubt that Ruby lied repeatedly and willfully to the FBI and the Warren Commission about the number of trips he made to Cuba and their duration … Their purpose, was to courier something, probably money, into or out of Cuba.” (Marrs, p. 394)

    The man who Ruby was closest to in Havana was the mob associated gambler, Lewis McWillie. Elaine Mynier, a girlfriend of McWillie, described the two men. She said McWillie was “…a big time gambler, who has always been in the big money and operated top gambling establishments in the United States and Cuba. He always had a torpedo (a bodyguard) living with him for protection.” She went on to say that Ruby was “a small time character who would do anything for McWillie … (Marrs, p. 393, italics added) The Commission had to have known that McWillie was a gambler and killer who Ruby idolized. (WC Vol. V, p. 201, Vol. XXIII, p. 166) While managing the Tropicana in Havana, McWillie became associated with some of the Mob’s top leaders like Santo Trafficante and Meyer Lansky, who were part owners. (FBI Memo of 3/26/64) It was Trafficante’s association with McWillie that has led some commentators to relate one of Ruby’s visits to McKeown as a favor for McWillie. In early 1959, McWillie’s boss Trafficante was arrested and jailed outside of Havana by Castro. Just a few days later, Ruby got in contact with McKeown. He told McKeown that he represented Las Vegas interests who were seeking the release of three prisoners in Cuba. Ruby told him that he would offer him five thousand dollars per prisoner for his help. McKeown said he wanted to see the money first. (Marrs, p. 396)

    McWillie was also a former employee of a main power inside the Delois Green gang – Benny Binion – who had moved to Las Vegas. Binion also worked at the Tropicana in Havana in 1959. (See CD 1193, WC Vol. XXIII p. 163) Binion probably knew Frank Sturgis since Sturgis was Castro’s supervisor of gambling concessions in 1959. Further, Ruby was reportedly involved in gun running with Miami arms dealer Eddie Browder. Browder was also involved with Sturgis. (Marrs, p. 392) Frank Sturgis, of course, was connected to the CIA, Castro, and the Mafia.

    There was also the testimony of Ruby employee Nancy Perrin Rich to attest to Ruby’s intelligence ties and his gun running activities. She testified that she had moved to Dallas in 1962 to reconcile with her husband Robert. Once they did so, two local detectives who knew Robert had helped her find a job. It was tending bar for Jack Ruby. But she said she didn’t like Ruby because of his overbearing manner and temper. So she quit.

    She said that later her husband Robert had met with a military officer about getting some anti-Castro Cubans out of Cuba and into Miami. This meeting in Dallas was presided over by a U.S. Army colonel. The colonel suggested a cash payment of ten grand. A few nights later, the Perrins met again with the colonel but this time there were a couple of Cubans in attendance. At this second meeting the assignment was more well-defined. They were not just going to get refugees out; they were also running guns into Cuba. When they heard this, the Perrins wanted more money. The implication made by the Cubans and colonel was that the money would be arriving soon via a bagman. Rich then told the Commission: “I had the shock of my life … A knock comes on the door and who walks in but my little friend Jack Ruby … and everybody looks like … here comes the savior.” The Commission did not mention any of Rich’s testimony in their report. Further, in 1966, Nancy Rich told Mark Lane that the Commission had eliminated the telling detail that, outside of the apartment house where the second meeting took place, was a cache of military armaments. (Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, pgs 287-297, Marrs, p. 397)

    In fact, this aspect of Ruby’s life – his relations to CIA-Mafia activities in Cuba – was obvious to even Commission staffers. Warren Commission attorneys Leon Hubert and Burt Griffin, who ran the Ruby investigation, wrote a memo to Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin in March of 1964. They wrote that, “The most promising links between Jack Ruby and the assassination of President Kennedy are established through underworld figures and anti-Castro Cubans and extreme right-wing Americans.” (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 948) Two months later, they wrote another memo: “We believe that a reasonable possibility exists that Ruby has maintained a close interest in Cuban affairs to the extent necessary to participate in gun sales and smuggling … Neither Oswald’s Cuban interests in Dallas nor Ruby’s Cuban activities have been adequately explored … We believe the possibility exists, based on evidence already available, that Ruby was involved in illegal dealings with Cuban elements who might have had contact with Oswald. The existence of such dealings can only be surmised since the present investigation has not focused on that area.” (WC Memorandum to J. Lee Rankin, 5/14/64) In other words, Griffin and Hubert were saying that the connection between the two men very likely existed in these Cuban matters. But since the FBI was not interested in it, they couldn’t really discover if it was there.

    Like Oswald, Jack Ruby was in the middle of the Cuban conflict as it extended into the United States. And he connected to each of the domestic power centers that interacted with that conflict. The program under review is silent about this.

    II

    “Starting with Sunday afternoon, you could no longer find a policeman in town who said he knew Ruby.”

    —Seth Kantor

    As most everyone knows today, but what this show does not reveal, is that Ruby was also an FBI informant. A fact that J. Edgar Hoover tried to get the Warren Commission to conceal. Which they willingly did for him. (Hurt, p. 177) As one FBI report, partly censored by the Warren Commission revealed, the FBI not only knew about Ruby’s ties to underworld gambling in Dallas and Fort Worth, but their informant said that for Ruby to carry them on as he did, he had to have police connections in both cities. (FBI report of 12/6/63) This informant, a man named William Abadie, had briefly worked for Ruby writing gambling “tickets” as well as serving as a “slot machine and jukebox mechanic.” He went on to say that he had observed policemen coming and going while acting as a bookie in Ruby’s establishment.

    Further in this regard, Jim Marrs writes that another source told the Bureau that when he attempted to set up a lottery game in Dallas in 1962, he “was told it would be necessary to obtain the approval of Jack Ruby, since any “fix” with local authorities had to come through Ruby.” (Marrs, p. 390) Another source echoed this accusation by saying that Ruby was a payoff man for the Dallas Police Department. (CD 4, p. 529) Ruby also allegedly could fix things with the county authorities (WC Vol. XXIII p. 372) This last revelation was from the wife of one James Breen. She said her husband “had made connection with large narcotics set up operating between Mexico, Texas, and the East … In some fashion James got the okay to operate through Jack Ruby of Dallas.” (ibid, p. 369) Reinforcing Ruby’s ties to the drug trade, a veteran of the Special Services Bureau (SSB) of the Dallas Police said that he regarded Ruby as a source of information in connection with his investigatory activities. In other words, Ruby was a police informant on the narcotics beat. (WC Vol. XIII p. 183) The vice-chief of the SSB unit considered himself fairly close to Ruby and allegedly visited his clubs frequently. (WC Vol. XXIII p. 78 and p. 207)

    As Sylvia Meagher pointed out in Accessories After the Fact, one indication of just how close to the police Ruby was is this: He had been arrested several times, yet each time he had gotten off easily. (p. 423) For instance, Ruby had been arrested twice for carrying a concealed weapon. In each case, no charges were filed and he was released the same day. (ibid, p. 422) So its no surprise that, when the police had Oswald incarcerated, Ruby would be roaming the corridors with a weapon in his pocket. Like his ties to mobsters, his vast police contacts were so commonly known that the Warren Commission had to disguise them. One way they did this was to write in the Warren Report that “the evidence indicates that Ruby was keenly interested in policemen and their work.” (WR p. 800) Phrased in that way, we are supposed to believe that Ruby was interested in joining the force.

    Another way that the Warren Commission tried to camouflage Ruby’s multi-tiered connections to the police was by minimizing the number of officers he knew. Quoting Police Chief Jesse Curry, the Commission states that Ruby knew approximately 25-50 of the 1,175 men in the DPD. (WR p. 224) Meagher found this so strained as to be risible. She wrote that of the 75 policemen present when Oswald was shot, Ruby knew at least forty of them. (Meagher, p. 423) She then adds that if this same ratio was consistent for the entire force, Ruby had to have known nearly 600 officers. Several witnesses back this up. Joseph Cavagnaro, manager of the Sheraton Dallas Hotel, told the FBI that Ruby “knew all the policemen in town” and was well-acquainted with a great number of them. (Lane, p. 232) A police lieutenant told the FBI that Ruby was well known among the members of the DPD. (ibid, p. 233) Musician Johnny Cola knew Ruby for years on a personal basis. He said that “Ruby at least had a speaking acquaintance with most of the policemen in the Dallas Police Department.” (ibid) Edward McBee, a Dallas bartender who also knew Ruby well, told the FBI that Ruby “knew many, and probably most, of the officers on the Dallas Police Department.” (ibid) William O’Donnell knew Ruby for 16 years and worked for him at the Carousel Club. He stated that “Ruby is on speaking terms with about 700 out of the 1200 men on the police force” and that he was “not at all surprised to learn of Ruby’s admittance to the basement.” (ibid)

    The Commission also covered up Ruby’s closeness with the police by saying that Ruby served them “free coffee and soft drinks” at his Carousel Club. He actually had his bartenders serve them free alcoholic beverages. O’Donnell said that when police officers dropped in at the Carousel, they were admitted without charge and given a free “round of drinks”. (ibid) A former police officer named Theodore Fleming said that many officers were on a first name basis with Ruby and that 90% of the time, Ruby served them free drinks. (ibid) Another police officer, Hugh Smith, said that, when he joined the force, Ruby’s place was recommended to him by another police officer. Smith then added that a great many officers frequented the club socially and that Ruby actually gave them bottles of liquor. He continued by saying that one officer actually used Ruby’s apartment on several occasions. (ibid p. 234) Smith’s statement about giving away bottles of liquor to the DPD was reinforced at the other end of the transaction. A former waitress at the Carousel, Janice Jones, described the same donation by Ruby. (ibid)

    But a stripper at the Carousel, Shari Angel, said the donations went even further. The officers “all got payola, to look over – a lot of stuff … You could see ’em right up to the office getting their little pay. Patrolmen didn’t usually do it. It was detectives, vice squad, and all that.” (Ian Griggs, No Case to Answer, p. 222) This clearly suggests graft for either narcotics or prostitution, or perhaps both. (And it is an idea we will return to when we discus the Rose Cheramie incident.)

    But it was not with just the DPD that Ruby was friendly. Ruby also knew lawyers in the district attorney’s office. On 11/21/63 he visited and chatted with Assistant DA Bill Alexander, Vincent Bugliosi’s trusted source. Ruby said that he and Alexander were “great friends”. (Lane, p. 261) They were such good friends that Alexander had a permanent pass to the Carousel. (Griggs, p. 222) Ester Ann Mash, a former employee who dated Ruby in early 1963, revealed that he took her to the homes of some famous citizens. At once such gathering, DA Henry Wade was in attendance. (Marrs, p. 390)

    The credibility and quantity of the above evidence is convincing. So much so that it sheds backward light on a curious statement that Nancy Perrin Rich made to Mark Lane. In referring to the famous incident of Ruby disguising himself as a reporter at the Dallas Police Station, she said that “Anyone that made that statement would be either a damn liar or a damn fool.” (Lane, p. 288) Why? Because there was no way Ruby could disguise himself at the station. For the simple reasons that 1.) There was not a cop in Dallas that did not know him, and 2.) Ruby almost lived at the place. (ibid)

    If Rich’s well-informed and fascinating deduction is correct, then Ruby may have disguised himself not to elude the DPD, but to protect his good friends. In other words, he was giving his good friends an out. You can’t get much closer than that. And therefore if Ruby was on a mission for his higher -ups on 11/24, he was the perfect man to choose since by hook or by crook, he could get into the police basement easily.

    III

    Let me dispose of this concept of the “temporarily deranged man.” This is a catchall term employed whenever the real motive of a crime can’t be nailed down.

    —Jim Garrison, describing Ruby’s shooting of Oswald

    Revising Garrison, the term can also be applied when the investigative body doesn’t want to nail a motive down. Or to put it more directly: when a cover-up is enacted afterwards. In this aspect, like nearly every other, JFK: The Ruby Connection sides with the Warren Commission. Recall what they said: “There is no evidence that Oswald and Ruby knew each other or had any relationship through a third party or parties.” (Quoted in Marrs, p. 403) So in addition to leaving out any connection by Ruby to the complex CIA-Mafia Cuban matrix, and his multitude of long-standing, and deep associations with the Dallas Police, JFK: The Ruby Connection clearly implies that there was no previous relationship between Ruby and Oswald.

    Before addressing this important point, let me add a caveat. It is an issue that can never be conclusively answered or spelled out. Simply because, as most serious students of this case understand, J. Edgar Hoover was not interested in investigating any conspiracy in the Kennedy case. But although the FBI and the Warren Commission did all they could to sidestep this point, many clues were left behind that clearly suggest the two knew each other. In fact, the HSCA revised the Commission verdict on this point: “The Committee’s investigation of Oswald and Ruby showed a variety of relationships that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy. Neither Oswald nor Ruby turned out to be “loners” as they had been painted in the 1964 investigation.” (ibid) Since this show does not elucidate why that could be so, let us do that for them.

    Frances Irene Hise was a woman who was applying for a job as a waitress at the Carousel Club. She said that during the interview, she saw a man enter through the rear who Ruby greeted with, “Hi, Ozzie.” Ruby then directed this man to go to the back room. Ruby then finished talking to Hise. At that point, he turned and joined “Ozzie” in the back room. On another occasion, “Ozzie” came into the club and asked her if he could buy her a drink. After the assassination, Hise was sure that “Ozzie” was Oswald. (Probe Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 22)

    In early December of 1963 a man named Howard Peterson of Chicago told the FBI that he had a cousin who lived in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. She had written him and his wife a few days after Kennedy was killed. In her letter she had referred to the murder of Oswald by Ruby. And she added that she had seen Oswald in Ruby’s nightclub. (FBI Report of 12/9/63) Harvey L. Wade also saw Oswald at Ruby’s club. In the latter part of the second week of November he was in Dallas attending a convention of construction builders. While there, he visited Ruby’s Carousel Club. He recalled seeing Oswald at a table with two men. One of the men appeared to be quite dark, perhaps Mexican. Mr. Wade said a picture was flashed of the threesome. But Ruby then came over and yelled that the picture did not come out. Wade said the emcee was a man who did a “memory skit”. (FBI Report of 11/26/63)

    Wade’s quite detailed report jibes with what William D. Crowe told several people after the Kennedy assassination. Crowe’s stage name was Billy DeMar. He told a reporter for the Associated Press that he was sure Oswald had been in Ruby’s club. He went on to say that “I have a memory act in which I have 20 customers call out various objects in rapid order. Then I tell them at random what they called out. I am positive Oswald was one of the men that called out an object about nine days ago.” (AP report of 11/25) Mr. Crowe was visited by the FBI and they discouraged him from repeating his story. The Warren Commission tried to discredit him by writing that he was never really positive about his ID of Oswald. Yet Crowe told the same story to the Dallas Morning News a few days after he talked to the AP. (Marrs, p. 405)

    Then there is the matter of Oswald and Ruby’s automobile. Many people who have read John Armstrong’s Harvey and Lee, or the long excerpts of it in Probe (see Vol. 4 No. 6, and Vol. 5 No. 1), realize that there is a controversy over whether or not Oswald could drive. Some people, like Ruth Paine, say he did not. Many more say he could. Two garage mechanics who worked on Ruby’s car say they saw Oswald drive Ruby’s auto. One was Robert Roy, who said Oswald did this more than once. (Probe, Vol. 5 No. 1 p. 22) The other mechanic was a man named William J. Chesher. The information about Chesher first came to the Dallas Police through an informant friend of the mechanic in December of 1963. (Police report of 12/9/63) Yet the DPD detectives did not actively follow this lead until April. Unfortunately, Chesher had died of a heart attack on March 31, 1964. (Police report of 4/3/64)

    Chuck Boyles ran a late night talk show on KLIF radio in Dallas. During the broadcast, he frequently talked about the Kennedy assassination. One evening an unidentified woman called in and said she knew of several phone calls between Ruby and Oswald. The woman said she knew about this since she worked as a phone operator in the WHitehall exchange area. Not only did she remember the calls, but she said the phone company had records of them. She said she remembered them because Ruby often used the “emergency breakthrough” technique. That is he would interrupt a busy signal to say the call was dire. The operator would then interrupt the call in session, and later make a note of it. The woman said that Ruby used this trick so frequently that she remembered his name and his numerous calls. (Armstrong, p. 768) This story gets partial corroboration through a man named Ray Acker. Acker was an Area Commercial Manager for Southwestern Bell. After the assassination, Acker took phone company records to the DPD.. He told the police they were proof of calls between Ruby and Oswald. Acker said that after he turned the records over he was told to go home and keep his mouth shut. (Garrison Memorandum of 9/16/67)

    On the evening of 11/21/63, when Lee Harvey Oswald was at the Paine household in Irving, a knock came at the door of an apartment in Oak Cliff. The apartment belonged to an SMU professor. His friend Helen McIntosh greeted the unknown young man. The young man asked for Jack Ruby. The professor told Helen to tell him that Ruby lived in the apartment next door. Which he did. The next day, when Oswald’s picture got on television, Helen said that this was the young man who knocked on the apartment door the night before. (Armstrong, p. 789) Obviously, it could not have been the real Oswald. But it could have been the man who resembled Oswald who Roger Craig saw get into a Nash Rambler in Dealey Plaza the next day. If this was so, then Ruby knew a ton more about the assassination than the Warren Commission ever let on.

    Finally, there is the unforgettable story told by Rose Cheramie. She was the drug addict who had worked for Ruby. She was picked up undergoing a drug withdrawal on November 20, 1963. State Trooper Frances Fruge was notified and drove her to Jackson State Hospital. Calmed by a sedative, she told Fruge that she had been abandoned by two men who were on their way to Dallas to kill President Kennedy. They were part of a southeastern drug and prostitution ring. Rose was their courier for a drug transaction, which was to be enacted in Galveston. Fruge dismissed this all as the ranting of a drug user. But after Kennedy was killed, he went to the hospital to question her and also turn her over to the authorities. He later learned that she had also predicted at the hospital that the assassination was going to happen. Rose also told two men at the hospital, Doctors Weiss and Owen, that Ruby was involved in the Kennedy plot. And she told both Weiss and Fruge that she had seen Oswald at Ruby’s club. When Fruge tried to pass Rose on to the DPD, they were not interested. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pgs. 225-228)

    All one needs to know about the latest Gary Mack fiasco is this: Almost none of the above is included in the hour. Nothing about the involvement of Ruby and Oswald in the Cuban conflict through the CIA and the Mafia; virtually none of the plentiful and multi-leveled connections of Ruby to the DPD; and none of the witnesses who indicate Oswald and Ruby knew each other.

    This, of course, is ridiculous. For if a program is trying to explore whether or not Ruby shot Oswald to conceal a plot to kill Kennedy, then it is fundamentally dishonest not to tell the viewer about the above. Because clearly those three areas of evidence would suggest the following:

    1. Ruby and Oswald shared connections to the CIA and the Mafia
    2. Ruby and Oswald knew each other through their experience in the Cuban crisis as extended into the USA
    3. Ruby used his police contacts to enter the basement of City Hall and kill Oswald.

    If this were all made clear to the viewer, one implication would be this. The CIA contacted one of the mobsters that they used in the plots to kill Castro: they needed some help again. From there the word was then sent down through intermediaries to Ruby. Ruby then used his extensive network of police contacts to silence Oswald before he could talk. All one needs to do to make this credible is recall the words of McWillie’s girlfriend Elaine Mynier. She said that Ruby would do anything for McWillie. McWillie knew Trafficante since he had worked for him in Cuba. McWillie was also in contact with Ruby the month before the Kennedy assassination. Finally, Trafficante was one of the two main Cosa Nostra chieftains the CIA used in their (unsuccessful) plots to kill Fidel Castro. This time, it looks like they pulled it off.

    But you would never know any of this from watching JFK: The Ruby Connection. Because according to Gary Mack, there really was no connection. None between Oswald and Ruby, none of note between the Dallas Police and Ruby, and none between the CIA, the Mafia, and Ruby.

    Yep, sure Gary. And George W. Bush was a good president. As in Inside the Target Car, Gary Mack is in his Wizard of Oz mode again – hard at work spinning black propaganda. And, as we shall see, it gets worse.

    Addendum: The reader can see that I used John Armstrong’s excellent Harvey and Lee as a major source for this essay. This book is now available through The Last Hurrah Bookshop.


    Go to Part Two

  • CBS’s Special Relationship with the JFK Assassination

    CBS’s Special Relationship with the JFK Assassination


    cbs

     

    The Columbia Broadcasting System has a special relationship with the Kennedy case. For countless Americans, the horror began with the network’s reports from Dallas, culminating with an announcement by the late Walter Cronkite that JFK had died “some thirty-eight minutes ago.”

    CBS has produced a number of specials on the assassination. In The Pigs Grunt, John Kelin describes the unusual circumstances surrounding the network’s four-part documentary in 1967.

    Jerry Policoff wrote the revealing article on CBS and other major media called JFK: How the Media Assassinated the Real Story.

    Finally, see Jim DiEugenio’s detailed exposé concerning the 1967 documentary, based on Roger Feinman’s slide presentation of documents uncovered by his 1975 lawsuit against CBS, at Consortium News.

  • JFK: Inside the Target Car, Part One: Or, How to Rig an Experiment


    See Additional Reviews of Inside the Target Car


    Whenever I hear of a new scientific approach to the John F. Kennedy case, my first reaction is to shudder and then run for cover. I don’t think it is hard to understand why I feel that way. Actually, it’s quite simple. Its because whenever someone says they are going to treat this case with scientific rigor, sooner or later, the rigor dissipates and the so-called natural laws of the universe somehow fail. So suddenly, as with President Kennedy’s violent rearward reaction, Newton’s laws of motion don’t apply anymore. Or as with the trajectory of the Single Bullet Theory through Kennedy’s body, gun shot projectiles don’t move through soft tissue in straight lines anymore.

    Further, alleged “authorities” suddenly get thoroughly confused and confounded by the evidence. As Pat Speer has shown, Dr. Michael Baden didn’t even know how to orient one of the most important autopsy photos. NASA scientist Tom Canning moved Kennedy’s back wound up to make the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) work, and then shrunk Kennedy’s head to make the head wound trajectory work. Dr. Vincent Guinn “proved” the SBT theory with his Bullet Lead analysis—which we now know, through the work of Pat Grant and Rick Randich, is nothing but “junk science”. Its so junky that the FBI will not use it in court anymore.

    At other times, we even get the spectacle of people who should not be approaching the case at all acting as if they were qualified in a certain field of scientific endeavor. Vincent Bugliosi used a chiropractor whose office offered massage therapy—Chad Zimmerman—as an authority in radiology. Robert Blakey hired statistician Larry Sturdivan to show films of goats being shot to illustrate the so-called neuromuscular reaction. (And then they both failed to tell us that Kennedy’s reaction does not match what happens in the goat films.) Urologist John Lattimer was the first “independent” doctor admitted to the National Archives to report on the extant autopsy materials there. He somehow missed the fact that the president’s brain was missing. Lattimer then gave us the Great Thorburn Hoax, which was thoroughly exposed by Milicent Cranor. And, of course, who can forget Dale Myers’ computer 3D simulation, which turned the SBT from theory to “fact”. A “fact” that was ripped to smithereens by Milicent Cranor, David Mantik, and Pat Speer.

    The point of this partial list is simply to show that when the scientific method encounters the Kennedy case, it somehow loses all semblances to what most of us expect about that rubric. So for people like me who have become jaded by the above hijinks, I was not excited about another heralded and pretentiously headlined story. Especially after what ABC said in advance about the “indisputability” of the Myers debacle back in 2003.

    I

    The latest installment in this sorry pseudo-scientific lineage took place at the 45th anniversary of Kennedy’s murder. That is on November 16, 2008 on the Discovery Channel. The show was called JFK: Inside the Target Car. One of the problems I had with the show was that it had contracted out with Adelaide T & E Systems to do much of the technical work for the show. This is a large engineering company with strong ties to the Australian Defense industry. In fact, over half of Australian defense companies are located in the Australian city of Adelaide. The city relies on billions of dollars a year in contracts to make its economy hum. And hum it does. Both the population and economy has grown significantly since the nineties. Another interesting thing about the city of Adelaide is this: Rupert Murdoch’s giant media conglomerate News Corporation was founded in, and until 2004, was incorporated in that city. In fact, Murdoch still considers Adelaide the spiritual home of News Corp. Adelaide sounds roughly like the Australian equivalent of Langley, Virginia—with the Washington Post and all. As we shall see, there are dubious aspects of the show to support this interpretation. (This information was garnered from the Wikipedia entry on the city.)

    Further, The Discovery Channel, which hosted this special, is fast becoming the new CBS. If one recalls the work of people like Jerry Policoff, CBS was probably the most rabid defender of the Warren Commission from 1963-1967, and even beyond. In 1964, they put together a special almost immediately after the Warren Report was published. In other words, it was almost impossible for them to have read, digested, and analyzed the 26 volumes in time for the broadcast. But that didn’t bother them at all. They went ahead and coronated that disgraceful document. In 1967, they actually used Warren Commissioner John McCloy as a consultant to their multi part series—without informing the audience of that fact! Both these programs are embarrassing to look at today. But both Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather had their marching orders from above. And like good corporate foot soldiers, they did what they were told.

    Today, the cable version of CBS on the JFK case has become Discovery Channel. In 2003, they did a show called The JFK Conspiracy Myths. In this program, the producers used the same sharpshooter that Inside the Target Car used: Michael Yardley. The aim was to show that Lee Harvey Oswald could do what the Warren Commission said he did: That is fire three shots in six seconds getting at least two direct hits. Except for Yardley the time span was magically and conveniently expanded to almost eight seconds. Further, his rifle was hooked up to a laser switch which, of course, eliminates rifle recoil, making it easier to shoot and re-aim. As Pat Speer noted, Yardley was later honest about his ersatz experiment. He told a British journalist that he did not think Oswald could have pulled off the feat of marksmanship attributed to him. End of story.

    In 2004, the Discovery Channel was at it again. They ran a new program called JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet. This one tried to prove that the Magic Bullet was not really magical. In other words, it could have traversed the storied path through two bodies, two dense bones, three body parts, and still drive itself into John Connally’s thigh. And then reverse trajectory and plunk out. As Pat Speer notes in his review, this show was riddled with so many factual errors that it looked like it was being made up willy-nilly. For instance, the entry point on the president’s back was wrongly situated. The narrator said that the Magic Bullet hit Kennedy in the neck. Which is a lie made up by Gerald Ford. We know today through autopsy photos that the bullet entered in Kennedy’s back. Further, when they fired this bullet from an elevated platform, it emerged from the simulated torso of JFK at his chest. Not his throat. Another problem was that their bullet failed to explode the simulated wrist of John Connally as the Warren Commission said it did. And then when they found this bullet after a search in the brush, it was clearly deformed. Not in nearly pristine condition as in the Warren Commission version. I could go on and on, but for those interested in all the details, read Speer’s article at his website.

    The third aspect of JFK: Inside the Target Car that gave me pause was the participation of the Sixth Floor Museum through the presence of curator Gary Mack. The Sixth Floor Museum, since its inception, has been dedicated to preserving the Warren Commission deception about Oswald. For instance, when I visited there in 1991, their version of the Zapruder film was cut off before frame 313, when Kennedy’s body rockets backward off the rear seat. When I saw that piece of censorship to the Z film, I was reminded of the old joke about the Lincoln assassination, “Well Mrs. Lincoln, outside of your husband’s murder, how did you like the play?” (I am told this has been changed since. I hope so.) Further, they sell all kinds of pro-Warren Commission volumes, like the works of Richard Trask; but few, if any, Warren Commission critiques. Not even the works of Sylvia Meagher, Philip Melanson, or Gaeton Fonzi. Gary Mack—who I will discuss at length in part three of this review—makes up all kinds of weak excuses for this biased expurgation. But I have the real reason from a source in Dallas who asked someone on the board of the museum about this issue. The member answered that this was simply a set policy. Unlike Mack’s pronouncements it has nothing to do with timeliness or updated versions etc. They just don’t want people who go there to be exposed at any length or depth to the critical community that does not buy the Krazy Kid Oswald stuff.

    So the combination of Discovery Channel, Adelaide T ∓ E, the Sixth Floor Museum, and the dissimulating Mack did not look promising to me. In fact it was downright unappetizing. I actually felt lucky when Milicent Cranor and David Mantik reviewed the show for our site. When it comes to the medical and ballistics evidence, it does not get much better than those two. While reading their thorough and precise critiques, I began to watch the show repeatedly at my leisure. I have now seen it three times. It is clear to me that the show had an agenda from the beginning. And just about everything they did hewed to that agenda, thereby creating the preordained end result. But unlike in the other two Discovery Channel misfires, the producers learned from their previous amateur errors. This time around they were slicker. They tried to keep the trickster’s hand ahead of the viewer’s—read “the mark’s”—eyes. But to anyone familiar with the evidence in the case, the show collapses fairly easily. And therefore is exposed as another jerry-built propaganda piece for the pitiful Warren Commission. And like any apologia for that sorry panel, its self-contained, inherent shame transfers onto its defenders.

    II

    When one stops and analyzes this show one understands what it actually does. And that is this: it conflates, condenses, oversimplifies and therefore falsifies three complex areas of study in the Kennedy case. These are 1.) The medical evidence 2.)The ballistics, and 3.) The condition of the limousine after Kennedy is transported to Parkland Hospital. When I say “areas of study” I mean just that. A beginning student of the Kennedy case could take over a year to study the medical evidence. And even then he would not have mastered it. And it would not be his fault. The problem is not one of retention or reasoning. The problem lies quite clearly in the twists and turns of the evidentiary record. I mean, Michael Baden is a forensic pathologist. As I said earlier, he could not orient the back of the skull photo, the only one with Kennedy’s scalp refracted. Baden also embellished exhibits when he got desperate to prove his particular version of the evidence. He had his artist alter photos and drawings to create fractures that are not on the x-rays, and raised edges around wounds not on the former. One can understand his dilemma: How many gunshot murder cases have two different autopsies? How many have two wounds which dramatically move their locations in less than five years? How many have x-rays which change fragment patterns and in which large fragments not observable during autopsy x-rays, miraculously materialize on those same x-rays a few years later? But yet, on these new and changed x-rays, the fragment trail does not match up with either the alleged entry wound or alleged exit wound? All of these bizarre inconsistencies are documented in the JFK medical evidence. We can measure this show’s honesty with what it does with these provable facts.

    The ballistics evidence in the JFK case is almost as puzzling. For instance the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) determined that the wound in the back of President Kennedy had an abrasion collar on the bottom. This usually indicates a shot with an upward trajectory. Yet how could this be if Oswald was firing from six stories above? Were there two assassins? Was the photo touched up? Or is the scientific deduction faulty? As I wrote in Part Four of my review of Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History, the Warren Commission stated that the shot to Kennedy’s head came in low on the rear skull. But it exited above the right ear and forward of it on the right side. This created problems with both the horizontal and vertical trajectory of this bullet. For the angle from the so-called sniper’s nest of the Texas School Book Depository is right to left on the horizontal plane. So did the bullet alter direction inside the skull? And per the vertical, the bullet would seem to have exited too high for its entry point. Also, although the type of military jacketed bullets attributed to Oswald are tough to break apart, in this case, the bullet to the head did. For there were fragments found on the x-rays and in the automobile. The problem though is that the fragment evidence as attested to by the HSCA says that the middle of the bullet stayed on the outside of the skull, while the nose and the tail hurdled through the head and landed in the front seat. Yep, that is what they say. Somehow, the back of the bullet magically levitated at the precise nanosecond over the middle section and then scooted through the skull. As we shall see, this is a major problem for this show.

    Finally, of late, the condition of the president’s limousine has also become a controversial area of study in this case. Just what was the condition of the car when it arrived back in Washington DC? What happened to the car when it arrived at Parkland Hospital? Photos indicate that a Secret Service agent actually scrubbed down the inside of the car. But why would he do that? And what else did he do while he was inside the auto? When were photos taken of the inside of the car and were they in color or black and white? Was there a hole in the windshield indicating a shot from the front? And if there was, was that piece of evidence tampered with? Was the car then driven on a 500 mile mysterious, voyage westward after its stay in Washington? And if so, why was it driven and not flown?

    The above only scratch the surface of how difficult it is to fully comprehend any of the above complex areas of this case. So when writers like Vincent Bugliosi call the Kennedy case a simple one, I don’t know what they are referring to. And I never will. But my point in regards to this program is this: This special tries to conflate all three of these maddeningly complex areas of study into a sixty-minute program! That is the bottom line of this show. The reality is that you could spend one hour on just the condition of the limousine after the assassination until the point it was rebuilt. One hour would not do justice to the ballistics evidence in this case. As for the medical evidence: it’s safe to say that two hours would only give you an introduction to the material. Consequently, when you place them all together and rush through them in what amounts to—at best—speeded up motion, you have to leave out huge chunks of crucial information. And here’s a major problem with that: In the JFK case, a crucial aspect of the story is in how the details changed over time. In real life “simple” murder cases, this does not happen. And if it does, the court will entertain a motion to throw out the case on the basis of evidence tampering. This is one of the major aspects of the JFK case that the authors of this show do not reveal to the audience. Which is why its honesty should be questioned.

    Another serious problem is that of the Curtailed Alternatives. That is the experiment and the deductions are limited and controlled by the authors. This means that the variables seem arbitrarily chosen to produce a desired result. Cranor and Mantik have already shown this was so in the choice of firing points. But I should point out here, Gary Mack argued strongly for the so-called Badge Man location of the grassy knoll assassin for about twenty years. Yet that particular location was never even pointed out in this ersatz demonstration. Not even to critique it. Yet in his earlier incarnation as a fierce Warren Commission critic, Mack was at pains to show its validity for British documentary producer Nigel Turner. In fact, it was actually one of the highlights of the multi-part series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. (I will deal with the Mack metamorphosis in the third part of this essay.)

    This Curtailed Alternative method continued even after the show was (mercifully) over. Mack went online and answered some questions from viewers. His viewpoint on these answers was remarkably limited for someone who has been studying this case for over thirty years. I never considered Gary Mack a front rank, top of the line writer/researcher. But he was not a dumb or rigidly inflexible person. In fact, when he contributed to The Continuing Inquiry, he wrote a few good and valuable pieces. But today, he comes off about as mentally agile as, say, Robert Blakey. When someone asks him what happened to the bullets fired in the experiment, Mack admits they did not fragment like the ones attributed to Oswald did. Got that: Oswald’s did but Yardley’s did not. He then adds that he doesn’t know why that occurred and then drops the issue. But as Milicent Cranor points out, and I will discuss later, the matter should not be dropped at that point. Because this is where it gets really interesting. When someone later asks him if it was wise to use the alleged assassin’s rifle and ammo for a front shot, Mack’s reply is equally superficial. He says that if Oswald had been a “patsy” it seems likely “that another gunman would use the same ammunition. If a different weapon were used, investigators would find evidence and conclude there were two guns. A conspiracy to frame Oswald would want investigators to think there was only one gun.” Read that twice, and carefully: If the investigators found two guns, that would equal a conspiracy and the investigators would announce the frame up of Oswald.

    When I read that in my downloaded version of Mack’s online talk at the Discovery Channel web site I wrote in the margin, “Absolutely stupid.” Yet, I don’t think Gary Mack is stupid. But just to point out one problem with this response: It imposes on the reader the supposition that the investigators themselves were honest i.e. the only conspiracy that existed was the one that killed President Kennedy. The investigators actually tried to uncover the true circumstances of the assassination. Therefore if there was a conspiracy, they would have located it. Mack’s bottom line here is this: There was no cover up.

    Anyone who studies this case knows this view deserves the utmost scorn and derision. Here is how preposterous it is: even two members of the Warren Commission understood the fix was in early. They were Senator Richard Russell and Representative Hale Boggs. As author Dick Russell shows in On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, the senator so distrusted the investigators that he conducted his own investigation—at the time the Commission was ongoing! His private inquiry came to the conclusion that Oswald did not do it. (pgs. 126-127) Representative Boggs said that J. Edgar Hoover—chief investigator for the official inquiry—”lied his eyes out to the Commission—on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it.” (Texas Observer, 11/98) But more to Mack’s specific point about the two weapons: on November 23, 1963 Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman executed an affidavit. He swore that on the previous day he discovered on the sixth floor of the Depository a 7.65 Mauser equipped with a 4/18 scope, and a thick leather brownish-black sling on it. (The actual affidavit is in Mark Lane’s Rush To Judgment, p. 409) This is not what the Commission later said was Oswald’s rifle. They said it was a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano. But further, Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig was standing near Weitzman at the time of discovery. He said that Weitzman thought it was a Mauser at first. But then he looked at the rifle at close range and saw that it was stamped “7. 65 Mauser”. This is what confirmed the ID for the constable. (This testimony can be seen in the film Evidence of Revision on You Tube, Part IV.) So this directly contradicts Gary Mack’s assumption about the assassins using the same weapon and the investigators exposing that fact and therefore blowing up the conspiracy. The show’s main talking head is not telling the whole story. And the viewer should ask: Why not? I will get to the ‘why not” later and it goes to the very heart of the show’s credibility. (I should add here, Mack once published his own journal, which was called Cover Ups. But that’s all forgotten now. Today he says we can trust the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, Gerald Ford, and the Dallas Police. Yeah sure Gary.)

    III

    Very early, the show reveals an agenda. Gary Mack is hard at work to discredit the evidence of witnesses hearing shots from two directions. Sounding like Lawrence Schiller, he dredges up the old Dealey Plaza is an “echo chamber” argument. Therefore directionality was confused. But as Josiah Thompson has noted, if about the same amount say the shots originated from the Grassy Knoll as from the Texas School Book Depository, what does this argument really amount to? (Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 25) He then says that some witnesses later altered their stories. Revealingly, he does not add that many witnesses were forced by the authorities to change their testimony to conform to the official line. Or actually had it changed without their knowledge. (This fits the show’s agenda: don’t reveal the cover up.)

    After this the show picks up one of its main threads: the condition of the car once it arrived at Parkland Hospital. The narrator intones that evidence that was wiped away there, plus some other evidentiary points, have given Warren Commission critics reason to doubt the official story and has therefore spawned a huge controversy. He is referring to the blood spatter pattern inside the car—and he greatly overstates the case. Very, very few people have had their curiosity piqued by this issue. And even less have used it to attack the Commission. But, again, it shows the program’s unwinding agenda.

    The producers next reveal the fact that a Secret Service agent actually wiped the interior of the car with what looks like a bucket and sponge. I say they have to because there are pictures that reveal this fact. Yet they ask few questions about this incredible incident. Making nothing of some obvious questions : Who told him to do this? Why? What else did he do besides wipe anything up? Was this a cover story to plant evidence? And how do they know it’s a Secret Service agent? If it was, did they try and track him down? They avoid almost all of this and then say they have two witnesses who saw the car before the bucket brigade arrived. Yet it is not revealed how they can be certain about this timing. And further, as limousine expert Pamela McElwain Brown has written, no one had a really good chance to look inside the limousine once it got to Parkland to make a measured assessment. Because the convertible top was raised quickly upon its arrival there. But the show considers this important, a keystone actually, so we will return to it later because the producers do the same. But I should note an apparent contradiction here: Mack had just been trying to discount direct testimony by eye and ear witnesses. He now reverses course on that issue.

    From here the show now goes to a second main thread: Searching Dealey Plaza for possible firing points to the front of the car. I thought this little walking tour quite interesting. The first point that Mack and Yardley visit is what they call the south Grassy Knoll, which would be in front of the car and to President Kennedy’s left. Yardley says it is a possible shot distance wise, but the angle would only give the assassin about three inches of Kennedy’s head to fire at. As Milicent Cranor has pointed out, Mack and Yardley never noticed that there is a rise about ten feet back which would probably eliminate that problem. Moving clockwise around Dealey Plaza, Yardley and Mack now go to what they call the south end of the triple underpass. They eliminate this firing point because Yardley says the shot would necessitate firing through the windshield of the car. The supposition here is that there was no hole in the windshield. Again, the producers are not telling the whole story here. Because this statement is questionable. There is evidence on both sides of this windshield bullet hole issue. Another authority on the limousine is Doug Weldon. Weldon wrote an interesting thirty page essay for the anthology Murder In Dealey Plaza (pgs 129-158) Weldon raises serious questions about what happened to the car afterwards. For instance, about that 500 mile trek to Dearborn, Michigan that James Rowley told the Warren commission happened on December 20, 1963. (See p. 133) But more to the point, Weldon produces six witnesses who saw a hole in the windshield at Parkland Hospital. (ibid pgs. 139-140) He also produces evidence that the windshield was then switched to conceal this hole. (ibid pgs 136-138) But none of this is mentioned, and this firing point is quickly dismissed.

    We then move to what is called the north end of the triple underpass. What happened here was notable. This point intersects with what is the end of the famous stockade fence atop the Grassy Knoll. When I visited the area in 1991, I went to the end of the picket fence where it corners and then juts out. I thought this was the best firing point along the knoll area because the car was coming at you at a distance where you could track it for several seconds before squeezing off your shot. In fact, Yardley says words to that effect in this show. Then, he and Mack walk away from this point because there is shrubbery there today, and go a few steps downward on the slope. (Since they had Dealey Plaza cordoned off, why didn’t they pay a gardener sixty bucks to trim the shrubbery?) How good is this shot? When they showed it from the shooter’s angle, they moved Jackie Kennedy into the line of fire to try and discredit it. (I will return to this “mistake” later.) Mack finally dismisses this site because witnesses in the area could see the assassin. Yet one could say this about almost any firing point in the Plaza. Because as Mack intoned earlier, there were hundreds of witnesses in the area. What a precision hit team would be banking on is that they would be distracted by the president’s car and looking in that direction at the time of the fusillade.

    The reader should note at this point: The show has been all too eager to dismiss these three alternative sites. And further, Yardley has not taken one shot from any of them. This should be kept in mind as the show progresses forward.

    Yardley and Mack now move to a position further down and behind the stockade fence. This particular point brings you closer to the car, but you have much less time to track the target from this venue. This is why when I visited Dealey Plaza, I thought the previous point would be a better venue than this one. Yardley notes the tracking problem, but Mack decides on this point. We will see why later.

    The scene now shifts down under to Australia. The narration states that previously there had been no technology which could simulate a human head. But today “an exact replica of the human head” is possible. Further, there was only one place which could produce such an exact replica. That place is, of course, in Rupert Murdoch’s spiritual home of Adelaide. And the company is Adelaide T & E Systems. When I listened to this segment I began to smell some snake oil cooking. Why? Because I just don’t think its possible to produce an “exact replica” of a human head. I mean maybe you could create a reasonable facsimile. But not an exact replica. It’s just too complicated of a phenomenon: the muscles, tendons, nervous system, blood circulatory system, hair and scalp etc. So I thought this was overstated in the extreme. You know, Dale Myers and ABC country. And as we shall see, it was.

    What is even more interesting of course is that Adelaide T & E Systems also builds replicas of the human torso. So it would have been easy to attach the head to a torso which fit Kennedy’s dimensions. But they did not. The excuse was that it would have added another variable. This rationale was kind of smelly. The real reason I suspect this was not done is that in the Zapruder film, upon the bullet’s impact, Kennedy’s body rockets backward in the car and bounces off the back seat. Yet this is supposed to be a shot from behind. The producers probably suspected that when they simulated the shot from the Depository, Oswald’s alleged firing point, no such reaction would follow. And Gary Mack didn’t want to have to explain this. That would mean getting into the Luis Alvarez/Larry Sturdivan mumbojumbo about “jet effect” and “neuromuscular reaction”. He had enough problems already.

    IV

    He immediately went about fixing one of them. As everyone knows, one of the largest, most insurmountable problems in the Warren Commission is that all the evidence says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a poor marksman. Yet Michael Yardley is not. He has won many sharpshooting competitions. By all accounts, the shot Oswald supposedly took from the Texas School Book Depository which killed Kennedy was very difficult. Now Michael Yardley is the opposite. He is a contest winning sharpshooter. Further, the weapon Oswald allegedly used had a cheap scope which was not properly mounted. But Yardley placed a modern telescopic site on the rifle and then sited it in i.e. he took practice shots to make sure it was perfectly aligned. How does any of this duplicate what the Warren Commission said happened? But clearly, the producers were not going to risk proving the critics correct. Namely, they were not going to risk a miss by Yardley.

    Not only were they not going to risk a miss, they were going to ensure it not happening. Because when the show moves up to Sylmar, California where a shooting range simulating the dimensions of Dealey Plaza is put together, Yardley is not shooting at a moving target. The car is stationary. Mack remembered what happened when many others tried to duplicate Oswald’s alleged feat of marksmanship. They couldn’t do it. Realizing that would jeopardize the show, he was removing all those troublesome “variables”. The problem is if you remove too many variables, what conditions are you actually duplicating? Ones that weren’t there?

    Yardley then took his first shot from the spot he and Mack decided on from behind the stockade fence. . This was with a soft nosed hunting round, which is not the kind of ammunition Oswald was supposed to be firing. He hit the target, but something weird happened. The entire skull literally exploded to the point where nothing was left on the platform. When I saw this, my antennae went up. Outside of some cheap Hollywood horror movie, I had never seen or heard of such a thing happening. And I remembered how the show had said so fervently stated that these were exact replicas of the human skull. I don’t think so. As Milicent Cranor wrote, they appeared too frangible. Why?

    Yardley then fired again from that spot behind the fence. This time with the type of ammo Oswald was allegedly using. This time he hit the target with a more controlled damage pattern. Mack then went to the car and observed this closely. He then said something that was quite startling at the same time that it was revealing. He said that this shot would have also hit Jackie Kennedy. I then thought back to what had happened when the show had lined up the other shot, from the better position further down the fence: they had the models lined up wrong then also. At that time they were not in Sylmar, but were in Dealey Plaza. No one noticed this mistake and corrected it? Very hard to believe, because what Mack said is easily exposed as false. All you have to do is look at the Zapruder film, which Mack has done hundreds of times. Jackie Kennedy in Z frame 312—right before the fatal shot—is clearly ahead of her husband,. So a shot coming from a mostly side angle—as this one was—would not have hit her. And this point gets very interesting. Mainly because it is so hard to believe that no one caught it. Which is what Mack wants the pubic to believe.

    In fact in the aforementioned online discussion, Gary Mack admitted that he, and the show, were wrong about this. He then added this: “We didn’t catch it at the time.” But yet, according to Robert Groden, this is a lie. He was in Dealey Plaza at the time the show was filming the limousine simulations with models in it. He said that he pointed out to the show’s director and Gary Mack that the “positions and locations of both the actors portraying President and Jackie Kennedy were completely wrong.” Then Groden added something that is really important in understanding the program’s genesis and ultimate purpose. In that regard, it actually sounds like something J. Lee Rankin would write to his assistant counsel about the true position of the bullet that entered into Kennedy’s back. Groden posted that both Mack and the director replied that “the positions and locations were not important to the points they were trying to show.” But if this were so then why did Mack misrepresent that specific point to the public on the air! He actually said that the shot would have hit Jackie. I have an idea as to why. Because that was an easy visual way to discredit a shot from that angle. Almost like the show did focus groups, they understood this would easily register with the public. I know this because a colleague from work said this to me the day after the show aired. Knowing my interest in the JFK case, he came up to me at lunch and said, “Jim, the shot couldn’t have come from the front. It would have hit Jackie.” And we all know it did not. So the evidence Groden produces from behind the scenes, says that the producers knew they were wrong and went ahead anyway for propaganda purposes. And Mack then tried to conceal this when he said they didn’t catch it in time. Further, the quote by Groden that I am using was posted on February 5, 2009. Way after the show’s initial broadcast. He said he was reposting it at this time. Why? Because his initial post of the information had been removed!

    If I was Gary Mack in his present incarnation, when Mack said he didn’t catch the error in time, I would have posted something like this: “Gary, you’re a damned liar!” I will explain that quote in part three of this review.

  • JFK: Inside the Target Car, Part Three: How Gary Mack became Dan Rather


    See Additional Reviews of Inside the Target Car

    “I have become what I beheld and I am convinced I have done right.”
            —Eliot Ness, played by Kevin Costner, in The Untouchables


    When a debacle like this gets broadcast, something must be done besides just exposing it. As with Dale Myers, Gus Russo and the awful 2003 ABC special, it’s necessary to peer around the corner, to look under the bed in order find out how it got that way. (See our study of ABC in 2003.) Because clearly, after extended analysis, there can be no doubt that the Discovery Channel show was a set-up all the way. As in the worst tradition of broadcast journalism in the Kennedy assassination field, the producers decided where they wanted to go, and then—come hell or high water—they were going to get there. It didn’t mean a damn to them if the actors posing for President Kennedy and his wife were wrongly positioned. It meant nothing to them if they got their facts wrong on when the autopsists saw the x-rays and photos. They didn’t care if their bullet didn’t break apart in Kennedy’ skull, even though the 6.5mm fragment left behind was the Clark Panel’s major reason for elevating that head wound—which they are going with in their demonstration. To them, having an idiot hit team up on the knoll was fine—as long as they kept the audience in the dark about it. That, and nearly everything else, was cast aside in pursuit of their agenda. Which, of course, was to convict Oswald of firing from that window. And if that line won’t go back to that window using the pathologists’ autopsy report, well heck, we can make up a new exit so that the line does trace back to that window.

    So in its relentless pursuit of the Krazy Kid Oswald fable, this godawful program now joins the Hall of Broadcast Infamy. People who study this case know of what I speak since our web site makes a major focus of how studying the media on these cases tells you why most people do not trust the MSM anymore. It’s just that we knew that many years before things like the Florida election heist of 2000, and the phony excuses bandied about for the Iraq War. Both of which the MSM swallowed whole. That Hall of Infamy includes things like the 1967 CBS special on the Warren Report, the 1967 NBC special on Jim Garrison, the 1993 PBS Frontline special on Lee Harvey Oswald, and the 2003 ABC special on the JFK assassination. As I said, we have exposed almost all of these. (In addition to the ABC link posted above, see our NBC analysis and our CBS study.)

    What makes an examination of JFK:Inside the Target Car so fascinating and mandatory is that it has some of the same unique inside dynamics that the 1993 PBS fiasco and the 2003 ABC debacle have. That is: Someone who had previously been a so-called Warren Commission critic had now shifted sides. And in their new uniform they were now doing the same thing that they had deplored before. That is, they were extending and aiding the original Warren Commission cover up. In 1993 and 2003 of course, it was Gus Russo and his cohort in cover up Dale Myers. This time around, it was Gary Mack.

    Like Russo and Myers, Mack had been a Warren Commission critic for many years prior to his employment by the Sixth Floor Museum. Based in the Dallas Fort Worth area, he had been involved in providing the famous acoustical tape for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). In fact, that is where many people recall first hearing his name associated with this case. And historically speaking, when many books chronicle the history of the HSCA, they usually give Mack and Mary Ferrell credit for that particular piece of evidence. As I mentioned in Part One of my review, Mack also was a regular contributor to the journal The Continuing Inquiry, and for a brief time he had his own journal called Cover Ups. (According to two sources, it is wrong to state that he was the publisher of TCI as I did in Part One.) For instance, Mack first wrote about the famous cable from Hugh Aynesworth exposing his gutter journalistic ethics. Namely that he was a White House and FBI informant in his campaign to defame and derail Jim Garrison. But as the cowardly reporter requested, he wanted his covert role kept secret in all that. (See Destiny Betrayed, pgs. 183-184) Mack also assisted British documentary director Nigel Turner on his multi part special The Men Who Killed Kennedy. In fact, he was one of the two main talking heads on the show along with Robert Groden. This was originally broadcast in England and then later shown on American cable right about the time Oliver Stone’s film JFK was theatrically released. That documentary had some serious flaws in it, for example the goofy and gullible work done by Steve Rivele on the so-called Corsican Connection. But most of the things Mack contributed to the program were good and interesting e.g. his work on the so-called Badgeman photo. Which, by the way, Stone borrowed for his film.

    But then something happened to Gary Mack. Which, of course explains my use of the quote from The Untouchables to lead this article. But before I get to his particular chronicle, I want to outline it as part of a rather large and strange pattern that occurred at the time. I didn’t see it for what it was back then, and retroactively I should have. It’s something that no one else has described, at least to my knowledge. But belatedly, I think it merits a bit of attention. Because it may describe something important and relevant about today. Namely, the effort to undermine Stone may have started way before anyone else has written about.

    II

    “Yeah, so you know more than Dr. Alvarez, don’t you!”
            —Mark Zaid screaming at the ASK Conference in 1993

    I’ll never forget the above incident. Just like I will never forget Mark Zaid. First, consider who Zaid is appealing to as an authority. A man who sacrificed his considerable reputation in an unrelenting effort to muddy the waters in the JFK case. Alvarez is the guy who created things like the “jiggle effect”, the “jet effect”, and then used (abused?) his membership in the National Academy of Science to dispute the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) on the acoustics evidence. As fine a scientist as Alvarez was—like Dr. John Lattimer—he had an almost slavish agenda on the JFK case. So for Zaid to use him as a blind appeal to authority, that was quite revealing.

    I have written about the above bizarre conference on more than one occasion. (See, for example, my review of Ultimate Sacrifice.) Why? Because it finally flushed out two people who I believed to be quite circumspect by this time, namely Zaid and Gus Russo. I was warned at that conference by a complete stranger that Zaid and Russo were even more suspicious than I thought they were. This man, who I had never seen before, told me they were infiltrators. I discounted his warning at the time, but later on I came to the conclusion that he was right. I, and many others, had been naÔve. And not just about these two, but about others, e.g. Gordon Winslow. Considering the time period, and what was happening on the national scene, we all should have known better.

    It was a very high profile time for the JFK case. You had the Arts and Entertainment Channel broadcasting The Men Who Killed Kennedy in late 1991. And then you had the release of Oliver Stone’s JFK in December of 1991. There were dozens of books that came out at the time on the JFK case. And a number of them, like Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial, became best-sellers. There were also a number of documentaries on television about the case and many talk shows featured many writers and witnesses on the JFK case. In fact, entire programs were devoted to the subject. The resultant hubbub even spawned a second film on the subject named Ruby. Which was not nearly as good or powerful as Stone’s film. All of this furor greatly increased the size of the so-called critical community. It brought in many people who got really interested for the first time. It brought back many others who had been onto other things. It greatly expanded the circulation of existing journals like The Third Decade and it gave birth to new ones like Probe. Because of all this interest, many conferences and seminars were now set up, like the ASK Conference in Dallas, and others in Chicago and Washington. The Coalition on Political Assassinations was also formed.

    Clearly, all of this attracted the attention of the Dark Side. And with the 30th anniversary of JFK’s death upcoming, there were two overt ways that they decided to counteract it all. The first was when the notorious Robert Loomis met up with Gerald Posner. (The Assassinations, ed. by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 369) As I have discussed before, Loomis had been a mainstay at Random House for many years. His first wife, Gloria Loomis, had worked for CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton for a long time. Loomis had been associated with the likes of CIA friendly journalist Sy Hersh from almost the beginning of Hersh’s career. (ibid) Loomis had also worked with another spooky reporter, James Phelan, for decades. (ibid) Loomis had been instrumental in getting Bob Houghton’s apologia for the LAPD cover up of the Robert Kennedy assassination, Special Unit Senator published in 1970. He was then part of the effort to withdraw from the bookstands the excellent 1978 volume on the RFK case by Bill Turner and Jonn Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. (Turner and Christian, 2006 edition, p. xvi) In talking to Posner after a debate, Jim Marrs asked him how he came to write his book on the JFK case. Posner told him he had been approached by Loomis who promised him access to certain people like Yuri Nosenko—who, of course, almost no one had access to at the time. (DiEugenio and Pease, op. cit.) I once called Loomis’ New York office. He was not in. His secretary told me he was in Washington. She said he shuttled down there almost every other week. Clearly, Loomis and his Washington cronies were preparing to strike back at Stone’s film through their use of Posner. So Posner’s lousy book, which has since been reduced to rubble many times over, was given one of the great publicity tours ever. Including a front cover on US News and World Report. (August 30, 1993).

    I first heard of Posner in 1992. It was through Gus Russo. He told me about this Wall Street lawyer who was preparing this powerhouse book that was going to create a lot of problems for the critical community. Another person who alerted me to Posner’s book was Zaid. At the time, he had been meeting with people like Dick Russell and Jim Lesar about forming an organization to lobby Congress about the creation of the Assassination Records Review Board. I wrote a letter to those three outlining a strategy we should follow. I was stunned by what Zaid wrote back. First, he tried to say that there was not really enough evidence to call for a reopening of the case, and he pointed to Beverly Oliver as a witness to prove his point. I thought this was superfluous because I had never written about, talked to, or endorsed that woman. But secondly, he revealed in this letter that he had shown my original communication to his colleague Gerald Posner. Understandably, I felt betrayed. Though his book had yet to be published, I understood what Posner was up to.

    Right then and there, I should have understood who Russo and Zaid were. I also should have understood that there was a large and forceful movement afoot by the Dark Side, which felt that they had been ill-prepared for the hurricane effect created by Stone’s film. But I, and many others, were not quite aware of what was happening. But when PBS broadcast their 1993 Frontline special on Oswald, the truth about Russo began to dawn on us all. After all, Russo originated the show and was a chief correspondent. The program featured witnesses like Ed Butler, Priscilla Johnson, Ed Epstein, Robert Blakey, and Carlos Bringuier. As per the clincher with Zaid, at the 1993 Dallas ASK Conference mentioned above, Zaid went out of his way to do a very peculiar thing. The late Larry Harris had done a fine job in gathering many of the living eye witnesses who had been in Dealey Plaza the day of the assassination. He actually put them in their original places to be photographed and interviewed by the attendees. Zaid walked down to the Plaza with a stack of literature in his hand. And he began to distribute flyers about those witnesses explaining why they could not be believed! (He later wrote a pamphlet on this very subject with fellow “critic” Dennis Ford.)

    Question: What kind of Kennedy researchers would pay money to fly to such a conference, stay in a hotel, and pay for meals, in order to argue that the critical community was all wrong? In effect, Zaid and Russo were doing their best to scuttle the efforts of a nascent movement. Because Cyril Wecht and myself spoke out against them at the 1993 ASK Conference, Zaid and Russo did not appear on the conference scene again. But that did not mean that Loomis and the Dark Side was done. Far from it. For in 1994, Russo had reportedly met with CIA officers Ted Shackley and Bill Colby. (See Probe Vol. 6 No. 2, and Who Is Gus Russo? for more details.) The word was that they were worried about what organizations like COPA were going to say about their so-called maligned colleague David Phillips. After all, there were many new documents being released about Phillips that were quite interesting. Russo later tried to say this meeting was a research foray for a book he was writing. But what would CIA propaganda writer Joe Goulden be doing there if that was really the sole aim of the meeting? Further, one of the attendees there admitted that COPA was discussed. And John Newman later called Colby who confirmed this was so and they were worried about further disclosures about Phillips. Russo was toast within the community. But a man named Paul Nolan was unknown.

    III

    I had my marching orders.
            —Matt Labash to Gary Aguilar

    Which brings us to the second overt way Loomis and the Dark Side struck back. See, Paul Nolan is an alias. More accurately, it is an undercover name. Paul Nolan’s real name is John McAdams. And to understand why Loomis and company would use him to go after COPA and defend David Phillips, you have to understand a bit about his background.

    McAdams first surfaced after Stone’s film was released. But he first reared his ugly visage not in public, but on the Internet. He began to frequent many of the JFK forums that sprang up around the time period of 1992-93. Except he outdid almost anyone in the number of posts he delivered. At times they were around fifty per day. (Probe Vol. 3 No. 3 p. 13) But as I wrote at the time, his personality was so repellent and his style so pugnacious that many new to the field saw through him quickly. One wrote in an e-mail: “McAdams is a spook isn’t he … I am concerned about McAdams and his ilk. The stuff he puts up on the ‘Net is pure disinformation … The stuff McAdams puts on the ‘Net is pure acid. He doesn’t respond to the facts, he just discredits witnesses and posters.” (ibid.)

    At the time, I noted that McAdams liked to forge false messages in order to insult people in the JFK field, like Jim Garrison, and to promote others, like Posner. He would jump around from forum to forum posting disinformation. Like for example that Clay Shaw was never really on the Board of Directors of Permindex. According to McAdams, that was a myth promoted by Oliver Stone. Well, finally someone actually scanned Shaw’s own Who’s Who entry in which he himself noted he was on the board of Permindex. This shut up McAdams on that forum. So what did McAdams do? He went to another forum and said the same thing about Shaw—knowing it had been proven false! Nothing tells us more about the man than that fact. And nothing tells us more about the people who choose to associate with McAdams in spite of that, e.g. Dave Reitzes and David Von Pein.

    But one good thing about McAdams at the time, at least for the Dark Side, was that his presence in the JFK case had been confined to the Internet. So very few people in the critical community had ever seen him. That facial anonymity, plus his willingness in using a false name made him useful in the attack against COPA. In 1995, McAdams/Nolan attended the COPA Conference in Washington. Unfortunately for him, there actually was another JFK researcher whose real name was Paul Nolan. When he found out about the McAdams deception, he posted a web message: “I was just doing some research over the net. I wanted to see if anything came up that had my name in it. Guess what? My REAL name is Paul Nolan! Apparently some asshole wants to use my name as an alias.” (ibid)

    Using this phony name, McAdams went to the above conference. He happened to meet a conservative reporter named Matt Labash there. Labash was on assignment for City Paper out of Washington D.C. Nolan/McAdams told Labash that he managed a computer store in Shorewood, Wisconsin—which he did not. In Labash’s resultant negative article on that conference, Nolan was the only participant quoted at length. And what was one of the things Labash quoted him on? Shades of Mark Zaid. It was Dr. Luis Alvarez’ nutty “jet effect” explanation of Kennedy’s back and to the left reaction in the Zapruder film. (ibid, p. 26)

    Coincidence? Hardly. Labash had worked for rightwing propaganda mills like American Spectator and the intelligence riddled Washington Times. At the time of his hit piece on COPA he was working at Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard. Further, Labash is believed to have done this kind of infiltration assignment before for the Washington Times. His target then was the Institute for Policy Studies. When Gary Aguilar called Labash, he admitted that he had his “marching orders” from on high for his COPA assignment (ibid). To most people, it would appear that Colby and Shackley had fulfilled their mission. Except it was not through Russo. It was through McAdams masquerading as Paul Nolan.

    Did Zaid and Russo get anything out of their efforts in this regard?

    At the time Zaid first appeared on the scene in the JFK case, he had just graduated from law school. In 1989, he had finished his undergraduate work at the University of Rochester. And in 1992 he had graduated from Albany Law School of Union University. I’m not a snob, and I know you can get a good education almost anywhere, but for my upcoming point let me say this: Those two colleges are not exactly like graduating from Princeton and Harvard Law School. Yet, within a little more than a year Zaid had secured employment with an international law firm in Washington D.C. He then quickly became a national security lawyer with a high profile in the media. Today he and a partner run their own law firm handling many, many CIA related cases. Does Albany Law School of Union University have a great placement program? Do many of their graduates advance to international law firms in Washington at warp speed? Or was the writing Zaid did in The Third Decade so impressive that prominent lawyers in Washington were impressed?

    After his meeting with Colby and Shackley, Russo also gained suitable employment. He first worked with Sy Hersh on his godawful book, The Dark Side of Camelot. Loomis’ client Hersh, then got Russo further employment on the equally bad ABC special made out of that book, Dangerous World. And from there, Peter Jennings hired Russo as the lead correspondent for his horrendous 2003 ABC special. Not bad for a guy who used to be a music teacher before Stone’s film.

    Like Russo, Gary Mack was once considered a member of the critical community. Like Russo, something obviously transformed him around the time of Stone’s film. Most informed people know those two facts. But what many informed people don’t know is this: It was a good friend of Gus Russo’s who helped lead Gary Mack over to the Dark Side and into the waiting hands of the Sixth Floor Museum. And this is where the story behind this Discovery Channel special gets really interesting.

    IV

    “You are a damned liar!”
            —Gary Mack to a couple of speakers at Jim Marrs’ JFK class

    Anyone who played a part in producing a show as completely and thoroughly deceptive as JFK: Inside the Target Car has no right in calling anyone a liar. Yet this is something Gary Mack did at Jim Marrs’ UT at Arlington JFK class. This was to Jim’s invited guests who were offering up their testimony for acceptance or rejection by his students. And he did it more than once. And he did it with Dave Perry at his side. According to some, with Perry alternately pulling and loosening his leash. It’s an interesting association, Dave Perry and Gary Mack. How did it come to be?

    As most people know, Mack was one of the two main talking heads on Nigel Turner’s mini-series documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy. That series was originally shot in the 1980’s and reportedly broadcast in England in 1988. It was after this show’s original broadcast that Gary Mack’s life took a turn for the worse. And like a deux ex machina in some medieval play, Dave Perry was there to extend a helping hand.

    (Before I go any further with this part of the essay, I wish to explain something in advance. In what will follow I will use several anonymous sources. That is because some of the persons who I interviewed for this piece requested it. The reason I abided by their wishes is that the people behind The Sixth Floor Museum make up, as one source told me, the white power structure of Dallas. And, as we shall see in the case of Bob Groden, they play hardball. Secondly, the connections and character of Dave Perry are rather suspicious and sinister. I mean how many JFK researchers can claim FBI informant, and CIA applicant Hugh Aynesworth as their friend? Perry can. In light of the above, I think one can understand why much of the following will not be sourced.)

    As previously noted, Gary Mack had been a JFK researcher for a long time before he appeared on the Nigel Turner series. He had helped the House Select Committee secure and test the acoustical evidence, which they found compelling. He also had done much work on the “Badgeman” image. But according to one source, Gary Mack didn’t think he got enough credit for either of those two discoveries. (Which is probably why, even today, he still mildly pushes those two angles.) When Henry Hurt published his book Reasonable Doubt, he told Mack he was going to place the Badgeman image on the book’s cover. He did not. Then Mack got the talking head gig for the Turner series. But the notoriety Gary Mack got from this show did not help him. It actually seemed to hurt him. He lost his job as an announcer at Channel 5 in Fort Worth.

    But this was not the only misfortune that visited him at this time period. Prior to this, Gary Mack had been married and lived in a nice upper middle-class suburban development of Fort Worth named Wedgwood. At around the time period he lost his job, he also lost his wife and was forced to sell his home in a the subsequent divorce proceedings. According to two sources, Mack (whose real name is Larry Dunkel, “Gary Mack” is only a broadcast name) blamed some of his problems on his JFK work. And not just with Nigel Turner. When he worked with the NBC affiliated Channel 5, he had dug through their archives to find original footage of the shooting of Oswald. In fact, he had assembled nearly one straight hour of important footage: 30 minutes before and after the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby.

    But there is something I must note here about Mack/Dunkel’s split from Channel 5. He got a rather generous severance package. Usually three or four weeks pay is standard for workers, and recall Mack was not part of management. If a worker gets two or three months, you are doing well. Gary Mack’s severance package was for twice that. It was six months. Unusual as far as I know.

    This is where it gets even more unusual. Once Mack got his rather large severance package, he did very little in the way of looking for suitable employment. In fact, he did very little at all. But he did tell one source that he knew there was an opening coming up at the Sixth Floor Museum, and he thought he was a leading candidate for the position.

    Well the position of Director did come up. But Mack did not have the proper credentials in museum management. So Mack/Dunkel went back to college to attain the right background. This took awhile. So instead of waiting, when Gary Mack finished his studies, he assumed the position of curator, formerly held by Conover Hunt. Roughly speaking, this meant he would handle exhibits and collections and be their public spokesman.

    If the reader detects something odd here, something more than meets the eye, he should. Because contrary to what Gary Mack tries to convey, the Sixth Floor Museum is an all-out supporter of the Warren Commission mythology about that Krazy Kid Oswald. They once offered a prominent Dallas researcher a position at a six figure salary. But they made it clear to him that he would now have to exclusively support the Warren Commission in public. He turned down the deal on those ethical grounds. Apparently, the new Gary Mack did not have that dilemma.

    V

    Dave, are you with the CIA?
            —Question from a mutual acquaintance to Dave Perry

    All these events are swirling around the time that Oliver Stone had purchased the rights to Jim Garrison’s book On the Trail of the Assassins. That film was released in late 1991. But it had been in production for about a year and the script and research had consumed over another year. After Stone had purchased the rights to the Garrison book, he quickly decided to expand his lens on the subject. He did not just want to tell a New Orleans story. He wanted to go deeper into both Dallas and Washington. So he also purchased Jim Marrs’ book Crossfire and he brought on Vietnam authorities John Newman and Fletcher Prouty. But this was still not enough. He also decided to assemble a research team. One of the people who was considered for the position of chief researcher was Gus Russo. He did not get the job. Jane Rusconi did. Russo felt slighted by this and he always thought that Rusconi got the job because she was a woman. (He used to call her “the hippie chick”.) Russo stayed on as an informal adviser and Stone used him to compose the footnotes for the published script. So Russo was in on and onto the project almost from the beginning. We know this not just from the above, but also from Robert Sam Anson’s piece in Esquire, “The Shooting of JFK.” (November, 1991)

    Two things happened in Dallas while Stone was working on his film project. One was that Oliver Revell became the SAC of the Dallas FBI office. Revell had been in the Navy in 1963 and he became their liaison to the Warren Commission, handling things like Oswald’s strange career in the Marines. (Probe Vol. 3 No. 1) Revell’s number one man in monitoring the Dallas-Fort Worth area Kennedy research community was FBI agent Farris Rookstool.

    But before Revell came to town something else happened that was more under the radar. A guy named Dave Perry moved to Texas from the Washington/Baltimore area. He immediately tried to ingratiate himself with the JFK research community. One way he did that was to have a lifelong friend of his make calls for him in order to grease the skids. His lifelong friend was Gus Russo. Russo and Perry went all the way back to college together. And they stayed friends for all those years. In fact, Russo went as far as actually flying to Dallas from his home in Baltimore to introduce Perry to the critical community there. Perry tried to make friends with all the researchers in town. But there was something phony about him that put everyone off. Everyone except one person: Gary Mack.

    Mack, with Perry as his new cohort, now came out of the closet. He began to rage at some of the things he had previously believed in and some of the people he had previously been friendly with. One example being Jim Marrs. Marrs offered a course in the JFK case at UT Arlington. Perry and Mack signed up each semester. They never offered anything positive. Their main contribution was to make everyone else feel uncomfortable and to ridicule certain speakers Marrs had arranged to attend.

    Perry now became Mack’s guru on the JFK case. When he would talk to his former pals, he would sprinkle his conversation with prefaces like, “Dave says”, or “According to Dave”. He then would often berate them for certain areas of study they had developed. The only two things that Mack was now interested in from a conspiracy vantage point was 1.) The acoustics, and 2.) The Badgeman image. Those are two things he had been personally involved with, so he could not throw those out.

    Another reason people were suspicious of Perry was that he was always against everything they came up with. Yet he never developed anything on his own. And then he opened his house door for several weeks to Gerald Posner when he was writing Case Closed. This almost had to be at the request of Russo since Posner lived in his vicinity.

    Now, at this time frame of 1990-92, the leading journal in the JFK community was Jerry Rose’s The Third Decade. Neither Probe nor The Assassination Chronicles had surfaced yet. Perry became a frequent contributor to Rose’s publication. The first article he did was in the November 1991 issue exposing the Roscoe White debacle. This article was published right before the debut of Stone’s film, even though the press conference announcing the whole Roscoe White tale had happened on August 6, 1990. Perry’s article foreshadowed a new turn for Jerry Rose’s journal. From that issue on, it became a haven for writers like Jerry Organ, Dennis Ford, Mark Zaid, and Bob Artwohl. By 1993, it had become so studded with disinformation artists, it was almost useless. Which is one reason Probe was started. Perry wrote five articles I know of for that journal. None of them were based on any of the new documents published by the ARRB. Only one can be called even mildly anti-Warren Commission. That was in Volume 8 No. 5, where he ridiculed the work of Don Breo in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Besides this piece, I can find nothing else Perry ever wrote that furthered any lines of evidence in the new documents or was ever highly critical of the Commission. Nothing on Oswald, nothing on the Paines, nothing on the medical interviews by Jeremy Gunn, nothing on Mexico City, nothing on the various cover ups by the FBI or the CIA, nothing on how the Commission and FBI altered testimony or tried to intimidate witnesses, nothing on how the evidence list obtained by the Dallas Police was altered by the FBI, nothing on how Michael Baden altered evidence to raise the rear skull wound etc. etc. etc. I could go on endlessly simply because for a man who is interested in the JFK assassination, Perry has been seemingly oblivious to all this.

    Or has he?

    VI

    Go ahead and sue us.
            —The Sixth Floor to Robert Groden

    The power elite in Dallas never wanted to recognize the fact that Dealey Plaza was their top tourist attraction. To them it was a bad memory. They wanted it to go away. It was a black eye to an up and coming city that wanted to make its mark in America. For years and years the city tried to deny they saw all those people coming into town to visit the site where President Kennedy was killed. For a time they actually said the number one tourist attraction was the TV set for the series Dallas. Because that was the image the Dallas power elite wanted to project. Not that of a hate filled Wild West town whose police force allowed the murder of the president. And then allowed his alleged assassin to be killed literally in their arms live on TV.

    How much did Dallas want to forget what happened in Dealey Plaza? Well, at one time, they even floated the idea of razing the Texas School Book Depository. When that happened there was a public uproar against it. So Dallas County acquired the building in 1977 and located some offices there. From that time, a few powerful and private citizens set up a group to raise the money to lease and renovate the sixth floor. Some of the money was donated by local government and some from private corporations. Eventually, after over three million was raised, the museum opened in early 1989. And it was run by something called the Dallas County Historical Foundation. From the beginning they have tolerated virtually no differences with the Warren Commission. How could they, that could imply the local police were in on the cover up. When you put on their headphone talk inside, it is essentially the Krazy Kid Oswald story. On their web site, they even try and cover up for Life Magazine concealing the powerful evidence in the Zapruder film from the American public. This is what they say: when Abraham Zapruder sold his film to Life, it was with the understanding they not exploit the graphic details of Kennedy’s death until emotions cooled down. Zapruder sold all rights to Life Magazine. Once they paid him, he had no power over what they did with the film. Executive C.D. Jackson and Henry Luce—the owner of the magazine—decided to conceal the film from the public since they knew it contradicted the official story. The only way it was shown was when Jim Garrison subpoenaed the film for the trial of Clay Shaw and when Bob Groden spirited out a copy to finally show to the public on TV in 1975. Got that, 12 years later the public saw it. I think 12 years is enough for emotions to cool down. The truth is this: If it were up to Luce and Jackson, the public would have never seen the film. But that would indicate some kind of cover up. Which is something the Sixth Floor Museum will never admit.

    Not only is the Sixth Floor Museum in the bag for the Warren Commission, they are resolute in resisting any competition. Today, Bob Groden lives in Dallas because there is almost no competition there today for the Sixth Floor. So he offers the public an alternative view to the Krazy Kid Oswald fantasy they sell at their place. And they don’t like it. Groden has been charged once and ticketed 80 times for selling his books and DVD’s in the Plaza. The charges have been things like “vending without a permit”, “selling on public property”, “selling on private property” etc. The police have confiscated some of his things without ever returning them. Each charge has been thrown out. He has even been stopped at a red light and ticketed for illegal parking. You think it would have stopped after maybe 20 or 30 times. Groden firmly believes the Sixth Floor Museum has been behind this harassment. They don’t want anyone contradicting their cover story.

    But it even goes further than that. At one time, Groden and some partners discovered there was an opening at the Dal-Tex building coming up. They thought of leasing the space and opening up their own museum, which would have been right next door to the Sixth Floor. Well the Sixth Floor would have none of it. They swooped down and leased the space for themselves—without using it. Groden stayed out on the grass where he could be harassed.

    And far from just being a public spokesman, Groden has told me that Mack is actually involved in the setting of policy. Gary Mack is active and adamant about keeping serious Warren Commission critiques out of the bookstore. He once told someone that, “Those books are not accurate.” Sylvia Meagher and Philip Melanson are throwing up in their graves over that one. They are not accurate. But Gerald Ford and his raised “neck wound” are? The Sixth Floor went as far as to use some of Groden’s work without his permission. He complained about it. They said in effect, “Go ahead and sue us. We will tie you up in court for years.” They then agreed to make a trade with him. According to Groden, the stuff they gave him was not comparable to the things they took. And not only is the Sixth Floor anti-critical community, and pro-Commission, they are all too friendly with anyone else who supports that myth. When Robert Stone’s pitiful film Oswald’s Ghost came out, they helped screen it at the Texas Theater. This is the historical institute Gary Mack works for today. And this helps explain his active and boisterous participation in something as bad as JFK: Inside the Target Car.

    But let us return to the time when Gary Mack was in limbo. After he lost his job and was living off his rather generous severance package. As I wrote, he somehow knew in this bleak time period he would eventually secure a position with the Sixth Floor Museum. Which, of course, he did. How could he have been so certain?

    Because Dave Perry told him so—since it was he who helped get him the job. And I have that, through a mutual acquaintance, from Perry himself. Perry also admitted at the time that he was Mack’s handler. And that he is very close to the Dr. Doom of the JFK case, Hugh Aynesworth. Perry actually manages Aynesworth’s web site. And Perry has gotten Mack to sponsor talks by Aynseworth at the Sixth Floor. Like Gary Mack, Perry became a handler for certain witnesses, like Wesley Frazier—who needs to be handled by the Dark Side since he is a very suspicious character. In his post at the Sixth Floor, Gary Mack has clearly influenced witnesses like Gayle Nix and Billy Hargis. With Nix, he has managed to give her this bad impression that all researchers are only in it for the money. And he even instructed her to try and secure personal information about writers who try and interview her. With motorcycle patrolman Hargis, the Sixth Floor has clearly gotten him to believe that instead of being hit like a bullet from the debris out of Kennedy’s head, he actually just drove through it as it fell from the air. Which, of course, is what Perry’s buddy Posner wrote about in his book.

    Let me echo the sentiments of Jim Garrison in regards to the above: Anybody who associates with the likes of Hugh Aynesworth on the JFK case is deserving of both suspicion and contempt. (Click here to see why.) And anyone who opens his door to Bob Loomis’ pal Gerald Posner is somewhere below that. But this is the path that Gary Mack, guided by Dave Perry, took to become the Discovery Channel’s Dan Rather.

    Dave escorted Gary down the Yellow Brick Road. Except the trip did not end with Mack meeting the Wizard of Oz. It ended with Gary Mack becoming the new Wizard of Oz. A job which he took to with relish.

    Shame on them both.