Garrison, Angleton and the CIA

A faithful reader writes with questions about my post on the UNLV conference celebrating New Orleans DA Jim Garrison for his efforts to prosecute a JFK assassination conspiracy

The reader says he is “not aware of evidence that the [CIA's] Counterintelligence staff was ‘secretly trying to subvert his investigation,’” as I wrote in my post.

James Angleton

James Angleton, longtime chief of the CIA’s Counterintelligence Staff.

“Subvert” was perhaps too strong a word, but not by much. The so-called “Garrison Group” within the CI Staff operated in secret in 1967-68. This group of analysts was plainly part of the larger Agency effort to thwart Garrison from investigating Oswald’s contacts with CIA-affiliated Cubans.

Reader goes on:”What is the basis for saying that Garrison was looking into that anti-FPCC operation?

A. He was asking questions of Carlos Bringuier and Carlos Quiroga about their contacts with Oswald, the FPCC man. Garrison did not know anything about CIA “black” operations in New Orleans. He knew very little about how the CIA funded and managed the Cuban Revolutionary Council and the DRE, which both Bringuier and Quiroga were associated. Nor did Garrison know how thoroughly the CIA and FBI had penetrated the FPCC at the time of Oswald’s membership in the group.

And a follow-up question: “Or are you just saying that he [Garrison] was looking into Oswald’s interaction with the DRE and that the DRE was involved in that operation?”

A. Yes, I am saying that. I am saying that the CIA’s counterintelligence staff acted to prevent Garrison from learning more about Oswald and the anti-Castro Cubans in New Orleans to protect its operational interests in disrupting the FPCC.

One more point. The intense interest of Angleton’s Counterintelligence Staff in every person touched by Garrison’s prosecution in 1967-68 was both peculiar and revealing.

The job of the Counterintelligence Staff was to prevent the penetration of CIA activities by a foreign intelligence service. Yet as the CI staff monitored Garrison’s investigation, Angleton’s people never raised the issue of whether Oswald had come under the influence of the Soviet KGB or the Cuban DGI.

Independent scholar Max Holland calls attention to KGB involvement in the publication of a “CIA did it” conspiracy theory published in an Italian newspapers in 1967. But that didn’t concern Angleton, although he surely knew about it. (Angelton had grown up in Italy.)

Nor was Angleton worried about foreign penetration of CIA operations in 1967-68. He expended no effort to investigate Oswald’s contacts with Soviet and Cuban government officials in Mexico City

What worried Angleton about Jim Garrison hit closer to home: the possibility Garrison’s scattershot prosecution might expose Angleton’s pre-assassination interest in Oswald, which was far greater than the Warren Commission ever knew, and far great than many people inside the CIA knew.

The exposure of the CIA’s secret operation against the FPCC in the fall of 1963 was of special concern for obvious reasons. It might lead people to ask questions like: if the CIA was running a covert operation against the FPCC in late 1963, how did they manage to overlook the most dangerous FPCC supporter of them all, Lee Harvey Oswald?

Jim Angleton and his colleagues at the CIA did not want to face that question, which is why he worried about Jim Garrison.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

245 comments

  1. leslie sharp says:

    http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Reissman%20Leonard%20Dr/Item%2002.pdf

    Page 3. Item 12 . . .
    ” . . . Her husband is also related to STEPHEN LEMANN who is (a) the General Counsel for W D S U -TV, and (b) according to information given us, the local paymaster for the CIA with regard
    to the attorneys attempting to block the inquiry.”

    STEPHEN LEMANN’s law firm was also counsel to Whitney Bank, the Whitney family/ Freeport Sulphur.

    And from Lisa Pease’s work on Freeport:
    “A memo in the GUY BANISTER file indicates that there is information which reports that DICK WHITE, a high official of Freeport Sulphur, and CLAY SHAW were flown to Cuba probably taking off from the Harvey Canal area in a Freeport Sulphur plane piloted by DAVE FERRIE. The purpose of this trip was to set up import of Cuba’s nickel ore to a Canadian front corporation which would in turn ship to the Braithwaite nickel plant. The plant was built by the U.S. Government at a cost of about one million dollars. – New Orleans District Attorney (NODA) Memo from Sciambra to Garrison, dated 10/9/68″

  2. Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

    John Newman (Oswald and the CIA) and Lisa Pease (The Assassinations) have closed in on Angleton’s role in controlling Oswald. Angleton is likely the mastermind of the Mexico City charade, which is inconceivable without the New Orleans´ one with Castroit Oswald as main character. The issue is well discussed in chapter XVI of DiEugenio´s Destiny Betrayed.

  3. Jonathan says:

    Appears the faithful reader knows less than Jeff Morley about CIA counterintelligence activities in NOLA.

    Jeff, your post reinforces strongly a thought I’ve had; viz., the plotters set up Oswald knowing Angleton (and Hoover) would have a strong interest in tagging him the lone assassin and in shutting down any pursuit of truth.

    I’ve come to the conclusion Angleton had no hand in the assassination but had a big hand in the cover-up. If one looks at those who wielded power in regard to the assassination and cover-up, and I mean power, one must look closely at the Secret Service and the high military officers. A rogue CIA officer could have coordinated these individuals easily.

  4. TLR says:

    James Douglass wrote in JFK and the Unspeakable: “Barbara Tomlinson, an early sixties organizer of the Seattle Fair Play for Cuba Committee, has described the means used to destroy her own FPCC chapter long before Oswald carried out his New Orleans charade. Over a year before JFK’s assassination, Tomlinson received a mailing from the FPCC’s New York headquarters promoting the speaking tour of a professor of anthropology and musicology who had visited Cuba, defying the US embargo. The FPCC-sponsored professor would lecture and show slides on Afro-Cuban dance. When Tomlinson organized a Seattle meeting for the speaker, he began his presentation by insulting her. He then showed tourist slides from Brazil at a frantic pace, while garbling an unintelligible script that had no connection to Cuba. The impostor’s presentation and behavior so disrupted Tomlinson’s fragile coalition of Old Left activists and a few liberal Democrats that they managed only one more meeting before breaking up permanently. Tomlinson feels the FPCC national office must have been taken over by government agents even at that early stage for it to have been promoting a nationwide speaking tour by a provocateur. If so, the CIA would have known that it had no real FPCC to target in the summer and fall of 1963. Tomlinson’s Seattle perspective supports the view that whatever Guy Banister told Oswald, the underlying purpose for Oswald’s New Orleans theater would have had to lie beyond discrediting a sham organization.”

    There’s also the FBI’s interest in the FPCC:

    “On May 16, 1963, a source advised that during the first two years of the FPCC’s existence there was struggle between Communist Party (CP) and Socialist Workers Party (SWP) elements to exert their power within the FPCC and thereby influence FPCC policy.” (Commission Document 11 – FBI Hosty Jr. Report of 10 Sep 1963 re: Oswald/Russia)

  5. Bogman says:

    My question is how did Oswald know who Carlos was and where he worked? It’s not like he had Google to search. If Carlos had been in the paper recently as DRE spokesperson would they have mentioned his place of business?

    The other question is why would the lone nut Oswald deliberately provoke the DRE in NO? The lone nutters will say it was to impress Castro to be allowed into Cuba. If that was the case, why did Oswald ignore all instructions from the FPCC, actually ending that connection to Castro. Doesn’t seem like a good idea to impress Castro by alienating yourself from his organization in the US, does it?

    The only scenario where Oswald’s action make sense is as an agent provocateur. And we don’t know the full extent of his actions related to US intelligence agencies because they lie, obfuscate and obstruct to this day.

    BTW, long a fence sitter awaiting concrete evidence, I am now convinced there was a conspiracy and it did involve American intel at the very least (might’ve gone higher as in Joint Chiefs). My points of evidence are for me:

    o the testimony of the handful of random, average Americans closest to or having the best vantage point of viewing the final head shot in Dealey, ALL saying it came from the knoll with common details (smoke, the smell of gunpowder in the air). They couldn’t have all been hallucinating the same experience. With all other circumstantial evidence being equal, this is the deciding factor for me regarding the actual crime in Dallas.

    o DeMorenschildt’s confession to being directed to handling Oswald by the CIA in Dallas

    o New Orleans

    o Mexico City

    The rest is just confirming the details and figuring out how high the conspiracy went as much as is possible a half century later.

    I do not come to these conclusions with any joy or enthusiasm, though, I can tell you that.

  6. Brad Milch says:

    “if the CIA was running a covert operation against the FPCC in late 1963, how did they manage to overlook the most dangerous FPCC supporter of them all, Lee Harvey Oswald?” Not only miss Oswald but also the alleged weapons he purchased via his monitored mail & his alleged threat to kill President Kennedy in his alleged visit to Mexico City.

    Many believe the answer is either extreme CIA incompetence during JFK’s Presidency or LHO was either working for the CIA or an agency on friendly, cooperative terms with it.

    Jeff Morley’s valiant push for the Joannides & other suppressed JFK records make him a hero to supporters believing he’s on the threshold of solving the JFK assassination while all the more dangerous to those ferociously pushing the government’s version of events who stand to look like fools when & if he does once the enslaved documents are freed & living human evidence is revealed. Some of those throwing internet punches at Jeff in other forums John Simpkin describes as ‘disturbed’. Jeff’s getting closer to the end zone & his detractors can sense it.

  7. John McAdams says:

    The so-called “Garrison Group” within the CI Staff operated in secret in 1967-68. This group of analysts was plainly part of the larger Agency effort to thwart Garrison from investigating Oswald’s contacts with CIA-affiliated Cubans.

    The documents on the Garrison Group were first published on my site, Jeff. They show the CIA trying to figure out what to do about Garrison, and eventually deciding they had no viable options.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm

    As for the “larger Agency effort,” you might try producing some evidence on that.

    As for questioning Carlos Bringuier and Carlos Quiroga, you seem to believe that they were part of some CIA “operation” against the FPCC, but you have no evidence of that.

    In the first place, there was no New Orleans FPCC (just Lee Oswald).

    In the second place, you need to listen to Bringuier debating Oswald. The Cubans in New Orleans come across as a bunch of anti-Castro hotheads, not as agents of some profession “operation.”

    So the onus is on you to produce some evidence for your suspicions.

    • bogman says:

      I don’t think the DRE had any knowledge the NO wind-up was initiated by intelligence, but Carlos Bringuier did have his suspicions of Oswald in that regard from the start.

      All intel had to do was send this Oswald character into their midst and let it play out like it did.

    • Neil says:

      If Garrison was not onto something that the CIA wanted kept secret, why were they interested in his investigation? Why devote time and resources to monitoring Garrison’s investigation if there was nothing to be revealed in New Orleans?

    • anonymous says:

      “The Cubans in New Orleans come across as a bunch of anti-Castro hotheads, not as agents of some professional “operation.”

      Professional “operation? The CIA control officer may be “professional” – the assets are not. The CIA recruits and handle assets that are used by the CIA to assist in operations. Some assets are foreign national “hotheads” and some are American professionals:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_United_States#Operation_Mockingbird

  8. Kennedy63 says:

    I’ve read where some Warren Reporters characterize Oswald as someone who “wanted” to be a spy, but did not possess the capacity for the intricacies of spy craft. I’ve read some of these same Warren Reporters also characterize Ruby as a police buff and mentally deficient in certain respects. When I researched both Oswald and Ruby, I come away with a chilling realization – nothing about these two people was “normal.” They both moved in clandestine circles, whether intelligence or gangland. When you compare the level of “secrecy” surrounding both Oswald and Ruby, and who controlled information about them, you soon realize that the true personalities and activities of Oswald and Ruby are grossly hidden and distorted for distinct purpose and for clandestine reasons. Oswald died because he was vulnerable to questioning by police; Ruby killed him to silence him. Ruby, with his underworld/police connections also was vulnerable, but protected. I recently reviewed Ruby’s FBI lie detector test(as reviewed by the HSCA, and surmised the test was a sham and purposely done in a manner to obfuscate the truth of Ruby’s answers. When asked if he knew Oswald, or had assisted Oswald in the assassination, Ruby answered “No” to both questions. HSCA found, through analysis of the whole process, that in fact, Ruby lied about both knowing and assisting Oswald.
    Just as the interrogation room was filled with extraneous people in the time Oswald was being questioned, so too was the questioning room filled with people while Ruby was being questioned. Ruby was controlled by people from Dallas (local gov’t). Oswald was controlled by people from the national security agencies (SS, FBI, CIA). The Warren Omission was controlled by Federal powers (FBI, CIA, Johnson, Dulles, Eastern Establishment types (i.e. Rockefeller/people associated with World Bank, CFR, CIA, MASONS). Kennedy’s murder was a coup d’état. Let’s boldly call a thing a thing, people; let’s stop treading gingerly around the elephant in the room pretending like we don’t see it, or it does not see us. We have more room to out maneuver the elephant!
    The FBI’s Hoover was aware someone was using Oswald’s name in a covert and illicit manner while Oswald was still in Russia. People tied into intelligence would only know this and both the mafia and anti-Castro Cubans were tied into intelligence and these groups used such intelligence to their advantage without CIA knowing/or turning a blind eye, such as to drug smuggling and gun running. So Oswald’s name being used and bandied about among several “intel” agencies was nothing new. Questions are raised as to why Oswald. Seems this started after the Executive Action capabilities of the CIA were established and certain people like Harvey, Rosselli and JM/Wave, began colluding to kill Castro/Kennedy. Seems to me that the obvious mechanics in Dealy Plaza were the anti-Castro Cubans associated with organized crime bosses Marcellos and Trafficante who were organized by Rosselli and Ruby as the bag man. I say Ruby because his whereabouts can only be partially accounted for, and that by people tied to him or dependent on him. Oswald’s behavior is distorted and obviously someone impersonated him where needed. Given the revelations of John Martino and Antonio Vecianna, we know the CIA was involved before and after the assassination. If we agree Oswald was connected to FBI/CIA and that Ruby was mob-connected or used, and that the Anti-Castro Cubans (the mob-controlled factions) actually carried out the assassination, then wouldn’t the cover-up also have to take place because of the CIA/Mafia plots using anti-Castro Cubans…brain-food for thought.

  9. anonymous says:

    ” I am saying that the CIA’s counterintelligence staff acted to protect its operational interests in disrupting the FPCC.”

    I don’t know if protecting its operational interests is what motivated CIA’s counterintelligence staff,
    or if it was “national security”…

    As for the CIA’s interest in disrupting the FPCC? I have to ask how effective was the FPCC?

    “thoroughly the CIA and FBI had penetrated the FPCC”

    This thoroughly penetrated organization (FPCC) might been a CIA front organization:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_United_States#Operation_Mockingbird
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Central_Intelligence_Agency_front_organizations

  10. Garrison never bought the idea that Bringiuer and his pal Quiroga thought of Oswald as a Commie. This is obvious from the polygraph questions he wrote for Qurioga.

    For example, “You have said you tried to infiltrate Oswald’s “organization”. Isn’t it a fact that you knew his Fair Play for CUba activities were merely a cover?” Quiroga denied this. The polygraph indicated deceptive criteria. (Destiny Betrayed, p. 162)

    SInce JG thought LHO an agent provocateur for the CIA, then clearly he thought this was an Agency op. But he could only take it up to Banister. He was not aware of the Phillips/McCord sanction way up above.

    Its also obvious that the CIA was very active in subverting JG. As Leslie notes, the WDSU law firm was funneling Agency money to people like Walter Sheridan. (ibid, p. 238) Garrison learned this from CIA affiliated journalist David Baldwin, who was close to Clay Shaw.

    But by the fall of 1967, the CIA was really getting worried. At the first meeting of the Garrison Group, Rocca said words to the effect that if JG was allowed to proceed, Shaw would be convicted.(ibid, p. 270) Helms actually ordered the meeting. Karamessines, his deputy, was there.

    Its clear that the CIA now tried to formally obstruct Garrison since, for instance, they actively interceded with judges in Washington to prevent subpoenas from being served. (ibid, p. 271) Irvin Dymond then met personally with the local CIA station chief. (ibid, p. 277) Dymond then recurited lawyers for Garrison witnesses and defendants off the CIA’s cleared local attorney panels.

    This went up to the trial, when Angleton was running name traces on possible jurors. Angleton was also digging up dirt on Garrison witnesses like John Nichols; and the CIA moved a teletype machine into the local station to monitor the trial in real time. They weren’t leaving anything to chance.

    Especially after Finck shocked everyone and told the truth.

    • Sandy K says:

      Jim, Walter Sheridan served the Kennedy family – particularly RFK – as a private investigator and inner-circle confidant. Puzzling to me that RFK either commissioned or allowed Sheridan to help discredit Garrison. After all wasn’t Garrison at least making an attempt to find the killer(s) of RFK’s brother?

      • John McAdams says:

        Garrison was reckless and irresponsible. Sheridan reported that to Bobby.

        So why do you believe Bobby would condone a reckless and irresponsible jihad like Garrison’s?

        • Jonathan says:

          I imagine it’s especially galling to you that Garrison got Finck to testify that a high-ranking officer ordered the autopsy docs not to probe the back wound.

          Although if I were in your shoes I’d be troubled knowing the jury acquitted Shaw because it did not believe he did work for the CIA at the time of the assassination. Troubled based on what’s now known of Shaw’s dealing with the CIA.

          I guess if I were you I’d do everything I could to trash Garrison.

          • John McAdams says:

            In fact, Finck said the wound was not probed because “the family” did not want it.

            That’s also what he said in the Blumberg Memo.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/finck1.htm

            THE PRESIDENT’S FAMILY INSISTED TO HAVE ONLY THE HEAD EXAMINED

            This, of course, is consistent with what Manchester learned was happening during the autopsy.

            Troubled based on what’s now known of Shaw’s dealing with the CIA.

            That he gave information to the Domestic Contact Service? And that relationship was ended in 1955?

            You certainly don’t have anything else.

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to:

            John McAdams
            June 17, 2014 at 3:57 pm

            In fact, Finck testified at the Shaw trial that higher-ranking officers gave “suggestions and directions” to the autopsy doctors.

            John, I take it you’ve never served as a military officer. If you have, you surely know that when a flag officer (general or admiral) gives a suggestion or a direction, lower-ranking officers know EXACTLY what they’re to do or not do.

            Your comment ignores completely the significance of the fact that the autopsy was performed by military officer-doctors before a gallery of general and admirals. In the military, rank trumps.

          • John McAdams says:

            In the military, rank trumps.

            You are entirely ignored the fact that up on the 17th floor was the Kennedy entourage, including the Secretary of Defense (and Bobby, and Jackie, and Dave Powers, and Kenny O’Donnell), and they were calling down to the autopsy theater demanding to know when it would be over.

            If “rank trumps,” the people on the 17th floor trumped.

        • Sandy K. says:

          With all due respect Professor, put up against the egregious acts of the WC’s Gerald Ford moving JFK’s back wound location, the FBI’s Hosty flushing evidence down a toilet, the Secret Service scrubbing down the limo crime scene and unlawfully taking JFK’s body from Dallas, the CIA lying about having recordings of the Oswald impersonator in Mexico City, the Navy doctors intentionally botching JFK’s autopsy, the DPD not recording/transcribing ANY Oswald interrogations…put up against the shenanigans pulled by the people you ask us to trust, Jim Garrison looks like Perry Mason.

          • John McAdams says:

            WC’s Gerald Ford moving JFK’s back wound location

            Factoid alert!

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ford.htm

            Secret Service scrubbing down the limo crime

            No evidence this actually happened. There is only one photo of a bucket of water next to the limo, implying that somebody (not necessarily the Secret Service) intended to clean out the limo, but when it made it back to the White House garage the blood and gore was still there.

            CIA lying about having recordings of the Oswald impersonator in Mexico City,

            Another factoid:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm

            the Navy doctors intentionally botching JFK’s autopsy

            Intentionally? You know that how?

            the DPD not recording/transcribing ANY Oswald interrogations

            Virtually no police department in the country did that in 1963.

            Even in 2004, the Center on Wrongful Convictions was urging cops to record all interrogations.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Recording_Interrogations.pdf

            Nothing anybody in government did rivals the wild, reckless trampling on peoples’ rights and the crazy charges and statements of Garrison.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Sorry Professor,

            Show me on the autopsy photo the wound to the back of JFK’s neck.

            As for the tapes not being sent to Dallas, apparently the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing (or that was intentional).

            Hoover would not have mentioned the disparity of a voice (10 a.m. call to LBJ or letter to Rowley later) based on just a transcript.

            Where is Hoover’s retraction if it was indeed an error of second hand info as you say?

          • Sandy K. says:

            Documents released to the ARRB do in fact prove Ford was behind alteration the initial WC report. “The initial draft of the report stated: ‘A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine.’

            Ford wanted it to read: ‘A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.’” http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

            There is ample testimony that the SS did in fact alter the limo crime scene at Parkland. The esteemed Vince Palamara provides us:

            Limo Clean-Up/ Secret Service actions re: limo at Parkland Hospital:
            ** “TheWay We Were-1963: The Year Kennedy Was Shot” by Robert MacNeil (1988, Carrol & Graf), p. 197:”The president’s car was there [Parkland Hospital], still at the point where it had pulled up, and they had taken the president out into that emergency entrance…I remember that the Secret Service men were then STARTING TO MOP UP THE BACK SEAT OF THE BIG LINCOLN THE PRESIDENT WAS PUT IN, and a few minutes later they started putting the fabric top on it. And when I went over to look at it a little closer, one of the agents waved me aside and said, ‘You can’t look.’ Later, of course, it seemed ironic that this wall of protection went up when it of course could do no good…”
            ** 21 H 226: Parkland Hospital Orderly Joe L. Richards: asked to get a bucket of water; he complied.
            ** 21 H 217: Nurse Shirley Randall: was asked if she “would get someone to come and wash the blood out of the car.” She said that she would, but was so nervous and excited she forgot about it.
            ** “Time” Magazine, 11/29/63, p. 24—reporter Hugh Sidey: “A guard was set up around the Lincoln as Secret Service men got a pail of water and tried to wash the blood from the car.”
            ** ABC, 11/22/63—reporter Don Gardner:”Outside the hospital, blood had to be wiped from the limousine”;
            ** “New York Times”, 11/23/63, p. 2—reporter Tom Wicker:”…the police were guarding the Presidential car closely. A bucket of water stood by the car, suggesting that the back seat had been scrubbed out.”
            ** “That Day In Dallas” by Richard Trask (1998), page 35 [based off a 7/10/85 interview with Stoughton; same as page 42 of Trask's "Pictures of the Pain"]—”[Cecil] Stoughton recalls that a man was washing the seat “with a cloth, and he had a bucket. There was blood all over the seat, and flower petals and stuff on the floor.” On page 37 there is a Stoughton photo with the caption “A bucket at his feet, an agent [Kinney] is seen leaning into the back seat of the Lincoln cleaning up some of the gore.” [Same photo, without this caption, appears on page 41 of "Pictures Of The Pain"];
            ** “Pictures of The Pain” by Richard Trask (1994), pages 377 and 383 [based off a 5/23/85 interview with Thomas Craven, Jr.]—”The Secret Service cleaning the blood out of the car—the flowers still lying in the back seat—and just chaos until the police figured out what was happening, and then they started to push us off.”
            ** 18 H 731-732—SS Agent Sam Kinney; 18 H 763-764—SS Agent George Hickey:
            The two agents who put on the bubbletop—with the assistance of a DPD motorcycle officer—at Parkland: they are pictured in the infamous photos/films of the bucket beside the limousine: “JFK Assassination File” by DPD Chief Jesse Curry, p. 36 (see also p. 34: same photo, different angle in UPI’s “Four Days”, p. 25); Texas News newsreel (“Kennedy In Texas” video); WFAA/ ABC video 11/22/63; Cooper/ Sturges film; “Reasonable Doubt” by Henry Hurt (1985), p. 84;
            ** 10/14/98 letter to Vince Palamara from Henry Burroughs— “The limousines that had carried the Presidential party and the Vice-Presidential party were askew. An agent with a stainless steel hospital bucket was cleaning up the rear seat of the President’s limousine. Flowers were strewn over rear seats of both limos.”

            (to be continued)

          • Sandy K. says:

            (continued)

            Bill Simpich is authority par excellence on the Oswald/Mexico City connection. Simpich states: “the following officers swore under penalty of perjury that the tapes did not exist by the time of the assassination: David Phillips (twice), Ann Goodpasture, Robert Shaw, and Deputy Chief of Station Alan P. White.[ 43 ] We know that Goodpasture lied; she was not just mistaken. Goodpasture said that it was her understanding that Rudd was given a tape to take to Texas and that Scott had a copy “squirreled away in his safe”.[ 44 ] Assuming that Phillips was in on the molehunt, then he lied as well. White’s credibility in this affair is low – Warren Commission staffers David Slawson and William Coleman admitted in a 2003 interview that White was the one who actually played the Oswald tape for them in Mexico City during April 1964.[ 45 ] Slawson had promised the CIA during the Warren Commission investigation that the report would say nothing about the wiretaps, before Slawson and Coleman admitted the existence of the tapes to researchers Tony Summers, Peter Dale Scott, and finally the Assassinations Records Review Board in the early 90s. Goodpasture then changed her testimony from “denial” in 1978 to “admission” in 1995.” http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter6

            Yes the Navy autopsy doctors intentionally botched the JFK autopsy, no matter if they did so under orders from their military superiors. As an example, Humes and Boswell purposefully did not dissect the back wound or use probes to track the bullet wound paths in the back and neck. That’s what is called intentional.

            Police SOP in 1963 cannot not be used as the reason that the DPD did not record Oswald’s interrogations. The reason was malfeasance and ineptitude. In their custody was the lone suspect in the murder of the President of the United States, yet we get this exchange between DPD Capt. Fritz and WC examiner Joesph Ball:

            Mr. BALL. Did you have any tape recorder?
            Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don’t have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had one at this time we could have handled these conversations far better.
            Mr. BALL. The Dallas Police Department doesn’t have one?
            Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I have requested one several times but so far they haven’t gotten me one.

            (Was the DPD also out of pencils, paper and stenos?)

            The aforementioned WC, FBI, SS, CIA, military and DPD agents who abetted the “official” version of the JFK murder are liars and subversives.

            Jim Garrison was on to something approaching truth. He was kneecapped quickly.

          • John McAdams says:

            Yes the Navy autopsy doctors intentionally botched the JFK autopsy, no matter if they did so under orders from their military superiors. As an example, Humes and Boswell purposefully did not dissect the back wound or use probes to track the bullet wound paths in the back and neck. That’s what is called intentional.

            You are using “intentional” in an odd way.

            Finck was clear that “the family” did not want certain things done. That’s not only in his Shaw trial testimony, it’s in the Blumberg Memo.

            Manchester records that the people on the seventeenth floor at Bethesda were continually calling down to the autopsy theater and asking, in effect “when is this going to be over.”

            The result was a rushed autopsy.

            That’s different from intentionally messing up. None of the autopsists intentionally produced a bad autopsy. Rather, they yielded to pressure to finish quickly.

          • John McAdams says:

            Documents released to the ARRB do in fact prove Ford was behind alteration the initial WC report. “The initial draft of the report stated: ‘A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine.’

            The draft that Ford changed was incoherent. It said “A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine.”

            But above the shoulder would be in the neck, and not the back.

            Ford doubtless thought he was correcting the draft, and not doing anything sinister.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ford.htm

          • John McAdams says:

            Police SOP in 1963 cannot not be used as the reason that the DPD did not record Oswald’s interrogations.

            You can huff and puff all you want to about this, but the fact is that the Dallas cops did not record interrogations in 1963. Virtually no police department did.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Recording_Interrogations.pdf

            That you think they should have is irrelevant here.

          • John McAdams says:

            Two final things:

            Your citing Slawson and Coleman about the existence of some tape months after the assassination does not change the fact that the record is clear that no tapes were sent to Dallas on the evening of the assassination.

            And all the reports about people “washing out” the limo don’t change the fact that, when it got to the White House garage, the back seat was covered with blood and gore.

            http://jfklancer.com/photos/limo/p0002.jpg

            Apparently, somebody thought the limo should be cleaned out, and then thought better of it.

            How that indicates a conspiracy is something you might try to explain.

      • Jonathan says:

        Sandy K,

        My take, and I lived as a young adult through the times, is that RFK was proprietary about JFK’s assassination. It was somehow his, and Garrison in his view was an interloper.

        Joan Mellen in her book about Garrison and the Shaw trial, “A Farewell to Justice,” says that Sheridan reported to the CIA on Garrison’s doings through one Herbert J. Miller, Jr. Sheridan had been an ONI officer, so he was acquainted with intelligence operations.

        As Joan Mellen makes clear, Walter Sheridan’s purpose in the Shaw matter was to undermine Garrison.

        • Sany K. says:

          Thanks Jonathan. David Talbot’s book “Brothers” has a detailed treatment of Sheridan’s role in subverting the Garrison investigation and the Shaw trial. I agree, RFK was going to be the avenging angel at a time of his own choosing and Garrison got in the way. Talbot labels RFK “America’s first assassination conspiracy theorist” because RFK was convinced within hours of the murder that no one man did it alone.

    • mball says:

      Whether or not it was standard procedure to record suspect’s statememnts in 1963 is debatable. It was certainly standard procedure to make accurate, extensive notes on interrogations. A report would have to be written and it would have to be accurate and complete. It would likely become a court document. Those measley notes that Fritz took are a joke. There were others present for the interrogations. Where are their notes/reports? How extensive are they? That Fritz et al kept such a poor record of conversations with the main suspect in a presidential assassination and a cop killing because that was standard procedure is not at all convincing.

      • Jean Davison says:

        “There were others present for the interrogations. Where are their notes/reports?”

        See pp.598-636 here:

        https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=74022

        • mball says:

          “How extensive are they?” Not very. In a case of this magnitude, those repoirtsb are almost useless. One gets the impression that the interviewers weren’t after substantive leads, they were conductiong a generic interview. Not acceptable now – or then.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          WC reminds no stenographer or tape recording (which is a complete joke) in its preamble.

          Nothing new here Jean.

          Both Fritz and FBI memos state Oswald was on 1st floor having his lunch before getting a coke on the second floor.

          Why did they not ask Oswald what he meant by “I’m just a patsy”? They didn’t write up these memos until later (much later by Fritz). Everybody saw what he said on T.V.

  11. John Kirsch says:

    If all you did was read the Warren Commission report and the work of people such as Bugliosi, you could easily conclude that, yes, indeed, Lee Harvey Oswald was a nut and that he assassinated JFK. How can you argue with all those words?
    The problem for defenders of the official story is that we also have some actual glimpses of Oswald speaking for himself and not doing too bad a job of it.
    In fact, he did such a good job of keeping his cool in the ambush radio interview in New Orleans that a disinterested observer could be forgiven for suspecting that Oswald wasn’t a nut at all but an operative of some sort who had been briefed and prepped.
    Oswald also failed to provide evidence of irrational behavior in his surprisingly cogent and calm interviews in the Dallas police station.
    How inconvenient for the white washers of history that Oswald called himself a “patsy” instead of claiming responsibility for the assassination. If Oswald really was a loser who wanted attention (as the defenders of the official story would have us believe) shouldn’t he have looked straight into the cameras and said “My name is Lee Harvey Oswald and I shot the president”?
    Oswald, what a vexing person. An ex-Marine, employed, married (the couples’ second daughter, Audrey Marina Rachel Oswald, was 33 days old the day President Kennedy died); Oswald, the alleged loner, with a circle of friends (some unlikely); Oswald, the social misfit who appeared in a radio interview and spoke at a college; Oswald, the 24-year-old kid who had the presence of mind to act annoyed as the police led him around before the cameras, sending the nonverbal message to all who saw him: This is a terrible misunderstanding. You, the police, don’t understand what’s happening (maybe they did and he didn’t know); Oswald, the living, breathing person who wouldn’t fit inside the frame.

    • bogman says:

      That is so true, John. And to be as obviously smart as he was but to have no plan for escape and the incriminating Hidell ID on him. It doesn’t make sense.

      • John Kirsch says:

        How could Oswald (or whoever fired the shots) be sure that a TSBD employee wouldn’t wander unexpectedly onto the sixth floor and discover Oswald (or whoever fired the shots) in the act of assassinating the president of the United States?
        Did Oswald (or whoever fired the shots) give any thought to what he might do in that circumstance? Perhaps he planned to say that he was merely getting in some target practice in anticipation of a weekend of hunting. Oswald was struggling, after all, and perhaps he had thought to supplement his family’s diet with wild game. Ah, but that wouldn’t have worked very well, would it? After all, there was the small matter of the president passing by in his motorcade. Awkward questions would have been immediately raised.
        What was our intrepid assassin to do?
        Perhaps the plan called for the assassin to shoot the unwelcome intruder. But that would have raised the alarm, wouldn’t it? All those Secret Service agents and Dallas police officers (ever vigilant, as we well know) would surely have heard the shot and drawn their weapons and huddled protectively around the president and delivered JFK from danger, wouldn’t they? Yes, I’m sure they would have. No reason to suspect otherwise, no reason at all.
        Perhaps our intrepid assassin planned to beat the intruder senseless with a textbook. After all, there were many of them at hand. Yes, our assassin would have missed his moment as the motorcade passed harmlessly by beneath the window but Oswald, poor soul, was accustomed to failure, wasn’t he?
        Someone (I wish it had been me) once said that Oswald must have been the only (alleged) assassin to escape via public transportation.
        So let me see if I have the official story right: Oswald, employed, married, the father of 2 children, positions himself at a window on the sixth floor, gets out a rifle (baffling that Oswald, so maladroit with firearms, should have a rifle in the first place), fires three shots at the president (for no reason the WC could discern), leaves the TSBD, uses various forms of transportation to return to his boardinghouse (call this the Keystone Cops part of the story, made even more comical and inexplicable by Oswald’s decision not to leave Dallas ASAP. What an odd turn of events, so unexpected.), shoots and fatally wounds a police officer in broad daylight, ducks into a movie theater, gets arrested and is fatally shot in the police station by a civilian.
        I ask you now, in all seriousness: How could anyone doubt such a story? I just don’t understand why all these conspiracy theorists keep raising all these questions. What is their problem?

        • Bogman says:

          And if Oswald is ‘nuts,’ why not keep shooting from the sniper’s nest? You have the next POTUS down below you and another bullet in your gun. If he doesn’t have an escspe plan and he’s leaving incriminating evidence everywhere anyway, why not shoot at another government official in the motorcade? The WC claimed he didn’t have any particular grievance against Kennedy, it was society in general.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Interestingly enough in the memo by Fritz, Oswald said that Johnson would resume the same policies as Kennedy so it would be pointless to hold a grudge against the President or shoot him.

          • John Kirsch says:

            Not only did Oswald not have a particular grievance against JFK, Oswald had actually made statements that could be construed as supportive or admiring of Kennedy.
            It’s probably only a matter of time before someone says, well what about the Walker shooting? Doesn’t that “prove” that Oswald was a trigger-happy nut?
            My response is that I’m not sure what the Walker shooting proves. If anything it undercuts the notion of Oswald as a competent marksman, since Oswald (or whoever fired at Walker) missed. Nevertheless the official story requires us to believe that this very same Oswald (who was court-martialed in the Marines for shooting himself in the elbow with a handgun) made a one-in-a-million shot with a mail order rifle (thank you, Tim Weiner) on 11/22. As Dave Barry used to say, I am not making this up. This is what the defenders of the official story actually want us to believe.
            I would think that defenders of the official story would suffer cognitive dissonance every time they dredge up Walker.
            That’s because Kennedy and Walker were very dissimilar political figures. Kennedy was a hardline Cold Warrior who seemed to be softening his stance and who had, albeit reluctantly, taken a stand on civil rights.
            Walker was a right-wing demagogue who resigned from the Army after JFK publicly admonished Walker for calling Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Truman “pink” and for violating the Hatch Act by attempting to direct the votes of his troops. (Wikipedia.)It may be significant that Walker also organized protests in September 1962 against the use of Federal troops to enforce the enrollment of African-American James Meredith at the racially-segregated University of Mississippi at Oxford, Mississippi. (Wikipedia.)
            So, the question: If we are to believe that Oswald really was a committed leftist of some sort, his decision to attempt to assassinate a right-wing rabble-rouser such as Walker makes a certain kind of demented sense. But, in my opinion, no such logic applies to the notion of Oswald assassinating Kennedy.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      John, you sound like Oswald’s defense attorney giving an opening address to the jury, but it’s a very good one.

      Don’t forget that the ‘nut’ served at the important Atsugi Naval Air Base as an aviation electronics man and learned how to speak Russian.

    • Jonathan says:

      Good synopsis.

    • Jean Davison says:

      I’ve never understood the argument, “If Oswald was guilty and wanted attention or fame, why didn’t he confess?” Who are we still talking about here 50 years later?

      Oswald called himself a patsy but he implied that the Dallas police were framing him, not some outside plotters.

      There have been hundreds of books criticizing the WC’s case, but no one has ever explained how Oswald could have been framed — i.e., just theoretically, how all the physical and circumstantial evidence against him could have gotten there if he didn’t do it. There’s a reason for that: any frame-up scenario is going to start sounding implausible pretty quickly.

      • Jonathan says:

        Think about this: Oswald’s name was made public before (a) the FBI tied him to the alleged murder weapon; (b) the backyard photos were produced; (c) the autopsy on JFK was completed. The search for perps ceased once he was arrested.

        Helms and Hoover right away decided Oswald did it all alone.

        The whole investigation shut down immediately.

        Why? Because Oswald was special. He could be painted easily as Marxist, even as a communist. What intelligence services did not want revealed is that they had been tracking and possibly even using Oswald. That had to be covered up at all costs.

        The frame-up was shoddy and weak, but it didn’t have to be very good. Once the spotlight was focused on Oswald, the game plan became not to shift the spotlight anywhere else.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Jonathan,

          When Oswald was arrested the police station was already full of reporters who saw him being brought in in handcuffs, and so Oswald’s name quickly became public. He was arrested for Tippit’s murder, but since he worked at the TSBD he was quickly suspected of that crime too, by reporters as well as by the cops.

          It’s just not true that the “investigation shut down immediately.” The FBI files show that they followed up on hundreds of leads. On 11/22 Hoover ordered the Dallas and New Orleans offices to look for possible conspirators. Last two sentences here:

          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=692250

          It’s one thing to say “the cover-up” was “weak,” but it’s much, much harder to show how a frame-up could’ve been carried out if Oswald was innocent. Was the physical evidence against him all planted or fake? Was it just a coincidence that he brought a package to work? Etc., etc.

          • Jonathan says:

            Your link does not support what you write. It shows Hoover was interested only in “Hidell” information.

            The cover-up was strong; it was not weak. The frame job was shoddy: a questionable rifle, questionable rifle shells and bullet, questionable backyard photos. If Oswald had really done it, none of this stuff would be questionable. It would all be iron-clad. Like reality.

            As for the alleged paper bag that supposedly contained the rifle, that has been discussed endlessly elsewhere. Your comment makes it seem the bag is a given, an undisputed fact. Which it isn’t.

          • John McAdams says:

            If Oswald had really done it, none of this stuff would be questionable.

            But it’s not questionable merely because you folks say it’s questionable.

            Just to give two examples:

            The Backyard Photos:

            Real scientists (as opposed to buff hobbyists) found them to be genuine:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt

            The Paper Bag

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

          • Bogman says:

            Curious what you make of this as well. An arrest report declaring Oswald had killed the president, Tippit and wounded Gov. Conally:

            http://www.historygallery.com/autographs/1Presidents/Kennedys/mcdonald/PoliceReport11.22.63.jpg

            Was all the forensic evidence by the time the arrest report was written? Have you ever heard of or seen an arrest report with that kind of summary judgement in so little time?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jonathan,

            Hoover wasn’t looking for information on an alias in that message, he was looking for people named Hidell who might have “knowledge of or possible participation in plot to assassinate the President.” Accomplices, in other words.

            You seem to be suggesting that all the evidence against Oswald was forged or planted. Few CTs will make that definite statement but it’s certainly implied whenever someone claims he was framed. Even if every single piece of evidence is said to be planted or forged, some of Oswald’s own actions make him look guilty. There’s no plausible frame-up scenario that explains all that.

          • mball says:

            Jonathan, interesting, eh? The time on the report is 1:40pm. Kind of supports the contention that Julia Postal overheard an officer at the Texas Theater saying that they had their man on both counts. I believe that the cops knew exactly who they were after in that theater.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ .John,

            I looked at your link re: the backyard photos.

            The article includes other scientists as critics too.

            Then the HSCA panel couldn’t use the original negatives as the DPD didn’t have them.

            This is the same HSCA whose FPP were too afraid to challenge the institutions upon which alleged autopsy photographs were later relied upon to supersede the original autopsy doctors’ findings (not that there aren’t problems with the latter).

            Funny though, if I were a juror, I would find even Jim Marrs’ presentation at Lancer last November pretty convincing (Oswald’s head looks the same on various photos).

          • Ronny Wayne says:

            Back yard photos…”buff hobbyists”.
            John refuses to acknowledge the work of HSCA photo analysts Jack White and Robert Groden in particular both of whom put countless hours year after year into their documented research. While some don’t agree with some of their conclusions their combined bodies of work represent the best analysis of the photographs and film relating to the assassination, and, the back yard photographs in particular.
            I searched for a direct link to White’s “FAKED” video but this will do.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmOS3BGFVo
            Groden’s dissent to the HSCA starts off addressing this subject.
            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/grodn.htm

          • John Kirsch says:

            Jean, my belief is that much of the material described as “physical evidence” in the Kennedy assassination is of questionable value.
            How do you feel about that?

          • John McAdams says:

            John refuses to acknowledge the work of HSCA photo analysts Jack White and Robert Groden in particular both of whom put countless hours year after year into their documented research.

            Neither of those guys had any real credentials in the forensic examination of photos.

            Jack White did not know what photogrammetry was!

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#JWHITE

            Groden was humiliated at the O.J. Simpson trial:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#oj

            Remember those “faked” photos of O.J. in the Bruno Magli shoes?

          • Jean Davison says:

            The time of 1:40 on the arrest report is the approximate time Oswald was arrested, not the time that the report was written. I don’t think Oswald had even arrived at the police station that early.

            Here’s the original copy from DPD records, which looks a little different that the one online. There’s nothing on it showing when it was completed:

            http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/00/0043-001.gif

        • KenS says:

          re: McAdams June 19. from Backyard Photos citation:

          “The rifle in the backyard photographs is
          probably the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository. Shaneyfelt photographed the rifle, attempting to duplicate the lighting and rifle’s position CE 133-A, and found the configurations matched those of the rifle in the backyard photograph. Although he found a notch in the stock of the rifle that appeared faintly on the rifle in the backyard photographs, he did not find enough peculiarities to state categorically that the rifles were identical.”

          Shaneyfelt would not state the rifle in the photos were the MC the WC said was the murder weapon. So the photos themselves are not fakes, according to the expert, just the rifle is not the murder weapon. So where did this rifle come from? Are we to just assume this is the murder weapon even though the expert can not ID it? Obviously, Oswald the Lone Assassin, is holding the weapon, it therefore must be the murder weapon. Isn’t that the way the logic runs, even though the expert appears to disagree?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Ken,

            Your logical question is sound.

            In fact, you would instill reasonable doubt in the minds of a juror.

          • John McAdams says:

            So the photos themselves are not fakes, according to the expert, just the rifle is not the murder weapon.

            Shaneyfelt never said the rifle was not the murder weapon. He was just unwilling to call a definite match on the basis of the photos.

            The HSCA FPP did rule that the gouge on the forestock was part of a “random patterning,” showing that the rifle in the Backyard Photos was the same one recovered in the Depository.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=958&relPageId=113

          • KenS says:

            Re: John McAdams, June 20, 2014 @ 6:16pm

            So the HSCA FPP decided to use a different “system of identification” on the weapon in the backyard photos as the implications in Shaneyfelt ‘s reluctance to make the ID were not suitable, obviously.

            I thought we were talking about expert opinion here, as opposed to that of “buffs”? In your opinion, where does Shaneyfelt fall on the scale?

          • John McAdams says:

            I thought we were talking about expert opinion here, as opposed to that of “buffs”? In your opinion, where does Shaneyfelt fall on the scale?

            The HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel had some copies of the photos that Shaneyfelt did not have available.

            With the better information, they were able to make a call that Shaneyfelt could not in 1964.

            And you need to quit implying that Shaneyfelt somehow thought the rifle was not the one recovered in the Depository.

          • KenS says:

            Re: John McAdams, June 21, 2014 @ 11:33am

            With respect, sir, Shaneyfelt, the expert you have cited, is making the implication; although the backyard photos are in fact of LHO holding a weapon, those photographs are genuine and not faked, that he, Shaneyfelt, the government expert you have cited, cannot identify the weapon as the murder weapon. This is the statement of your expert. The implication is that your expert is stating that Oswald could be holding a rifle other than the MC used to kill the president. That’s pretty simple logic. I’m just wondering about that non-murder weapon in that non-fake photo. Doesn’t that make you just a little bit suspicious? Probably not. However, Shaneyfelt was your expert, not mine.

          • Stephen Roy says:

            McAdams is right. Shaneyfelt is saying that they’re probably the same weapon, but that he can’t say it as a certainty. In no way is he implying that it is a different rifle.

          • KenS says:

            Re: John McAdams, June 21, 2014, 11:33am

            One more thing about the weapon in those backyard photos that Shaneyfeld said were the genuine article. Maybe his reluctance to ID the rifle wasn’t based on the “moon crater” in the fore stock the HSCA was so fond of, but that inconvenient sling strap attachment dangling out in space in photo 133A that the TSBD weapon doesn’t have.

            By the way, do you regard your RA as an expert or a buff?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Dear John, go here for relevant posthumous on
          Mr. White.
          http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/po-jfkwhite
          For Groden, see his website.
          http://jfkmurder.com/

      • Bogman says:

        Jean – I have a question for you. When Hoover told Johnson on Nov. 23 that the accused assassin was impersonated in Mexico City, why didn’t both men immediately move heaven and earth to investigate? Whether you believe in the imposter theory or not, Hoover believed it at that moment and Johnson had no reason not to believe Hoover.

        At that point, when both men in a position to find out who was impersonating the assassin visiting our Cold War enemies consulates, is for proof that the govt was never going to pursue a good faith investigation in the case. The two most powerful men in the country turned their back on a lead that obviously shows conspiracy. instead, they went immediately. In the direction of political expediency.

        Why do you think they did that and why should I believe any investigation they presided over after that? And do you think if they honestly thought a communist state was involved, they would ignore it like they did?

        • Jean Davison says:

          Bogman,

          When people get their information second- or third-hand, as Hoover did, they often get things wrong. Hoover told LBJ, e.g., that the rifle had been mailed to a woman (he apparently thought “A. Heidel” was someone named “Ana Heidel”). Misunderstandings like this one were quickly dropped as things began to get sorted out.

          Hoover mistakenly thought that Dallas agents had heard a tape of someone who wasn’t Oswald. But FBI agents in Dallas and Mexico very soon told him that was wrong. These two pages from the HSCA’s Lopez report explain this:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=68639

          As Lopez wrote, an FBI teletype from Dallas to Hoover 11/23/63 said:

          SET FORTH HEREINAFTER IS TRANSCRIPT OF CONVERSATION RECEIVED BY LEGAT MEXICO FROM CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE [i.e., the CIA], WHICH IS CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE ACTUAL TAPE FROM WHICH THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS MADE HAS BEEN ERASED.

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=5581&relPageId=47

          On 11/25 the FBI Legat who got the material from the CIA in Mexico told Hoover “there appears to be some confusion… no tapes were sent to Dallas”:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=5740&relPageId=55

          Who is likely to know whether a tape was sent to Dallas or not — the agents in Dallas and Mexico, or Hoover in D.C.?

        • bogman says:

          One final question for you, Jean. What do you make of this final interaction with Oswald?

          11:15 A.M. Inspector Thomas J. Kelley, U.S. Secret Service, Has Final Conversation with Lee Harvey Oswald

          Kelley approached Oswald, out of the hearing of others, except perhaps Captain Fritz’s men, and said that as a Secret Service agent, he was anxious to talk with him as soon as he secured counsel, because Oswald was charged with the assassination of the President but had denied it. Oswald said, “I will be glad to discuss this proposition with my attorney, and that after I talk with one, we could either discuss it with him or discuss it with my attorney, if the attorney thinks it is a wise thing to do, but at the present time I have nothing more to say to you.”

          11:21 A.M. Lee Harvey Oswald Was Fatally Wounded by Jack Ruby

          Does it appear to you that Oswald was open to revealing what he knew of the assassination to the Secret Service upon a lawyer’s advice? Is there any other way to read that? Is he just jerking the authorities around or does it look more like he would talk to the Secret Service more openly over the DPD?

      • Gerry Simone says:

        4th REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?

        LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No. They’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.

        Oswald didn’t necessarily imply that the DPD framed him, just that they took him in as a suspect because of his stay in the Soviet Union.

        He didn’t specifically blame anybody or group for being a patsy. That could be anyone.

        Also, the direct or circumstantial evidence suggesting he was framed is not ‘theoretical’ just because you don’t believe it does.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Gerry,

          Oswald’s “patsy” statement was made in the context of a lie about why he was arrested (“taken in”). He was arrested because Johnny Brewer saw him ducking the police who were looking for Tippit’s killer.

          In addition, when Oswald was shown one of the backyard photos, he said that he’d been photographed repeatedly at the police station and that the police had superimposed his head on someone else’s body. That’s in Fritz’s notes/testimony and in reports by Bookhout and Kelley (last paragraph):

          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0326b.htm

          Last line in Fritz’s notes:

          http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/fritz5-5.jpg

          Oswald concealed the fact that he’d lived at the address where these photos were taken.

          • Michael Hogan says:

            Apparently Oswald was ultimately arrested because Brewer recognized him and because he “looked funny.”

            Brewer told David Belin why he happened to watch Oswald:

            Mr. BELIN – Why did you happen to watch this particular man?

            Mr. BREWER – He just looked funny to me. Well, in the first place, I had seen him some place before. I think he had been in my store before. And when you wait on somebody, you recognize them, and he just seemed funny. His hair was sort of messed up and looked like he had been running, and he looked scared, and he looked funny.

            Maybe Oswald was arrested because he didn’t buy a movie ticket.

          • John McAdams says:

            Brewer recognized him and because he “looked funny.”

            Interesting that you failed to mention another part of Brewer’s testimony.

            He heard that an officer had been shot in his part of the city.

            Also, there were police cars going up and down Jefferson.

            Mr. BREWER – I heard the police cars coming up Jefferson, and he stepped in, and the police made a U-turn and went back down East Jefferson.

            So he saw the suspicious-looking Oswald slinking into the entrance way of his store.

          • Stephen Roy says:

            Oswald was not arrested because he failed to buy a ticket. He was arrested because he was seen to be avoiding the police who were searching for Tippit’s killer.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            IF that was the reason, Oswald apparently didn’t believe it as such.

            Oswald had no problem admitting a cop hit him, but he didn’t actually say that the police was trying to frame him.

            What he accuses Fritz in an interrogation session at a different time is not in the same context of his patsy statement.

            Also, Oswald didn’t conceal details of his former address. He just refused to answer any more questions about backyard photos that were inauthentic to him. He has that right to remain silent.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Gerry,

            An FBI agent asked Oswald to list his addresses and he omitted Neely St:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=641

            >>>
            Mr. FRITZ. I asked him about the Neely Street address and he denied that address. He denied having a picture made over there and he even denied living there. I told him he had people who visited him over there and he said they were just wrong about visiting.
            >>>

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Reply to Jean Davison’s comment of June 22, 2014, 10:27 p.m.

            All those previous addresses listed in your reference are for durations of several months.

            I can see him skipping Neely Street if he indeed lived there for only seven weeks, being that it was inconsequential at the time he was initially asked.

            At the moment he was specifically asked while being presented with those backyard photos, he declined to answer further questions based on his belief that they were fakes.

            Interestingly enough, here’s an article that questions the facts surrounding his alleged residency there.

            http://neelyst.blogspot.ca/

          • leslie sharp says:

            Relating to the “patsy” statement:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY8fRTLtgzA

            Note Oswald’s body language and facial expressions are similar to a deer caught in the headlights, particularly at min. 1:01 and beyond when his voice quivers, his lips tremble and obviously his fear mounts as he looks out into the room of reporters but is pulled away from the opportunity to respond.

            The pandemonium in that room helped indict Oswald in the public mind because for decades hence we have been told what to see by journalists and authors whose research is designed to confirm and reinforce the official story; but now that we have the benefit of reflection, the capacity to freeze frame these clips, I trust a new generation of researchers will be open to the fact that Oswald was set up.

            Not to get too sentimental, but watching this particular video, and listening to Dan Rather’s opaque voice over, I want to weep, particularly in light of the fact that CBS would later orchestrate rifle tests and analysis of the Zapruder film in an effort to solidify in the popular mind Oswald’s guilt. Shame.

        • bogman says:

          Respectfully, I think you missed my point, Jean. And I am interested in your opinion.

          The morning of Nov. 23, 1963, the top “police officer” in America told the new POTUS that he had clear evidence that the accused assassin of JFK was impersonated in the consulates of our Cold War enemies. What was both men’s response?

          It’s obvious from the conversation that neither Hoover or LBJ show any interest in pursuing that line of investigation even though Hoover presents it as fact.

          Here in my naïvete I would think the conversation should’ve gone:

          LBJ: Oswald was impersonated in the Cuban and Soviet consulates? Holy sh@t, let’s throw everything we got at finding exactly what’s going on there and identify the imposter, come hell or high water.

          Hoover: Will do, Mr. President.

          But instead they went straight towards trying to pin it all on Oswald, and the rest of the govt followed suit.

          • Michael Hogan says:

            It was a joke, Stephen.

            As per the other member’s comment, it is not my obligation to reproduce all of Brewer’s testimony – just the pertinent part.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            The message was there, but more calmly. Hoover said, “Now if we can identify this man [at the Embassy]…” and at the end LBJ asked him for a “synopsis” and said, “let me know what developments come your way during the day…”

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/html/LBJ-Nov-1963_0030a.htm

          • Stephen Roy says:

            Oops! Sorry, Michael. I didn’t “click” on you or your finely-tuned humour.

            In my defense, I get annoyed when newbies try to over-assert something we lifers know to be untrue or overstated. They use a combination of anger, sarcasm, accusation and moral superiority. There’s too much of that going around these days, and I momentarily lost my bearings.

      • John Kirsch says:

        Jean, you say you don’t understand the argument that goes “If Oswald was guilty and wanted attention or fame, why didn’t he confess?”
        I’ll give you a for instance. Stephen King, the novelist, has described Oswald as “a dangerous little fame junkie who found himself in the right place to get lucky.”
        The implication I draw from that is that Oswald shot JFK in order to draw attention to himself.
        If I believed that, I would have difficulty explaining why Oswald didn’t claim responsibility for the assassination when the eyes of the world were upon him.
        Someone might say, Oswald didn’t do that because he didn’t want to incriminate himself. But that assumes that he was acting logically, which is something that the defenders of the official story rarely give him credit for. They’re too busy trying to make people believe he was crazy.

        • Jean Davison says:

          John,

          How could confessing have possibly given Oswald any more attention than he actually got (and still gets)? Why co-operate by confessing and give the authorities what they wanted if he had nothing to gain?

          I don’t know of anyone who claims Oswald was psychotic (“crazy”).

          • leslie sharp says:

            Merriam-Webster
            nut·case noun \-ˌkās\
            : a crazy or very strange person

            Assuming that the term “lone nut” derives from “nutcase” are you sure you “don’t don’t know of anyone who claims Oswald was psychotic (“crazy”).”

            There are millions upon millions making that claim over decades, including members of the Fourth Estate.

            You might argue this is a matter of semantics, but you did qualify your use of the term psychotic with “crazy.”

            I don’t think there is any question but that “lone nut” was intended to instill the idea that Oswald was “crazy.”

          • John Kirsch says:

            Your statement “I don’t know of anyone who claims Oswald was psychotic (“crazy”).” is disingenuous. It’s like the scene in “Casablanca” where Captain Renault says he’s “shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
            Where do you imagine the notion of Oswald as crazy came from if not from the defenders of the official story? Semantics are beside the point. In the public mind if you call someone a lone nut it’s the same as saying that person is crazy or psychotic or whatever other word you want to use.
            Defenders of the official story cling to the notion of Oswald as crazy because it helps them paper over the tough questions. Why did Oswald shoot JFK? We don’t know and only a crazy person would commit an act of such violence for no reason? Why did Oswald stay in Dallas instead of trying to leave town ASAP? Because he was crazy. On and on it goes.

          • bogman says:

            Especially with WC’s featuring LHO’s psychiatric evaluation as a 13-year-old.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            This is a completely disingenuous remark. The entire premise of the WC report is that Oswald was an embittered, alienated person who was so furious about his inability to achieve anything in life that he murdered the president. As to this comment “[h]ow could confessing have possibly given Oswald any more attention than he actually got (and still gets),” do you actually think he was sitting there thinking “I just killed the president and a cop, if I deny that I did it, people will still be talking about me a half century from now even though I’m so obviously guilty, nyah, nyah, nyah!!!!!” That’s reminiscent of Norman Bates’ little monologue at the end of “Psycho.”

            So on the one hand you’re saying you know of no one who has ever said they thought he was crazy, then impute to him conduct that can only be described as crazy/psychotic.

            Typical WC promoter, trying to have it both ways, all ways, over, under, sideways, down.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Those that know Oswald was positioned in the TSBD as a patsy can be encouraged that others on this forum recognize the absurdity of Jean Davison’s recent assertion that ‘no one has ever claimed Oswald was crazy.’ (paraphrase)

            The defamation of Oswald’s character was central to the cover up.

            From there, could we not more directly challenge Ms. Davison’s book “Oswald’s Game” published on the 20th anniversary of the murder of JFK?

            Certainly Harold Weisberg spent hundreds of hours doing so, margin notes available online at jfk.hood.edu.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Oswald seemed to be in fear of his life and was somewhat elusive after the assassination.

            Oswald denied shooting the President and Tippit.

            Oswald told Fritz and company that in time he would show how those photos were fake, ergo he expected a trial or legal intervention.

            Oswald asked for legal assistance.

            Oswald made that phone call to John Hurt in Raleigh, N.C.

            Oswald felt he was a patsy.

            I doubt very much that if Oswald survived to proceed to a trial, that he would ultimately proclaim his guilt.

            The notion that he was concealing his guilt for more notoriety seems absurd.

          • John McAdams says:

            Those that know Oswald was positioned in the TSBD as a patsy

            Oh really? Who positioned him there?

            And how did it happen?

            How many people had to be in on the plot to get him the job at the Depository (and not at any of the other places where he applied)?

        • Jean Davison says:

          Doesn’t anyone here understand what “psychotic” means? Who has ever argued that Oswald was literally insane, a lunatic who didn’t know what he was doing? Not the WR or anyone else I know of.

          The fact that Oswald didn’t reveal his motive or motives certainly doesn’t mean he didn’t have one.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Again Jean, “I don’t know of anyone who claims Oswald was psychotic (“crazy”).”

            Are you arguing that the “lone nut” appellation does not denote an opinion that Oswald was ‘crazy’ and acted alone? Should those who believe that to be fact revisit the label?

            OXFORD DICTIONARY:
            Psychotic: A severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.
            SYNONYMS
            insane, mad, deranged, demented, crazed, psychopathic
            INFORMAL crazy

            Nutcase
            INFORMAL
            A crazy or foolish person.

            How do you know that Oswald had a motive, and can you state that motive?

          • Michael Hogan says:

            The fact that the Warren Commission was unable to ascribe a motive to Oswald hasn’t kept their supporters from speculating endlessly and doing their best to assign a motive to Oswald.

            In her book Oswald’s Game, Jean Davison wrote:

            “I don’t claim to have solved all the questions surrounding the assassination,
            but I believe I have found an answer to one of the most elusive: Oswald’s motive.”

            After writing about Lyndon Johnson and Daniel Schorr, Davison wrote:

            “By the time Schorr’s article appeared,
            my research had already led me to a similar conclusion. This book will present
            evidence that Castro’s public warning did, in fact, inspire Oswald to assassinate the president. Furthermore, the full context of Oswald’s life directed him toward this reaction….”

          • Paulf says:

            Jean, again, you beg the question. And the one nut theorists are always slippery in their use of terms such as crazy or insane. There is a legal definition, a dictionary definition and common parlance. Certainly the accusations by lone nut theorists posits that Oswald was irrational, to try and explain away why he had no known motive. But they can’t say he was legally insane because they claim he did have a purpose.

            So you get a two-step dance.

            1) Oswald as disaffected nut. However, there isn’t a shed of real evidence to support that. He had one of the more interesting lives of anybody in the country and performing some sort of double-agent activity (whether it was real or in his mind is still to be determined). But in either case, calling him disaffected is ridiculous.

            2) Oswald killed the president because he was disaffected. Again, assuming this is true, about what? Lots of people have lives not as successful as they would like. Millions in the US at any given time. But that isn’t motive to kill a president. People who commit political murders have political motives. Otherwise, why not go into a bus station or post office to act on his disaffection? And why deny it?

            It’s a bogus theory because there is no theory that makes sense, but since it is all you got, you have to push it hard.

          • John Kirsch says:

            You write, “The fact that Oswald didn’t reveal his motive or motives certainly doesn’t mean he didn’t have one.”
            My interest is always piqued whenever someone uses the word “fact” in relation to Lee Harvey Oswald. That is because I have such difficulty believing much of what the government has told us about him.
            At this point, the only thing I’m prepared to accept as “fact” in relation to Oswald is that he was shot and killed in the police station. We have film and still pictures and witnesses to verify that. Virtually everything else about Oswald is cloudy, in my opinion. Maybe I’d feel differently if serious people hadn’t raised questions over the years about whether the government acted in good faith in assembling the story it has been peddling to a skeptical nation for 50 years.
            I suppose if you believe the official story, your view would be that no one, least of all any of these pesky “conspiracy theorists” have proven beyond a doubt that Oswald met with conspirators before 11/22. That wouldn’t fit in with the lone nut scenario, after all.
            However, as one of the majority of Americans who reject the WC’s findings, I feel it is wise to at least entertain the possibility of conspiracy. For one, the government has not provided us with all the information it has, so it seems premature to say we have enough information to say conclusively that Oswald acted alone.
            For another, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist (a pejorative term, by the way) to see many, many holes and odd occurrences in the official story. I suppose the “coincidence theorists” feel okay about that but I don’t.
            To return to your sentence, “The fact that Oswald didn’t reveal his motive or motives certainly doesn’t mean he didn’t have one.” Again, one’s response to that statement probably depends on where you come down on whether there was a conspiracy or not. You are using very neutral-sounding language to creep up on the idea that Oswald MUST have had a motive because he did it. To put it another way, why would someone commit an act of such violence and importance for no reason? That makes no sense, therefore Oswald must have had a reason or motive, even if he didn’t disclose that motive to anyone else.
            The other possibility is that Oswald didn’t have a motive because he didn’t do it.

      • mball says:

        Agree that that is the arrest time. However, an arrest report is usually filed at the time of arrest, or very shortly thereafter. I can’t say positively that that’s the case here, because there is no date on the report. There should have been, but back then with the Dallas P.D. who knows. But inasmuch as arrest reports are supposed to be written at or near the time of arrest, and inasmuch as McDonald was not a detective and he was not an investigating officer, you have to wonder where his information came from that quickly. If the report was filed when it should have been, it would still be early for him to be making such a claim on his report. And Julia Postal did claim to have overheard an officer, using her phone in the theater, saying that they got their man on both counts.

  12. anonymous says:

    “What worried Angleton about Jim Garrison hit closer to home”

    Another question is what worried LBJ and Connaly about Jim Garrison:

    This telephone conversation of LBJ and Connaly about Garrison sounds scripted:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N50cBXvS_G0

    This telephone conversation of LBJ and Hoover also sounds scripted:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUS2SbQn27I

  13. McAdams likes to say that Sheridan was working for RFK when he did his smear job of Garrison for NBC.

    I covered this in depth in my book, the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. McAdams’ problem with this claim is simple: its one of his factoids. With a capital F.

    All the evidence that has been declassified from the Garrison files, the CIA files, and the HSCA files, indicate that Sheridan was working, NOT under the auspices of RFK. But under the license and funding of NBC, and its owners, the Sarnoffs, and covertly with the CIA through the NBC flagship station WDSU. The latter was owned by the Stern family, big backers of Clay Shaw.

    I am very proud of the work I did on this. (See pgs. 237-243,255-58) And digging up the compelling fact that Sheridan formerly worked for 3 years as CI Chief for the NSA, which means he had to interface with Angleton.

    It IS clear that Sheridan tried to influence RFK through his work for NBC and with the CIA. For instance: having Bill Gurvich debrief Bobby after he defected from JG. But its also clear through Nicky Chetta Jr. and Mort Sahl, and now from RFK Jr., that Bobby wasn’t buying Sheridan’s smear job. Which was so poor that NBC had to grant Garrison time under the Fairness Doctrine to reply.

    But even more important, I show Sheridan’s very unethical methods, like with Gordon Novel’s former wife, among others. And how what the witnesses said on Sheridan’s show was either wrong on its face or later revealed to be coerced. When JG indicted Sheridan for witness tampering, he got his case moved to federal court by a CIA lawyer so he would not have to testify.

    I wonder, John, is any of this declassified information on your web site?

    • John McAdams says:

      So you think Sheridan was some sort of evil character, sent by the CIA to corrupt Bobby?

      Given Sheridan’s long and loyal service to the Kennedy family, that would make Bobby out to be a fool.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm

      Of course, according to Schlesinger, Bobby told him “Sheridan is satisfied that Garrison is a fraud.” But I guess Schlesinger was a liar too, eh?

      Then there is this:

      When Sheridan died in 1995, Edward Kennedy issued a statement calling him “an extraordinary investigator and an extraordinary human being. His courage and dedication to justice and the public interest were unmatched by anyone.” But the Garrisonites think he conspired to protect John Kennedy’s murderers.

      So was Teddy a liar? Fooled by Sheridan?

      • Mike says:

        Jim DiEugenio’s research is convincing – Sheridan was no friend of the Kennedys. He fooled them. He was deceptive and manipulative, but isn’t that what he was trained to do?

        • Maryam says:

          I admire Jim Dieugenio. He is a great researcher and has been a great contributer to the search for truth. But in this instance he is simply wrong. Sheridan was a close personal friend of the Kennedy’s , like it or not. There really isn’t any evidence to the contrary From my research the Kennedy family never liked Garrison or approved of his smearing of the gay community in New Orleans. I think Teddy’s wife and her New Orleans family detested the man. Unless you think the Reggies were in on it.

        • John McAdams says:

          Since you seem to think that all the people who came to oppose Garrison were tasked to do so by the CIA, how do you explain the number of conspiracy authors who came to oppose and condemn Garrison?

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/buffs_on_jim.htm

          Of course, Garrison himself thought that Henry Hurt and Tony Summers were disinformationists of some kind.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/toole.txt

          • Jonathan says:

            Easy. A lot of writers on the JFK case had strong feelings about the case case and big egos. For example, Meagher and Weisberg, who loathed Garrison.

            Today a lot of Warren critics vociferously disagree with one another.

          • John McAdams says:

            Easy. A lot of writers on the JFK case had strong feelings about the case case and big egos.

            OK, so to bail out Garrison, you have to throw an entire generation of researchers (and some later ones like Summers) under the bus.

      • Jonathan says:

        Each of the Kennedys — John, Robert, Teddy — made mistakes, to be charitable in some instances. I don’t regard any of them as fools even though I think some of their personal behaviors were foolish to the point of reckless.

        There’s a mile-wide difference between being a fool and on occasion acting foolishly. You know this surely.

        I don’t think RFK was fooled by Sheridan, because I think he was content for Sheridan to undermine Garrison whatever the means. As for Teddy’s post-mortem praise of Sheridan, I take that possibly as a signal that Teddy was not about to stir up the waters. He had a bunch of problems without bringing on more.

        You seem to think all Warren critics regard the three Kennedy brothers as beyond reproach. That isn’t the case.

      • mitch says:

        Professor McAdams response to Jim D is very reasonable, but dodges almost every point made.

        Classic.

  14. Repeat: There is no evidence that Sheridan did what he did at RFK’s behest. He was working for NBC, and the Sarnoffs,and he was getting help covertly from the CIA. This is all detailed with abundant from the declassified files in my book.

    What is the evidence that RFK put NBC up to what they did? That was an NBC show.

    Secondly, RFK never bought that picture of Garrison. He thought Garrison had caught onto something. We know this since he called Nicky Chetta’s house to get an advance briefing on Ferrie’s autopsy. And in the summer of 1968, when he was running for pres, he was bugging Mort Sahl’s wife about what Garrison and Mort had.

    Now, are we to believe he did this because he was passing info to Helms in order to protect the CIA?

    Uh, I doubt it. But that is what some actually want us to think.

  15. John Kirsch says:

    On the surface, having John McAdams comment on this site might seem to make sense. After all, some Americans do believe the WC and they deserve to have their views aired.
    The problem arises when I ask myself whether McAdams is likely to display the kind of open-mindedness and critical thinking that would be most helpful in promoting the kind of vigorous but civil debate that the moderator has said he wants.
    The fact that McAdams teaches at a university would seem to suggest that he does in fact have those characteristics. However, a deeper look reveals some aspects of McAdams’ past that raise questions, in my mind, about whether he is likely to help promote a well-informed and civil debate.
    I have in mind a story in the March 24, 1996 edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about McAdams. The headline reads: “TARGETS COMPLAIN TO UNIVERSITY On-line insults put conduct @ issue MU professor says other diatribes prompted his attacks”
    The first paragraph states: “A Marquette University professor who hurled profane insults across the Internet including accusations of drug use and pedophilia has been chastised by university officials, has annoyed people across the country, and has sparked a small, intense debate on etiquette in cyberspace.”
    The headline of the response by McAdams, published on April 4, 1996, read: “Being the target of insults is unfair MU professor says misinformation from radical fringe group led reporter to contribute to its smear campaign”
    The first paragraph reads, “Tom Vanden Brook, in his March 24 article, portrayed me as a villain who terrorizes innocent John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy buffs across the Internet. The truth is virtually the precise opposite. I have been one of the chief objects of abuse and insults coming from the conspiracy people who inhabit the `net. I have, in the last couple of years, been repeatedly called (among other things) a “liar” and a “CIA disinformationalist.”
    Did Jefferson Morley know about this episode when he said he takes the presence of McAdams on this site as a compliment?
    I was going to ask whether Morley believes McAdams is making a positive contribution to this site but the answer must be yes because comments by McAdams are all over this site. By my count McAdams has 17 comments on this post alone.

    • Stephen Roy says:

      Jeff, we’re not going to have any kind of fruitful exchange if certain people are continually allowed to do posts with no content except attacks on other posters. You might consider some moderation here.

      • jeffmorley says:

        All comments are moderated. if you have a concern about a given comment, please write me at editor@jfkfacts.org. I do not read every comment board and if you post your concerns here I may not see it.

  16. John Kirsch says:

    Prof. McAdams often puts links to his website in the comments published on this site.
    Does Jefferson Morley (or anyone else connected with this site) have a fee arrangement with McAdams in connection to the links McAdams places in his comments on this site?

    • Stephen Roy says:

      Doesn’t it save bandwidth and space, if one has a detailed answer to a question in this group, to hyperlink to an existing article? To me, it makes sense and is not nefarious.

      • John Kirsch says:

        Interesting comment, Stephen Roy. For the record, you’re the one who used “nefarious,” not me. All I did was ask a question. Are McAdams and Morley somehow unable to speak for themselves? Or maybe they find the issues too awkward.

        • jeffmorley says:

          Yes. I am able to speak for myself. I was not aware of the news story about John McAdams. Thanks for bringing to my attention. John’s behavior 18 years ago doesn’t disqualify him from writing about JFK today. And what exactly does this have to do with the events of November 1963?

          • John Kirsch says:

            You didn’t answer my question: “Does Jefferson Morley (or anyone else connected with this site) have a fee arrangement with McAdams in connection to the links McAdams places in his comments on this site?”

          • jeffmorley says:

            No John. I don’t take money. Your implication is unwarranted and insulting. You’re engaging in exactly the kind of behavior you criticize in others. lIf you don’t like the way I run the site, I have a suggestion. Don’t come here. It’ll solve all of your problems and one of mine.

          • Phil Gurholt says:

            Mr. Morley,

            I enjoy the information and comments provided by JFKfacts.org. I thank you for all your work in this effort.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jeff Morley, I’m surprised by this your reaction, not that I agree or disagree with John Kirsch’s line of inquiry, but because your response to him poses a real contradiction. Would you accept a similar tenor in a response from the Central Intelligence Agency to your pointed questions? I’m guessing that a number of past and current executives of the agency find your challenges to be insulting to their personal integrity. That possibility has not prevented you from persevering in your effort to secure the files and in the process to expose the CIA for their continued efforts at withholding those files.

            Is this not at the core of how American citizens are treated by those in control of the flow of information, in this instance you in control of your own forum? I’m not fully informed as to who officially owns this site, but you/they must surely be cognizant that the manner in which you present it suggests you think of it as a public service. I believe that circumspection and professionalism, followed by a degree of the tolerance you have extended others, and a “let ‘er rip” approach (as proposed by commenter “Jonathan”) would be healthier than this knee jerk reaction from you that indicates you’re excluding Kirsch from this site because he seems to have gotten under your skin.

            In my view, that’s a strange response – surely you have developed tougher skin over the decades. I venture to guess that many here expect more from you, or at least I hope that they do. I’ve not made a study of John Kirsch’s participation on your forum, but I do know that he’s been here almost from the outset. Do you not respect and appreciate the time and energy commenters expend on your site?

            You could have simply answered John Kirsch’s questions. That’s what you want our government to do.

          • jeffmorley says:

            I did answer John’s questions and I rejected his attempt to impugn my integrity. I will do so again.

          • leslie sharp says:

            I meant that you could have SIMPLY answered the question and left it at that. “yes” or “no.”

            The incident reported in the Milwaukee Journal is indicative of dirty tricks applied to distract from legitimate investigation. While there is no evidence John McAdams continues that level of inappropriateness, he does continue to obfuscate on a site that prides itself in shedding new light on the assassination – everything to do with November, 1963.

            Obfuscate: the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, willfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret. . The word comes from Latin obfuscatio, from obfuscāre (“to darken”), from ob (“over”) and fuscāre (“to make dark”), from fuscus (“dark”).

      • Gerry Simone says:

        I also read elsewhere on this site that they welcome posting links to support comments.

        People on both sides of the proverbial coin do this (and sometimes I check those supporting links to educate myself or criticize, as the case may be).

  17. Let me add this last point, I hope, about the Kennedys and Sheridan.

    Yes, I do think Sheridan was tied in with the CIA in his anti Garrison effort. And I proved that in my book with the declassified record.

    McAdams says that well, Sheridan was a friend of the family, wasn’t he?

    My reply is: So What? If I were to list all the people who I allowed to get close to me, when I should not have, I mean I would be embarrassed.

    So the Kennedys were wrong about Sheridan.

    Its not the only guy they were wrong about now was it?

    • John McAdams says:

      But the only evidence you have that Sheridan, in opposing Garrison, was acting at the behest of the CIA is your assumption that only some evil spook could possibly oppose Garrison.

  18. The above reply by McAdams shows why he has the reputation he does.

    I did not say Sheridan was acting at the behest of the CIA. I said he was tied in with the CIA, in other words, he was working WITH them.

    He then says I have no evidence for that. Even though I cited my sources and page numbers above from the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. Either he did not read the book or he did and is trying to mischaracterize it. (He did this in the debate with me on BOR when he mischaracterized Mike Kurtz’s book. I called him on this on the air.)

    My book is extensively documented. It has over 2000 footnotes in less than 400 pages of text. So when he says I “surmise” something, that is nothing but balderdash.

    I first detail Sheridan’s intelligence background. Culminating with his CI work with NSA. (pgs.255-56) He then approached RFK through a mutual church friend. After Sheridan finished up his work for Bobby on the Hoffa case, he went to work for NBC. President David Sarnoff worked for the predecessor of the NSA, the Signal Corps. In fact, Sarnoff and his son were fully behind Sheridan’s smear job on Garrison. We know this from WDSU reporter Rick Townley who said NBC had told them to “Shoot him down.” (p. 239)

    Now, let us detail the CIA connections. FIrst, Sheridan spent so much money that the CIA secretly funneled funds to him through the corporate counsel of WDSU. (p. 238)

    Secondly, with that money Sheridan was paying people like Gordon Novel who had infiltrated Garrison’s office at the request of Allen Dulles. I think Dulles had something to do with the CIA. right John? (Pgs. 232-33)

    Third, through his attorney Herb Miller, Sheridan was in contact with the CIA about the contents of his program and how he was flipping Garrison’s witnesses. This communication ended with the following: Miller told the CIA that Sheridan would be willing to meet with them under any circumstances, and would be willing to make the CIA’s version of Garrison, “a part of the background of the forthcoming NBC show.” (p. 238) That is in black and white.

    Does it get any more clear than that?

    Finally, Sheridan was working closely with Shaw’s lawyers. When Sheridan flipped witnesses, Irvin Dymond assured them that he would get free lawyers for them. These came form the CIA cleared panel of attorneys in New Orleans.(p. 241)

    Almost all of this is from the declassified files of the ARRB. Which McAdams avoids like the plague.

    • John McAdams says:

      Jim,

      It simply won’t do to claim you have proven something in your book. I haven’t had time to read you book. You need to post your evidence here. For example, what evidence do you have for:

      Secondly, with that money Sheridan was paying people like Gordon Novel who had infiltrated Garrison’s office at the request of Allen Dulles.

      Implausible, Jim. Internal CIA documents show that the CIA was very unhappy that Novel was claiming a connection to the Agency, and even considered prosecuting him for claiming that.

      The documents make it clear that Novel had no connection to the Agency.

      So what is your evidence that Novel “infiltrated” the Garrison investigation at the behest of the CIA?

      President David Sarnoff worked for the predecessor of the NSA, the Signal Corps.

      And you really think this is sinister?

      FIrst, Sheridan spent so much money that the CIA secretly funneled funds to him through the corporate counsel of WDSU.

      You need to post your source on that. Verbatim. Not your interpretation.

      Miller told the CIA that Sheridan would be willing to meet with them under any circumstances, and would be willing to make the CIA’s version of Garrison, “a part of the background of the forthcoming NBC show.”

      Would be willing to meet with them?”

      I thought there were working together, cheek by jowl. Now you are saying that Sheridan would be willing to meet?

      And of course any producer would want to know what the CIA knew about Garrison. That’s what producers do, they gather information to use in the production.

      But I note that you seem to have backtracked.

      Now you aren’t claiming that Sheridan was trying to undermine Garrison at the behest of the CIA. You are simply claiming this or that “connection” (usually distant and tenuous) between Sheridan and the CIA.

      What you can’t accept is one simple fact: the Garrison “investigation” was fraud, and a lot of people opposed Garrison. They did so for good reasons.

    • John McAdams says:

      Third, through his attorney Herb Miller,

      Do you mean Jack Miller?

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/us/21miller-1.html

      He was, like Sheridan, part of RFK’s “get Hoffa” team.

      I guess the CIA had just a huge bunch of lackeys close to Kennedy, eh?

    • John McAdams says:

      Third, through his attorney Herb Miller, Sheridan was in contact with the CIA about the contents of his program and how he was flipping Garrison’s witnesses.

      More on Jack (not “Herb”) Miller:

      When Robert Kennedy mounted his presidential bid in 1968, Mr. Miller worked for him as a campaigner and fund-raiser, and after Kennedy’s assassination, he was a pallbearer at his funeral. He went on to represent Edward M. Kennedy immediately after the Chappaquiddick episode, in which Mr. Kennedy, driving home from a party on Chappaquiddick Island, off Martha’s Vineyard, veered off a bridge and Mary Jo Kopechne, a young woman in the passenger seat, drowned.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/us/21miller-1.html

  19. McAdams actually wants me to read him the footnotes? Is that what he is saying?

    In other words, since he is too lazy to read my book I have to print the whole section for him?

    Yea sure. Why not read it yourself, instead of accepting what someone else says about it like you did with Kurtz.

    But just for the record, the sources in in order are:

    1. David Baldwin, a journalist friend of Clay Shaw’s was the source for the CIA money.

    2. .Novel himself, through an acquaintance he was hanging out with. See John, contract agents are signed up for deniability reasons. Or don’t you know that? But anyone who read Novel’s deposition would get the association between him and CIA. I mean you did read that did you not?

    3. Declassified documents between Miller and CI at CIA are the third. Sheridan was briefing CIA through Miller on what he was doing in New Orleans. And if you think that Sheridan’s meeting with CIA was going to be recorded then you are in dreamland.But its pretty obvious it from the result that the CIA got what they wanted right?

    4. The CIA cleared panel of lawyers was a declassified document that I got, and Sheridan’s association with Dymond is in the Leemans affidavit.

    Geez John, don’t you think Sarnoffs military intel background, plus his work on the national security state afterwards would explain why Sheridan was allowed to do what he did? But what he did–harassing, threatening and bribing witnesses– is another story. Which also does not show up on your site.

    One last cincher. Sheridan’s family would not turn over the document he left behind from his work on the show. From what Tom Samoluk told me, when the were threatened with a subpoena, they got them out of the house and sent them to NBC. Apparently, after Connick, the ARRB did not want another long legal battle. Because they were never recovered.

    Is any of this information on your web site?

    Where is Bobby Kennedy in all this newly declassified material?

    Answer: Nowhere.

    • Bill Clarke says:

      James DiEugenio June 26, 2014 at 6:33 pm

      “In other words, since he is too lazy to read my book I have to print the whole section for him?”

      I’d guess that it is not laziness that has kept Dr. McAdams from reading your book. I’d guess that Dr. McAdams puts your book in the same class as I put John Newman’s, “JFK and Vietnam”. But that is just my guess.

      If you have seen a writer speculate, make assumptions and disregard real evidence then it takes some of the shine off wanting to read his book.

      • Ronny Wayne says:

        I don’t think it’s laziness either. I don’t think he wants to face the realities he would find by reading it. Your last sentence about disregarding real evidence is particularly interesting.
        One, of the strength’s of the book is it’s documentation.
        While 78 reviews is not a huge number, it is enough to indicate the books value to some who have read it with a 4.6 out of 5 rating. My apologies to the author for not making the time to do so myself.
        I find the sixth review down, “He’s Dead Jim”, a good synopsis. Another reader puts it in his top ten on the subject, I’d put it close to if not in the top 5, but I’ve never read After the Fact.
        http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Betrayed-Cuba-Garrison-Case/product-reviews/1620870568/ref=sr_cr_hist_all?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Ronny Wayne June 27, 2014 at 2:51 pm

          1. I doubt Dr. McAdams fears the realities.

          2. In my last sentence that you are interested in I should have added making false statements about the evidence. This was aimed at someone making false statements about NSAM 263. One does this out of ignorance or to ignore the evidence. Neither one is comforting to one searching for truth.

          3. Newman’s “JFK and Vietnam” is well documented also. Until it gets crunch time and then the notes disappear. Mr DiEugenio, who loves the book, told me “all” important parts of the book was noted. Even told me he was “waiting”. When I showed him that the MAIN theory of Newman’s was NOT noted he disappeared. So much for documentation.

          4. As it pertains to facts you could have 400 good reviews and it would still be meaningless because your sample pool is badly biased. Who do you think buys these books to start with?

  20. John McAdams says:

    1. David Baldwin, a journalist friend of Clay Shaw’s was the source for the CIA money.

    OIC. Hearsay.

    2. .Novel himself, through an acquaintance he was hanging out with.

    But Novel was an attention seeker who lied about his connection with the CIA.

    That’s what declassified CIA documents say.

    For example:

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shawcia.htm

    e. Garrison has falsely stated that Gordon D. Novel was a CIA agent and that one of his lawyers, Stephen Plotkin, was paid by CIA. Garrison says he can prove that Novel, along with Arcacha Smith and others, robbed a munitions bunker at Houma, Louisiana at the instigation of CIA. Garrison may claim that this robbery was one of the overt acts of the conspiracy. Actually, Novel has never at any time had any association with the Agency nor has his lawyer, Stephen Plotkin.

    Sheridan was briefing CIA through Miller on what he was doing in New Orleans.

    Sounds like you have evidence that Miller was talking to the CIA. What evidence do you have that this was “Sheridan briefing” the CIA?

    And if you think that Sheridan’s meeting with CIA was going to be recorded then you are in dreamland.

    Translation: you have no evidence that it ever happened.

    But you want it to have happened, so that’s good enough.

    Sheridan’s association with Dymond is in the Leemans affidavit.

    And Leemans is all you have?

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Sheridan talked to Dymond. Indeed, it would have been a logical thing to do if he was making a documentary. How would it have been sinister?

    Unless you think that anybody who opposed Garrison was inherently sinister.

    Geez John, don’t you think Sarnoffs military intel background, plus his work on the national security state afterwards would explain why Sheridan was allowed to do what he did?

    Do you actually understand how that statement sounds to anybody who doesn’t see the tentacles of conspiracy behind everything that happens in the world?

    Your problem, Jim, is that you think Garrison was a hero, and therefore anybody who opposed him must have been put up to it by the evil CIA.

    How do you explain the number of mainstream conspiracy researchers who became disillusioned with Garrison?

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/buffs_on_jim.htm

    Let me guess: there were all paid CIA stooges too.

  21. Let us go through these replies one by one and show how McAdams has an aversion to evidence, and uses logic that is not natural:

    1. Both Baldwin and CIA lawyer Bill Martin said this about the CIA funneling money to WDSU’s corporate counsel. Baldwin was a close friend of Clay Shaw’s–does that ring a bell John. Martin was a CIA lawyer in New Orleans. Maybe he was in the network John?

    2. Gordon Novel’s long deposition under oath for a libel lawsuit is clear about his association with Dulles. As were certain correspondence he wrote at the time, to Helms, for example. ALso, Novel knew too much about where Dulles was and where his office was and how to contact him.

    BTW, when I mentioned this once during the debate, about the letter I saw from Novel to Helms, do you know what McAdams said: “Well what about from Helms to Novel?” If that is not absurd then I do not know what is. Helms was going to write a letter to a guy who was a contract agent infiltrating Garrison’s office? Maybe on CIA stationary also, right John?

    Oh, and the letters between Miller and Sheridan and CI at CIA are not enough right?

    How about phone calls John? Sheridan’s lawyer was talking to the CI office about a trip arranged by Sheridan for a Garrison witness to Langley. What do yo think it was about John? Seeing Virginia maybe? No, it was about turning a witness, which it did. ANd Garrison mentioned how Al Beaubouef distanced himself from him and became a witness for Sheridan after this expenses paid trip to Langley.

    As I wrote, this memo went to Angleton’s office. But what is so odd about it is this: Angleton seemed aware of this trip before he got the memo!

    I really like it when you do this back and forth. It gives me an opportunity to show how little you know about New Orleans.

    The whole CIA cleared panel is crucial because this was part of the Modus operandi to get Garrison’s witnesses to switch. That is, they would be furnished with a lawyer to defend them from the DA. Novel had four of them which he talked about in his deposition. I mean you must have known that right?

    But maybe not. When I get into these discussions with you your lack of a factual database never amazes me. But like the proverbial bull in a China shop, you just plunge forward anyway, not realizing you just ran into something else.

    • John McAdams says:

      Both Baldwin and CIA lawyer Bill Martin said this about the CIA funneling money to WDSU’s corporate counsel.

      Do you know how implausible it is that NBC didn’t have enough money to pay for a documentary slamming Garrison?

      But why don’t you post the documents?

      Let us all see them. Let’s see what you have.

      when I mentioned this once during the debate, about the letter I saw from Novel to Helms, do you know what McAdams said: “Well what about from Helms to Novel?”

      You still don’t get it, do you?

      Novel was a crackpot and attention seeker who was lying about his relationship to the CIA.

      Why are you ignoring secret internal CIA documents that say that Novel had no connection to the Agency?

      So Novel wrote to Helms? I can write to Barack Obama if I want. That doesn’t make me a lackey of his.

      Oh, and the letters between Miller and Sheridan and CI at CIA are not enough right?

      Post those documents.

      You have been trying to make Sheridan out as a lackey of the CIA attacking Garrison.

      Post some document to support that.

      Sheridan’s lawyer was talking to the CI office about a trip arranged by Sheridan for a Garrison witness to Langley.

      Again, post the documents.

      But like the proverbial bull in a China shop, you just plunge forward anyway, not realizing you just ran into something else.

      You don’t have any china shop, Jim. You have only a kindergarten level pottery project.

  22. anonymous says:

    “…how did they manage to overlook the most dangerous FPCC supporter of them all, Lee Harvey Oswald?
    Jim Angleton and his colleagues at the CIA did not want to face that question, which is why he worried about Jim Garrison.”

    Again, nobody knows why Angleton and the CIA worried about Jim Garrison.
    More importantly, nobody knows why Connaly and LBJ worried about Garrison:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N50cBXvS_G0

    “The reader says he is “not aware of evidence that the [CIA's] Counterintelligence staff was ‘secretly trying to subvert his investigation,’ ”

    Subverting investigations and defense attorneys? Russ Baker described hanky-panky Today:
    Here’s another quote, from a defense attorney:“We have had basically a spy within our team for a number of months,” Mr. Harrington said. “I feel that I’m under scrutiny,” said David Nevin, the lead lawyer for KSM, the self-described architect of the attacks.

    http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/06/27/fbi-hanky-panky-on-guantanamo-part-of-larger-911-mystery/

  23. anonymous says:

    “Angleton and the CIA”
    To get a feel of Nov63, one should look at coups in other countries. MI5,Angleton and the CIA helped the English with removing an unfit PM in ’68 and a UK military coup in ’75:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6v1VxB5Lss#t=4118

    One of the old gents said that assassination was an option…

  24. Now McAdams asks me to post these documents about the CIA and Sheridan.

    Do you believe this guy?

    Do you know how far back these documents go? I got them from Peter Vea in the nineties! I used them in a previous book, The Assassinations, (see pgs. 39-40) Miller was not just a conduit to CIA for Sheridan. He was also a courier for Shaw’s lawyers, the Wegmanns. And later for Gordon Novel, since he served as one of Novel’s lawyers. Gordon forwarded clippings of Miller’s triumphs in court to Dulles and urged him to take advantage of the tactic he used since Garrison had subpoenaed him also. (ibid, p. 40) Dulles then forwarded Gordon’s cover letter to Larry Houston at CIA, their counsel.

    This info was part of a two part article originally published in Probe back in, I think, 1996! Little bit behind the times aren’t you professor? Maybe you should read something besides Reitzes on Garrison. Then you would not keep on bumping into the china.

    • Brad R says:

      Gee,Jim, just post the documents and maybe he will go away.

    • John McAdams says:

      I don’t care if you have cited them before. I want to see the actual documents.

      The issue is your interpretation of the documents.

    • John McAdams says:

      Miller was not just a conduit to CIA for Sheridan.

      But you earlier posted something saying that Miller told the CIA that Sheridan would talk to the CIA.

      Now you are saying that Sheridan did?

      What is your evidence?

      Did you read what I posted about Miller?

      Do you think he was tasked by the CIA to undermine Garrison? A close friend of Bobby’s is trying to cover up a conspiracy to kill John?

      Gordon forwarded clippings of Miller’s triumphs in court to Dulles and urged him to take advantage of the tactic he used since Garrison had subpoenaed him also.

      So what? Any crackpot can send clippings to anybody.

      Do you mean Allen Dulles? He was long since gone as DCI.

      So Novel didn’t even know how to get stuff to the CIA.

      And you think he was working for the CIA!

  25. No kidding John. We all know Dulles was fired. But I guess you missed the point I made. Garrison had subpoenaed both Novel and Dulles.

    Miller had gotten Novel off, with the help of the Ohio governor. Since Dulles and Novel were working together, he forwarded the materials on his release to Dulles. What is so hard to follow about this?

    Also, I said Miller was talking to the CIA for Sheridan. The memos are summaries of the calls. Miller was updating CIA on a witness Sheridan sent to them, and his offer to meet with CIA directly about the show.

    BTW, I don’t know what your point is about RFK. At this time, RFK was out of Washington. Its 1967-68, professor. If you forgot, RFK was running for senator, being a senator, and then running for president. You will do anything to put him in here won’t you? But he is nowhere to be found in these documents.

    I don’t have the documents today. After all I used them three times since 1996. All of my stuff on Garrison was forwarded to Bill Davy when I finished the second edition of my book Destiny Betrayed. He is updating and revising his book right now, Let Justice Be Done. That is why i forwarded them. I do not plan on writing anymore about New Orleans. Because I think I took it as far as I could in the Destiny Betrayed second edition.

    You should read it. Obviously, it is a lot further than you ever dug up or even imagined. Plus it has over 2100 footnotes to it.

    As per questioning my use of materials, I mean can you be serious? You are the one who tried to put RFK in the middle of all this based on nothing except the fact that Sheridan once worked for him. You ignored everything abut Sheridan from before, and the fact that NBC was the sponsor of the show. You then knew nothing about these declassified records.

    And you talk about my use of evidence? How about your use of non-evidence?

    • John McAdams says:

      Since Dulles and Novel were working together, he forwarded the materials on his release to Dulles. What is so hard to follow about this?

      But Novel wasn’t working for Dulles. He was a liar and attention seeker who claimed to be working for the CIA.

      You are the one who tried to put RFK in the middle of all this based on nothing except the fact that Sheridan once worked for him.

      Not true. I simply pointed out that Sheridan was an RFK loyalist, and that he was sent to New Orleans by Bobby to see if Garrison had anything. His assessment was that Garrison did not, and he conveyed that to RFK.

      So your desire to somehow make Sheridan a lackey of the CIA in trying to discredit Garrison is odd, given Sheridan’s loyalty to Bobby and the Kennedy family.

      By the way, I notice you are not quite so dogmatic about these matters in other contexts.

      http://www.ctka.net/reviews/mellen_review.html

      I want to segue here to what I see as another failing of the [Mellen's] book: her judgment about certain important personages swirling around the Garrison investigation. She spends a great deal of time on Walter Sheridan. There is no doubt that Sheridan had an important role in the Garrison case, and is a complex and fascinating figure in his own right. But I believe her portrait of him is shortsighted. She clearly implies (p. 187) that Sheridan’s infamous NBC special was handed to him as an intelligence agent assignment. I thought this at one time also. Exploring the point, I got documents out of the UCLA library that showed that Sheridan worked for NBC for a number of years. That he produced at least seven documentaries, some of them nominated for awards, and some of them themed around rather attractive liberal causes. So while I agree that it is probably true that Sheridan got the assignment through his intelligence ties, it is not as cut and dried as she portrays it. And in another related, recurrent theme she chalks up Sheridan’s eagerness to wreck Garrison to Robert Kennedy. Yet, about 150 pages later, she has Sheridan still trying to wreck Garrison, this time on tax evasion charges. But by this time, Bobby Kennedy is dead. So who was directing Sheridan then?

      The issue of who Sheridan really was and what master he served is not an easy question to answer. But there is a hint of this in an interview New Orleans P. I. Joe Oster gave to the HSCA. In discussing Guy Banister’s early days, he named a curious working partner he had. It was Carmine Bellino, who would later become a chief investigator for Bobby Kennedy’s Justice Department. This is a very interesting fact which is not in the book. In her haste to blacken RFK, an issue I will deal with later, Mellen discards things like pointed migrations, complex motivations, and multiple allegiances.

  26. BradR says:

    Jim, what do you mean you don’t have the documents?
    I simply can’t believe you would make all of the claims that you did without the evidence that you have always had in the past.
    I feel crushed-did you make it all up?

  27. Brad R, I really don’t know if I should take your last comment seriously. I mean I hope you were utilizing droll humor.

    If you look at what I wrote above, I footnoted my page references to those documents. The references are to books I wrote when I had them. The way that I work, is when I am working on a section, I open the document folder and place it right in front of me. So the documents are right there and I can either direct quote or paraphrase accurately. I don’t leave myself open for charges of distortion that way. And since those docs have ben out there so long, if I had, I am sure someone would have scored me on that if I had done so.

    Your logic here escapes me. Are you saying that once a writer finishes a book and passes on his raw materials to either another writer, or a repository, that because he does not have them in his hands, he or we cannot use that book material anymore? Even if its properly footnotes, meaning someone else can find it?

    By that logic, do you know how many books we could not use anymore?

    I really hope you were kidding.

    • BradR says:

      No, I am not. If you cannot produce the documents that you say support your case your conclusions cannot be proved- isn’t that what McAdams is saying ( yes, a stopped clock is right twice a day!)?
      If you can’t produce the documents, what proof is there that they even existed? What proof is there that your interpretation is correct? Like many researchers I maintain files on my data. I have never thrown anything out or given records to somebody else without being assured I can get them back easily.
      You are playing into McAdams hands if you can’t support what you say.
      This seems so uncharacteristic of the evidence-based history reflected in your books. That’s why I wanted you to confront McAdams with the documents he is obsessed with. If you can’t- he wins.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        The documents are referenced in a book. You think writers memorize and have exact recall of everything they write and everything they use as a source? As he pointed out, he may have passed the material onto someone else (or may have borrowed it). This is silly, at best.

      • RJ says:

        Sorry, this is poor logic. Just because he doesn’t have the documents on demand does not necessarily mean he cannot get them…nor does it mean anyone else can’t get them either. Mcadams makes many generic points on this website that are never followed with anything but links to his website. He doesn’t bring actual source documents here to be inspected and debated to back up anything he says.
        To hold mr. Deugenio to a standard that other posters are not held to is ridiculous and in in this case ways just reflects laziness on the part of the accusers.
        He has done his work and left a map to follow. It’s not his fault madams doesn’t want to follow the map….probably because he doesn’t want to find the treasure buried beneath the big ‘X’.

    • John McAdams says:

      Your logic here escapes me. Are you saying that once a writer finishes a book and passes on his raw materials to either another writer, or a repository, that because he does not have them in his hands, he or we cannot use that book material anymore?

      Documents are often subject to different interpretations.

      I’m sure you believe that the documents show what you say they do, but somebody else might interpret them differently.

  28. No he does not. Unless you want to question my credibility and honesty.

    Please show me where that is justified by my articles for Probe Magazine, my work on The Assassinations, my work on Reclaiming Parkland and my work on the second edition of Destiny Betrayed.

    I co edited Probe for five years. We published dozens of first class articles by me and many others like Gary Aguilar, Milicent Cranor and Carol Hewett. Why do you think we had the best writers in the JFK community working for us? Why was Probe often called not just the best journal out there, but probably the best one ever in the field. That was not me saying that, it was people like Zack Sklar, Ray Marcus and JIm Hougan.

    That’s high cotton. It was so good that the other side subscribed to it, like Max Holland, and Patricia Lambert, under her husband’s name. When I threatened to suspend Holland, he threatened to subscribe under a false name. When we stopped publishing, people wrote us letters telling us how depressed they were.

    You don’t get that kind of reaction if you are not trustworthy. Just the opposite Brad. And I will match my reputation for credibility with anyone.

    Everything in my books is annotated. And people can easily crosscheck my stuff with those footnotes. In fact, people have literally come to my house to copy my files and borrow my audio tapes e. g. Joan Mellen. Probe actually sold declassified collections which many people purchased.

    Bill Davy has my files since he will be revising his fine book, Let Justice be Done. After that, they will be donated to Baylor. Which is what many people do when they are done writing on a subject e.g. Gary Shaw, John Armstrong.

    You never answered my question: Because someone donates their materials to a repository or to another writer, does that mean we now discard the book? I have never seen that kind of reasoning used before. Can you show me a precedent?

    McAdams has won nothing here. Except maybe with you. I showed that he had no declassified evidence to back up his RFK claim about Sheridan’s special. I then showed that contrary to what he said, there was a lot of evidence to show Sheridan was working with the CIA.

    Why you would want to prop him up in the face of that, and denigrate me–for helping another writer–is kind of bewildering.

    • John McAdams says:

      When I threatened to suspend Holland, he threatened to subscribe under a false name.

      Do you have any idea how petty this sounds?

      I then showed that contrary to what he said, there was a lot of evidence to show Sheridan was working with the CIA.

      But you have offered only your interpretation of that “evidence.”

      You wouldn’t want people to take Posner’s interpretations of documents of Bugliosi’s interpretations of documents at face value, would you?

      Why should you be different?

  29. BradR says:

    Frankly Jim, I don’t see any evidence at all for Sheridan being anything but a close acquaintance of RFK and probably a personal friend of the man. Why you try to drag this guy into some kind of conspiracy to destroy Garrison is beyond me.Even if your documents ( where ever they are) confirm an association between Sheriden and the CIA- so what? Are you seriously claiming that a close confidant of Robert Kennedy could in any way be involved in a conspiracy to protect the assassins of his brother? Why?
    I sometimes think that these bizarre, unsubstantiated tangents are part of a unified disinformation campaign to obscure the truth and discredit conspiracy research- just like the crazy accidental Secret Service shooting scenario makes serious researchers look foolish.
    I like your books Jim but sometimes you seem to be more interested in looking for the next obscure association
    or secret conspirator than in coming up with an easily explained alternative to the Warren fantasy.

    • BradR says:

      Jim, just because I have problems with the Sheridan issue does not mean that I don’t appreciate your research efforts. .Why did you end “Probe”?

    • John McAdams says:

      I sometimes think that these bizarre, unsubstantiated tangents are part of a unified disinformation campaign to obscure the truth and discredit conspiracy research-

      Let me suggest a principle that runs counter to that: never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by mere incompetence.

  30. Thanks Brad. I am glad you made the above comment at 3:57.

    Now I know you agree with McAdams on this. No matter what the declassified evidence says, Sheridan had no connection to the CIA during the NBC special.

    If they secretly funneled him money, no matter. If they helped him get lawyers for Garrison witnesses he flipped, forget it. If his lawyer made phone calls to CIA about witnesses he sent up there to change their stories, fine with Brad. If he offered to meet with them to get their background for the show, hey, that’s kosher.

    Even if RFK is never mentioned in any of this, its still on RFK!

    Probe is alive and kicking at CTKA.net

    • BradR says:

      Jim, I just listened to the December, 2006 interview with Gordon Novel posted at http://www.jerrypippin.com/UFO_Files_gordon-_novel.htm. Have you heard it?
      Among other strange stuff he claims to carry a laser that causes “eyeballs to pop out and stops the heart”.
      He also claims to have gotten a hostage out of Beirut despite being captured by the terrorists holding the hostage- whom he never names.
      Listening one comes to the conclusion that he never met a conspiracy he didn’t like (Waco, 9-11, etc.) or perhaps he was simply delusional. He also made a number of claims about being arrested, assaulted, placed in prison and so forth that could easily be refuted if someone was willing to spend the time going over police records, press releases, etc.
      In short, he was a character. But obviously totally unsuited to be taken seriously by real investigators.
      And yet you did. Why? Because he told you what you wanted to hear?
      This is the kind of stuff that sets back real research efforts . It almost seems like disinformation to me.
      I guess that I am going to have to pass on your next book.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        BradR July 12, 2014 at 12:59 pm

        Mr. DiEugino seems to fall for books that tell him what he wants to hear. That is the only explanation for his high praise of Newman’s, “JFK and Vietnam”.

  31. Let me add one more point about McAdams.

    This thread also shows how misinformed his site is on Gordon Novel.

    As I showed in my book, and mentioned above, Gordon was recruited by Allen Dulles to infiltrate and electronically monitor Garrison’s office. (Destiny Betrayed pgs. 232-35) Which indicates, at the very least, that Dulles was a bit worried about what Garrison was going to dig up. And since, at that time, Garrison had not accused the CIA, one cannot say Dulles did this because Garrison was pummeling the Agency.

    Now, people like McAdams have always said that Shaw was a very minor figure who was part of the businessman’s program, one containing tens of thousands of people who were routinely interviewed after a trip abroad by the Agency. In fact, Blakey promoted this view for the HSCA.

    Probe and then Bill Davy began to puncture this false image with declassified documents secured by Peter Vea. And it turns out that the CIA got rid of some documents on Shaw. (Destiny Betrayed, p. 384). Hmm. Was the CIA trying to hide his true agency status for all those years?

    Turns out they were. Joan Mellen recently discovered a document which states that Shaw had been a valuable and well paid contract agent for years. This was only declassified in the nineties. And she only discovered it a year or so ago. It was part of the CIA’s Historical Review program. According to Joan, the CIA then disbanded that program. Turns out they were hiding the truth about Shaw for decades.

    Do you know who knew this many, many years ago? Gordon Novel. In a communication of his I got hold of, he wrote that the CIA had ordered all the evidence about Shaw’s true Agency status to be hidden from outside investigators. He even named the guy who ordered this done, Howard Osborne, of the Office of Security. The question then is: How could Gordon know that?

    And BTW, in my book, I underrated what Gordon was getting for his part in detonating Garrison.(p. 311)

    He did not just get a new LIncoln. According to a researcher friend of mine, in the early seventies, Gordon was living the high life on an estate home with a heated pool in a suburb of New Orleans.

    So McAdams was wrong about both Shaw and Gordon. In both cases he fell for what appear today to be CIA cover stories.

    • John McAdams says:

      As I showed in my book, and mentioned above, Gordon was recruited by Allen Dulles to infiltrate and electronically monitor Garrison’s office. (Destiny Betrayed pgs. 232-35)

      And you showed that how?

      Post the documents, or at least, provide verbatim quotes.

      Has it occurred to you that it would be really odd for a Director of Central Intelligence to be personally running an agent?

      And exceedingly odd for a DCI who had been fired several years before to do so?

      By the way, the document Mellen cites on Shaw being some important spook dates from the early 90s, and is a secondary source.

      All the documents from Shaw’s time talking to the Domestic Contact Service, and all the Garrison era documents from the CIA contradict it.

      But I guess whatever document is convenient, eh?

    • John McAdams says:

      Do you know who knew this many, many years ago? Gordon Novel. In a communication of his I got hold of, he wrote that the CIA had ordered all the evidence about Shaw’s true Agency status to be hidden from outside investigators. He even named the guy who ordered this done, Howard Osborne, of the Office of Security. The question then is: How could Gordon know that?

      How do you know that he knew it?

      As opposed to simply making up tall tales about it.

  32. BradR says:

    Sorry,Jim I just don’t buy it. There really isn’t anything to confirm that Novel even knew Dullas, let alone was employed by him. Perhaps he was ,but where is the proof? My understanding is that Novel was involved in alien communication nonsense-among other weird stuff.
    As far as the Mellen document, hasn’t that been out for a couple of years? Is there any other confirmation of the claim? Any definition of what “well compensated ” means in real terms?
    At this point I am reconsidering my position.While I find it impossible to accept the Warren fantasy I also can’t accept some of these claims with nothing real to support them.

  33. John:

    Dulles was not the DIrector at the time. See, as everyone knows, he had been fired by Kennedy years before.

    As per my source, its all footnoted in my book. And anyone can go ahead and crosscheck it. if you are too lazy to read it, then fine, that says something does it not?

    As per the info about Dulles and Novel, for you to be correct, then my source is lying, Gordon was lying and Dulles, who admitted his association with Gordon, was lying.

    I don’t think so.

    As for BradR, I am putting you on ignore.

    • John McAdams says:

      Do you have any source other than Novel?

      A source who told you that Novel told him that he worked for the CIA does not count.

      Dulles, who admitted his association with Gordon, was lying.

      You are going to need to post your source on that. Since it’s absurdly implausible that Dulles would have any connection with Novel, it’s implausible that Dulles would “admit” any such thing.

      Might Dulles have “admitted” that some crackpot sent him some clippings? Perhaps.

      I could send some clippings to Barack Obama if I wanted to.

      But just what exactly was the nature of Dulles’ “admission?”

  34. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I’d like to make a brief comment in relation to this ongoing conversation. It seems obvious Dulles was miffed, embarrassed, possibly angered by his firing. Further he had loyal associates still within the CIA. Angleton (once again carried Dulles ashes at his funeral in 69′), Harvey and others.
    The fact that he was appointed to the WO after being fired by
    JFK for the BOP show his still Influential Power.
    This action in New Orleans show his continued interest.

    • John McAdams says:

      The fact that he was appointed to the WO after being fired by JFK for the BOP show his still Influential Power.

      Are you aware of the fact that Dulles was appointed to the WC at Bobby’s request?

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dulles.htm

      • RJ says:

        That looks like a factoid to me.

        • John McAdams says:

          Then you need to look at the primary sources, quoted and linked to on that page.

        • Stephen Roy says:

          For those who, for some reason, don’t wish to click on the link, here’s a summary:

          1) In his memoirs, LBJ said he appointed Dulles at RFK’s request.
          2) Nov29 Jenkins-LBJ memo mentions Dulles as RFK recommendation
          3) 12/17/66 LBJ on phone to Fortas: RFK recommended Dulles
          4) RFK complimented Dulles in a 1964 interview
          5) JFK awarded Dulles the National Security Medal
          6) In an oral history, Dulles says complimentary things about JFK and speaks emotionally of his death.

          At the least, this shows that the idea that Dulles was appointed at RFK’s request may be stronger than a factoid.

          • RJ says:

            Thanks for the summary, but it’s far from being able to list this as a fact. At the most generous you could called it an educated opinion.
            Numbers 4, 5, and 6 have no place in this discussion, as they have no bearing on proving that ‘Dulles was appointed to the WC at Bobby Kennedy’s request.’
            I’m still looking for tape of the actual conversation between RFK and LBJ, or a quote taken down from RFK on this. Otherwise I have to keep it as a factoid.

          • John McAdams says:

            I’m still looking for tape of the actual conversation between RFK and LBJ, or a quote taken down from RFK on this.

            There is no tape of any such thing, since RFK relayed his request through his aides.

            Here is the key memo:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/WalterJenkins11-29-63.pdf

            Then in a 1966 conversation with Abe Fortas (then a Supreme Court justice, and much more involved in executive politics than a justice ought to be) Johnson said:

            “We even asked the Attorney General to name people he wanted [on the Commission]. He named Allen Dulles and John McCloy.”

            The context was the Manchester manuscript, with Fortas going over it with LBJ, discussing how various parts reflected on the President.

            Cite: LBJ-Fortas phone call 12/17/66, for a transcript see Max Holland’s The Kennedy Assassination Tapes

            It makes no sense that Johnson would lie to Fortas when Fortas would have known instantly it was a lie.

          • Jean Davison says:

            In this audio tape RFK asks Dulles to serve as LBJ’s representative in Mississippi after the disappearance of three civil rights workers.

            Scroll down to June 23, 1964, conversation 3868:

            http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/presidentialrecordings/johnson/1964/06_1964

            After LBJ speaks to Dulles, RFK comes on about a third of the way through. Dulles refers to RFK’s “brother” (Ted, who had been in a plane crash four days earlier).

            At one point RFK says to Dulles, “… you know, we’ve worked together for a long time, so I know what you could do, and I know you’d do this well. And I know that you *could* do it, Allen.” Toward the end Dulles mentions his displeasure with a book on the Bay of Pigs that placed most of the blame on the CIA.

            I urge anyone who thinks that RFK couldn’t possibly have recommended Dulles to serve on the WC to listen to this tape.

  35. BradR says:

    Jim, will you please post the source that you have where Allan Dulles admitted his association with Gordon Novel. You may wish to ignore me, but I really would like to see some evidence for your claims.
    What little of know of Novel would lead me to believe that yes, he was a serial liar. I believe that he claimed to be Billy Rose’s illegitimate son. He also claimed to have never been a CIA agent- so how can you possibly find out what,if any ,real CIA associations he actually had? The stuff posted about him on various UFO websites is just downright crazy- if even half of it is true a rational approach would lead one to be extremely cautious about believing anything he said. But you have seemed to swallow him and his claims hook,line and sinker. Why? You are an intelligent guy with a great research reputation- but accepting a guy who claimed to be able to communicate with extraterrestrials as a valid source is just beyond the pale.
    I feel like a kid who was just told there is no Santa Claus.

  36. BradR says:

    After 24 hours there isn’t any source. I am sorry Jim, but your claims are nothing but hot air.
    Novel was nothing but a serial liar who claimed to be able to communicate with flying saucers.
    Sheridan was an RFK loyalist who had nothing to do with the CIA and everything to do with informing RFK about Garrison’s investigation, which he considered bogus.Apparently RFK agreed.
    There is no evidence that Novel had any relationship with Dulles.
    And Jim,I no longer consider you a serious researcher.

  37. Allen Lowe says:

    a lot of weird stuff going on here; Jim DiEugenio cites his sources, numerous times, corroborates their stories with other sources, then McAdams says “where’s the documentation?” or something like that, so Jim gives more sources, confirms their stories, and McAdams says, “so where’s the proof?” McAdams is doing a “Who’s on First?” routine, pure and simple, to throw everyone off. Don’t fall for it, folks. And I like Steve Roy, but to come back with so much discredited stuff – to pretend the Kennedys like Dulles by citing things we know now NOT to be true but to be merely LBJ’s mendacity – is silly and beneath him. And to cite some merit award which was merely a matter of formal recognition is even sillier. Dulles hated the Kennedys and anyone who does not now about that is a poor student of history.

    • John McAdams says:

      Jim “cites sources,” but demands that we accept his interpretation of the sources.

      You probably would bridle at demands that Posner’s or Bugliosi’s interpretation of sources should be taken at face value, would you not?

      • RJ says:

        John, you’re doing the same. You claim that RFK asked that Dulles be appointed to the WC. Specifically, you stated this was a fact.
        It is in no way a fact. It is your interpretation of compiled evidence. It’s an opinion — an informed opinion perhaps, but an opinion to be sure.

        I have read other compiled evidence that leads me to believe otherwise. Why should I believe your opinion, and why did you list your opinion as a fact?

        • John McAdams says:

          I’ve posted both a document recording that RFK wanted Dulles on the WC, and a quote from a phone conversation between LBJ and Abe Fortas where LBJ tells that to Fortas. Fortas would have immediately known if LBJ was lying.

          So what evidence do you have to contradict that?

          That Bobby and Lyndon hated each other doesn’t count. In politics, doing something to assuage your adversaries (or perhaps just disarm them) can be good practice.

    • John McAdams says:

      to pretend the Kennedys like Dulles by citing things we know now NOT to be true but to be merely LBJ’s mendacity – is silly and beneath him.

      If you simply refuse to look at sources, there is no helping you.

      Are you pointedly refusing to look at this?

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/WalterJenkins11-29-63.pdf

  38. Allen Lowe says:

    as for Sheridan, let me add, that BradR merely has to read Jim’s book; no need to have Jim D. reprint the work here. The book is well and solidly documented as to Sheridan’s malfeasance. More game playing.

  39. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Who was it Dulles told “that little Kennedy, he thought he was a God”? Prescott Bush never forgave JFK for firing Dulles per his note to his wife after his death.

  40. Thanks Alan.

    I guess Roy doesn’t know 1,) How much LBJ hated RFK and 2.) all the animus that RFK had for Allen Dulles and how he insisted that, after Dulles was fired, his sister be fired also since he wanted no more of the family around anymore. Also, David Talbot will show in his upcoming book on Dulles, that Dulles and his pals LOBBIED for his spot on the Warren Commission.

    As per Shaw, again McAdams is like bull in a china shop.

    The cover story on Shaw, as put out by the CIA and swallowed by people like Blakey, has been slowly eroded over time and has no credibility today.

    I went to work on this in my first version of Destiny Betrayed. And I proved with State Department memos that Shaw’s connection with Permindex was real. And the evidence surrounding its financing had all the earmarks of a CIA ancillary. This was later confirmed through Garrison memos by FBI agent Regis Kennedy. He said Shaw was a CIA agent who had done some work for the Agency in Rome for a five year period. (Destiny Betrayed, p. 386)

    Then there was the memo on QKEnchant, which stunned VIctor Marchetti. Marchetti said that a covert security clearance would only be needed if one was clandestine and this indicated Shaw was working with DOD, that is domestically, with the likes of Howard Hunt. (ibid, p. 385)

    Then there was the fact that Shaw was so highly thought of that he was briefed in ADVANCE of this journeys abroad, not after the fact like those other tens of thousands. And also, the CIA created a special Y file for Shaw. Bill Davy discovered “a handwritten note in the CIA declassified files saying that one of those Y files had been destroyed.” (ibid p. 384)

    Again, all this indicates a cover up about Shaw. So, in other words,the newly declassified memo discovered by Mellen which reveal him as a highly paid and valuable contract agent does not AT ALL clash with what we have. It corroborates what we now have and corroborates what Gordon said about Osborne. And one can only say it does not if one ignores the declassified record of the ARRB.

    Which McAdams continually does.

    • Stephen Roy says:

      Of course I know about the dynamic between Bob Kennedy and Johnson. As a courtesy to a poster who apparently hadn’t read it, I was merely summarizing it. Johnson apparently claimed in 1963, in 1966 and again in 1971 that RFK had recommended him. You can drop the condescending tone.

      • RJ says:

        Stephen,

        I thank you for the summary, but will say for the record that I knew of the majority of those sources already…for instance, I already own Max Holland’s book with the LBJ-Fortas referenced conversation. I also have seen some of the source docs at the Mary Ferrell site. That is how I knew that the ‘RFK asked that Dulles be appointed to the WC’ issue could not be stated as fact as Mr. McAdams previously stated.

        I’d rather do that than use the numerous links to Mr. McAdams site that are posted here daily, because I feel that they are primarily used to funnel traffic to his website more than to link to source material. Otherwise the links would lead directly to the material and not to the page with his interpretation of what the material means in terms of the JFK case.

    • John McAdams says:

      And I proved with State Department memos that Shaw’s connection with Permindex was real.

      Explain “real.” Of course he agreed to be on the board of directors, but do you have any evidence that he ever even made a meeting of the board?

      And the evidence surrounding its financing had all the earmarks of a CIA ancillary.

      What does that mean? Explain. Are you just accepting Communist propaganda about this?

      He said Shaw was a CIA agent who had done some work for the Agency in Rome for a five year period.

      Post the document, or a link to the document. Is this something Garrison said?

      It contradicts all of the extant, contemporaneous CIA documents on Shaw.

      which stunned VIctor Marchetti. Marchetti said that a covert security clearance would only be needed if one was clandestine and this indicated Shaw was working with DOD, that is domestically, with the likes of Howard Hunt. (ibid, p. 385)

      Well . . . if you believe Novell, why not believe Marchetti?

      Are you blowing off the sources that say LBJ put Dulles on the WC at the behest of Bobby? It doesn’t matter that they hated each other. Prudent politics sometimes involves accommodating ones enemies.

      • Stephen Roy says:

        The source for that quote was a Sciambra interview with Betty Parrott (sometimes Parent), who was an associate of William Wayne Dalzell of Friends of Democratic Cuba in 1961.

        “She said that many times Regis Kennedy would come over to the house and talk to Dalzell concerning the operation [FDC]. She also said that many times Regis Kennedy came over to the office in the Balter Building to talk to Dalzell and in turn, Dalzell and other members of the group visited Regis Kennedy in his office. She said that Regis Kennedy confirmed to her the fact that Clay Shaw is a former CIA agent who did some work for the CIA in Italy over a five-year span.”

        • John McAdams says:

          Kudos to you for supplying the source. It doesn’t look very solid to me. And again, multiple CIA documents from the 50s and 60s contradict it.

          BTW, did the CIA share with the FBI the names of their spooks? Especially those in Italy?

          And was Shaw ever in Italy? Must less for a five-year perior?

    • John McAdams says:

      So, in other words,the newly declassified memo discovered by Mellen which reveal him as a highly paid and valuable contract agent

      But if there was a cover-up, why was this fellow, in the early 90s, allowed to see the “real” documents on Shaw?

      IIRC, he was working from the Russ Holmes Work File. That’s on Mary Ferrell. Where are the documents that show Shaw to be “highly paid” and “a valuable contact agent?”

    • John McAdams says:

      Then there was the memo on QKEnchant, which stunned VIctor Marchetti. Marchetti said that a covert security clearance would only be needed if one was clandestine and this indicated Shaw was working with DOD,

      Department of Defense, not the CIA?

      There is a QKENCHANT memo that has Shaw’s buddy (head of the San Francisco trade mart) had covert security approval on an unwitting basis.

      How can any deep cover spook be an “unwitting” asset?

      Marchetti is making up stuff.

      And you bought it.

  41. BradR says:

    I asked Jim to document where Dulles admitted his association with Novel. After 3 days he hasn’t-probably because he can’t. No big deal, everybody can be wrong once in a while. But the big problem is how much of this story is based on what Gordon Novel told Jim- with little if any confirmation of that information by a reputable second witness. If you linked to the Novel interview I posted above you can hear for yourself what a totally unreliable source Novel was. If Jim thinks that Novel has any credibility whatsoever I must assume that Jim cannot be taken seriously. So I no longer do.

  42. To Brad : Maybe you missed my previous post about you. I am ignoring you from here on in, got that?

    Dear Professor:

    You ask questions like “What does that mean” about Permindex financing.

    Then you ask about Shaw and Permindex, what does “real” mean? (Sort of like Clinton and “It depends what “is” means”.) And then you echo that obsolete Dorril crap about Permindex being Russian propaganda, which I directly took aim at in my first book and demolished. Which was back in the nineties.

    Do you read anything?

    And now you say Marchetti is not credible? Please. Give me a break.

    Uh, yes, its not credible that RFK would give Dulles’ name to LBJ to investigate his beloved brother’s murder. I have explained this elsewhere at length. (Destiny Betrayed p. 395) And i devoted about 5-6 pages showing all the detective work RFK did on Dulles on the Taylor Commission to make his brother fire him, and then RFK his sister. (ibid, pgs. 45-50)

    This included going back to the Bruce-Lovett report on Dulles penned in the fifties. Then bringing in Lovett and having him brief his brother on why Allen Dulles could not be trusted as head of the CIA and why he now had the perfect opportunity to fire him and rebuild the CIA. So JFK did so and placed RFK as a kind of ombudsman there. And then RFK fired Eleanor on his own. Since he wanted no trace of the Dulles family around anymore.

    So yes, in light of all that, which you never breath a word of, its not credible that RFK would then BRING BACK THE GUY HE SINGLEHANDEDLY FORCED OUT AND HAD HIS BROTHER FIRE to investigate his brother’s death.

    And when you add in how LBJ despised RFK by this time, well, does that not explain it further? Or have you not even read Mutual Contempt, the best book on the LBJ/RFK mutual hate pact? I would not at all be surprised if you did not professor. Since by now, I don’t think you read very much at all.

    Cerrtainly not the ARRB releases.

    • BradR says:

      Well, Jim I am not sure how you have refuted the Jenkins memo that stated that Katzenbach was told by RFK that he wanted Dulles in the Commision. Even if RFK detested Dulles there is still no evidence that he didn’t want him on the panel; as a matter of fact you have posted no evidence whatsoever to prove that RFK didn’t want Dulles-just your opinion as to why he wouldn’t. I see a trend here- you make claims not on what the evidence shows, but what you think it should show- even if it doesn’t.
      A prime example is your quoting from your book. I reviewed the passages and see nothing to confirm what you have posted above.
      The Bruce -Lovett reference is really an eye opener in regards to your research methods. There is no Bruce-Lovett memo. There is no Bruce-Lovett memo in the Kennedy library. You have never seen the Bruce-Lovett memo- nobody aside from Arthur Schlesinger ever has- and his notes are nowhere to be found. He claimed the original was in the JFK library, but they have no record of it. So how can you reference something that doesn’t exist and probably never did.
      This has been a real lesson to me about your documented evidence, or rather lack of documented evidence. And you still haven’t posted anything remotely confirming your claim about Dulles admitting that Novel worked for him.

      • John McAdams says:

        What Jim is overlooking is that some political figure might want to “co-opt” or “disarm” a rival political figure — or even an enemy.

        If LBJ was wondering whether he might get flack from the Kennedy family over the WC (or the assassination), a prudent move would be to cater to Bobby a bit. Hard to complain about the WC if you have had two people appointed on your recommendation.

      • RJ says:

        If you really believe the Bruce-Lovett memo never existed, it reveals much more about your viewpoint and research abilities than it does Mr. DiEugenio or anyone else on this board. I found several citations to this memo with a simple Google search, including the one in which the report was requested by the PBFIA in 1956 during Eisenhower’s administration. I think it’s obvious this report was requested, and quite fair to deduce that it was completed and submitted.
        Whether or not you believe Schlesinger (sp) is up to you I suppose…but the report was definitely commissioned and did exist.

        • BradR says:

          Every reference to the memo is based on Schlesinger’s report. There is absolutely no other independent source confirming that it ever existed. No CIA records, no JFK Library records, no Bruce records-nothing. Schlesinger admitted he didn’t have a copy and claimed that his notes were his source. Every reference that Grose made to the memo is directly from Schlesinger’s notes-he admitted that he never saw the memo. There is no memo in any collection, nor even a copy of the memo.
          And yet Jim D. claims that it confirms that RFK hated Allan Dulles.
          And that it is proof that RFK would never recommend Dulles for the Warren Commission . Without ever seeing the memo. Why?
          At this point I am not sure about any of Jim’s conclusions if they are based on such flimsy evidence. Even great historians like Doris Goodwin or Steven Ambrose make mistakes, get caught up in plagiarism or misinterpret data. They are not infallible. Neither was Dr. Schlesinger, despite being one of the most renowned historians of the twentieth century.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        BradR July 15, 2014 at 2:45 pm

        “I see a trend here- you make claims not on what the evidence shows, but what you think it should show- even if it doesn’t.”

        That was certainly Mr. DiEugenio’s approach to NSAM 263 and documentation of, “JFK and Vietnam”. I believe you are on to something here. So now we are both “ignored”!

        I have found that Schlesinger is not to be trusted with anything dealing with the Kennedy family. I am not alone in my suspicions.

        Quote on; He justifiably excoriates the sycophantic courtier Schlesinger, whose histories “repeatedly manipulated and obscured the facts” and whose accounts—“profoundly misleading if not out-and-out deceptive”—were written to serve not scholarship but the Kennedys. Quote off.

        http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/01/the-real-cuban-missile-crisis/309190/
        Page 3
        By Benjamin Schwarz

      • leslie sharp says:

        I thought the David KE Bruce – Robert Abercrombie Lovett memo is out there, readily available. Correct me if I’m wrong.

        DKEBruce whose Virginia family name is Cabell has long been of interest. He held diplomatic posts in France and London when Al Ulmer of the CIA was serving in the same cities.

        RA Lovett’s father’s law practice originated in Huntsville, TX in partnership with the father of James Baker (consigliere to George HW Bush) also of Huntsville. (dare anyone mention that Wesley Frazier and his sister grew up in Huntsville); Lovett married into the Brown family of Brown Brothers Harriman investment firm. Lovett was college pal of John McCloy of the Warren Commission and so much more. All of this is of course old news.

        However, it’s important to restate that John McCloy was the brother in law of LW Douglas whose investments included Phelps Dodge, a family enterprise that Katzenbach married into. Beyond that, the other primary investors in Phelps Dodge included TA Lamont whose brother – an alleged Marxist – published pamphlets in possession of Richard Case Nagell when he was arrested in El Paso. Nagell’s son was by chance named “Lamont.”

        DKE Bruce’s brother James is an entirely different study and should not be dismissed.

        This is probably too much dot connecting for the uninformed, or too much information to process for those insisting that coincidence is just that.

    • John McAdams says:

      You ask questions like “What does that mean” about Permindex financing.

      I’m asking what your evidence is that the CIA financed Permindex.

      Spit it out!

      then you echo that obsolete Dorril crap about Permindex being Russian propaganda, which I directly took aim at in my first book and demolished.

      OK, how did you demolish it?

      You seem to think that everybody is obligated to take everything you wrote in a book at face value.

      It doesn’t work that way. You’ve made too many wild assertions that you can’t back up.

      It is a fact that the Communist press in Italy was pushing the “Permindex/CIA” business, and the Social Democratic and Christian Democratic press was not.

      But communists would never engage in disinformation, would they?

      Only the evil CIA would do that.

      Was Shaw ever in Italy? In Italy for five years, able to be a CIA spook there?

      Do you have any evidence of that?

      Uh, yes, its not credible that RFK would give Dulles’ name to LBJ to investigate his beloved brother’s murder.

      Do you even bother to look at sources that might throw doubt on your claims?

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/WalterJenkins11-29-63.pdf

  43. Let me get back to my original point.

    In my post of July 13 at 11:40, I showed all the new evidence which had surfaced in the nineties to undercut the cover story of Shaw just being part of the businessman’s routine contact service for the CIA. The ARRB did a fair job on this I think: the Y file, QKEnchant, Regis Kennedy etc. The new declassifications were then corroborated by Joan Mellen’s discovery of the CIA admission about Shaw’s being a well paid and valuable contract agent.

    Now, here is my angle: If, as McAdams says, Gordon is just a no-nothing loose cannon, how did he know the truth about Shaw back in the seventies? But further, how did he know the Agency was concealing it? To the point that he knew who was actually responsible for the concealment-Howard Osborne–a man who no one had heard of at that time? And who I had to look up in Ranelagh’s book to find out who he was.

    But further, there is another indication that Gordon was commiserating with the top of the Agency on obstructing Garrison. Because James Angleton now pushed Novel to file a lawsuit against Garrison for his Playboy interview. Hoover did not want Gordon to do this. So Angleton gave Gordon compromising photos of J. Edgar to warn him not to try and stop the suit Angleton wanted filed. (Destiny Betrayed pgs. 262-63)

    The Agency then furnished Gordon with a phalanx of lawyers, the likes of which he himself could not afford at the time. He told Playboy’s lawyer these four lawyers were being “clandestinely renumerated” (ibid, p. 263). You bet they were.

    Gordon also sued Ohio Bell so Garrison could not get hold of any of the phone conversations between him and Dulles. (ibid)

    As I said, the ARRB dug out some really good stuff about Garrison. You just won’t find it at John McAdams’ site.

    Why?

    • BradR says:

      Jim, all of your “evidence” regarding Shaw’s CIA status was one lousy quote from a second hand source with no other confirmation. What was the definition of well payed- particularly in the 1950s? Why isn’t there any other source that confirms that he was paid, well or otherwise? Were other businessmen that cooperated with the CIA at the same time paid anything? Again, no real evidence that Shaw’s CIA ties were any different from those of thousands of businessmen that cooperated with the CIA following foreign travel.
      Yes , Gordon Novel knew about Howard Osborne, but apparently not enough to know how to spell his name. And Angleton gave him compromising photos of John Edgar Hoover? You seriously believe that?
      A control freak like Angleton who was obsessed with finding moles in the CIA would entrust anything to a blabbermouth character like Novel? Did Gordon tell you that along with the truth about Roswell?
      Do you have any proof that the CIA paid for any legal representation for Novel beside his claim?
      Suing Ohio Bell so Garrison couldn’t get ahold of his conversations with Dulles? I hate to break this to you but Ohio Bell wasn’t recording telephone conversations in the 1960s, nor did they have transcripts of individual phone calls. Another ludicrous statement that belies common sense. Where are the records of this suit?
      How can you possibly believe anything Novel says?

    • Phil Gurholt says:

      What hard evidence exists that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand?

    • John McAdams says:

      Gordon is just a no-nothing [sic] loose cannon, how did he know the truth about Shaw back in the seventies? But further, how did he know the Agency was concealing it?

      But he didn’t know anything in the 70s. He was just making stuff up.

      You are begging the question. Since you think Shaw was a deep cover spook, you think that anybody who said that “knew something,” and was thus credible.

    • John McAdams says:

      Because James Angleton now pushed Novel to file a lawsuit against Garrison for his Playboy interview. Hoover did not want Gordon to do this. So Angleton gave Gordon compromising photos of J. Edgar to warn him not to try and stop the suit Angleton wanted filed.

      Wow! Is this wild.

      Post your sources on that.

  44. Thanks for bringing up the RFK thing again.

    I attacked this on one plane, the whole Lovett, RFK, Dulles firing episode.

    But in his review of Howard Willens’ book at CTKA, Martin Hay added another angle, a very interesting one.

    By tracing the actual calls, and the ones that there is no record of, Martin brings up the gravest of doubts about this whole RFK/LBJ story. There are calls that don’t exist that should, and conversations that were recorded that contain no such evidence of any RFK/LBJ referral.

    Professor, I did look at the “evidence” and I explained why it is not at all convincing.

    Were you aware of Hay’s work?

    • John McAdams says:

      By tracing the actual calls, and the ones that there is no record of, Martin brings up the gravest of doubts about this whole RFK/LBJ story.

      How? Explain!

      Professor, I did look at the “evidence” and I explained why it is not at all convincing.</blockquote.

      I didn't see any such explanation. All I saw was your fuming about how RFK and Dulles hated each other. You know how to cut and paste, put your arguments right here:

  45. Ronnie Wayne says:

    “clandestinely remunerated”, as were Sheridan and Aynesworth on the MSM side. Who else paid for the rental house to discuss the day’s proceedings, plan for the next, eat free food, drink free booze?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Ok. My reference was to Sheridan’s cohort James Phelan of the Saturday Evening Post who came to cover the trial with no assignment to do so. He rented a house where reporters gathered after the day’s court proceeding’s where he “would spell out the next day’s story on a blackboard”. Ch. 13, # 16 Destiny Betrayed (author interview with Art Kunlin), pg. 289.
        Argue with Jim about his source.
        “Clandestinely Remunerated” is a reference to a sub heading in Ch 12 about Gordon Novel and his recruitment by Allen Dulles, former CIA Director, fired by JFK over the BoP, and Warren omission director.

  46. What evidence exists about Shaw as Bertrand?

    I hope you said that tongue in cheek.

    I mean, in Destiny Betrayed, second edition, I made this a central tenet of the book. I amassed something like 12 witnesses, above and beyond what Garrison had at the trial, which then included the VIP register. On page 387, I list William Morris, Ricky Planche, Barbara Bennet, Habighorst, and Eddie Tatro, who was told this by some people he met at the trial, words to the effect, “Everyone down here knows Shaw is Bertrand.” There was also the leak from the Justice Department based on the FBI inquiry into the case. Later on, there were three sets of FBI documents declassified by the ARRB to this effect. (p. 388)

    I then listed a man interviewed by Bill Turner, Shaw’s maid, Virginia Johnson, Greg Donnelly a gay man who knew Shaw/Bertrand, There is also Oswald, who asked for Bertrand through Shaw’s pimp, Gene Davis. Even Ed Guthman at the LA TImes knew it.

    Then there is Andrews himself who told Weisberg. But Harold kept this secret for years. (ibid)

    All told its about 13 witnesses with two exhibits. With Andrews, that settles it for most objective people.

    • John McAdams says:

      “Everyone down here knows Shaw is Bertrand.”

      No.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm#ivonmemo

      M E M O R A N D U M

      February 25, 1967

      TO: JIM GARRISON

      FROM: LOUIS IVON

      RE: CLAY BERTRAND

      To ascertain the location of one CLAY BERTRAND, I put out numerous inquiries and made contact with several sources in the French Quarter area. From the information we have obtained concerning this subject, I’m almost positive from my contacts that they would have known or heard of a CLAY BERTRAND. The information I received was negative results.

      On February 22, 1967, I was approached by “BUBBIE” PETTINGILL in the Fountainbleu Motor Hotel, located on Tulane Avenue, whom I had earlier contacted about CLAY BERTRAND. He stated that DEAN ANDREWS admitted to him that CLAY BERTRAND never existed.

      Further:

      Ivon was not the only Garrison staffer to reach this conclusion. Assistant DA Andrew “Moo-Moo” Sciambra was given the task of “squeezing” the French Quarter to get information from homosexual informants. He admitted to author Edward Jay Epstein that he failed to find any “Bertrand.” See Epstein’s The Assassination Chronicles (New York, 1992), p. 196.

      Of course, once the “word gets around” that Garrison thinks that Andrews was “Bertrand” a lot of people will come forward to “confirm” that.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Of course, once the “word gets around” that Garrison thinks that Andrews was “Bertrand” a lot of people will come forward to “confirm” that.

        And who were ‘a lot of people’?

        It seems that Garrison tried to shake the proverbial tree with his statement, and not to make things up.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Of course, once the “word gets around” that Garrison thinks that Andrews was “Bertrand” a lot of people will come forward to “confirm” that.

        Are you referring to those names brought up by DiEugenio? How do you know they aren’t credible? Maybe people were afraid to talk to the authorities?

        It seems that Garrison tried to shake the proverbial tree with his statement, and not to make things up.

        • John McAdams says:

          Well-documented account of how rumors that “Shaw was Bertrand” started circulating early on.

          http://www.jfk-online.com/cbrumors.html

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Read this article by Reitzes and Andrews’ WC testimony.

            I noted this in Reitzes’ article:

            Another Court of the Two Sisters employee, Michael Hadley, came forward to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald had lived in a small apartment above the restaurant in early 1962. Hadley said that he had overheard Oswald talking with Gene Davis about a “Clem Bertrand.”

            So is Eugene Davis lying (obviously, he wasn’t talking about his alias allegedly used by Andrews, but the identity of third person)?

            Andrews lied to the WC about not knowing who Bertrand was yet he later admits years later, it was Davis.

            He told the WC that Clay Bertrand would call on behalf of ‘gay kids’ to post bond or parole for them.

            I can see a man of means like Shaw do this, but not Davis.

            Shaw lied about his CIA connection via Permindex or being a contract agent.

            Yet, these liars and other sketchy characters mentioned in this article are to ultimately be believed because they deflect attention from Clay Shaw as ‘Clay Bertrand’.

            Seems like more CYA when it hit the fan at the time of Garrison’s probing.

    • Phil Gurholt says:

      Mr. McAdams,

      Would you agree that there is significant reason to believe Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand? If not, why not?

      • John McAdams says:

        No. There was only Dean Andrews, whose contradictory testimony was a mess, and people who came forward one rumors got out that “Shaw is Bertrand.”

        The Garrison “investigation” flushed out a huge number of cranks and crackpots who made all kinds of statements.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          This doesn’t make sense. “who came forward one rumors got out that Shaw is Bertrand”".

        • Phil Gurholt says:

          Mr. McAdams,

          From a broader prospective, to what degree of certainty do you believe Oswald was the assassin and acted alone in killing President Kennedy?

          Despite the fact you believe that Oswald acted alone, what existing information, if any, gives you pause that conspiracy may be at least a remote possibility in this case?

        • Phil Gurholt says:

          Mr. McAdams,

          1. How certain are you that Oswald acted alone?

          2. Is there any existing information that gives you the slightest doubt to your current position?

    • BradR says:

      And not one of them credible.

      • mball says:

        So, like, all these people just didn’t have anything else to do with their lives so they decided to go screw around with Garrison’s investigation? At the same time? Never seen a case that’s had so many delusional people all seeing, hearing, and retelling the same crackpot delusional things. Pretty amazing. That’s real convincing

        • John McAdams says:

          Never seen a case that’s had so many delusional people all seeing, hearing, and retelling the same crackpot delusional things.

          That’s because you are immersed in JFK literature, and haven’t studied high-profile criminal cases much.

          In any celebrated case, a lot of cranks and crackpots will come forward.

          • mball says:

            Gee I must have been doing something else the 21 years I spent as a criminal investigator. In some cases some cranks and crackpots show up. When you get more than one “crank and crackpot” having the same delusion, you start looking. When you have several having the same delusion, you pull it apart at the seams and find out what’s going on. If you LOOK, youll find out. You may not be able to take it to court, but you’ll know. There are instances in the assassination case where several people, with diverse backgrounds, relate essentially the same story or information. It isn’t helpful to dismiss them because you believe them to be delusional. If none of their information checks out, so be it. If it checks out, so be it. The story on Shaw appears to be on fairly solid ground, as to him being Bertrand.

          • Paulf says:

            John:

            In any celebrated case, crackpots how up? You just made that up entirely without any basis at all. Seriously, can you expect people to believe anything, even if it has no factual basis or logic?

            JFK’s murder is akin, though, to a drug-related shooting. Let’s say someone shoots another during a drug deal. The defense at trial will try to impeach witnesses because they are almost certain to be unsavory characters with criminal histories. That’s the way it goes.

            In JFK’s case, most everyone at the tangents of it is in intelligence, or the mafia or a paramilitary group. Every single person who is suspect or even doing the investigation has some history that can be taken as reason to doubt their word. Anyone plotting this knew this of course, and it helps to provide cover and ultimately may prevent the truth from ever coming out.

          • BradR says:

            There is no evidence that Shaw was Bertrand. Even the guy who started it all later admitted there was no Bertrand.
            The whole Garrison affair was nothing but a concerted effort to divert attention away from Carlos Marcello, the Mob and Jimmy Hoffa.
            And it worked.

          • John McAdams says:

            When you get more than one “crank and crackpot” having the same delusion, you start looking. When you have several having the same delusion, you pull it apart at the seams and find out what’s going on.

            In the first case, you’ve never investigated a case as celebrated as the JFK assassination.

            In the second place, people hearing rumors and telling the same tall tale is not the “same delusion.” It’s people repeating the same rumor.

            http://www.jfk-online.com/cbrumors.html

          • mball says:

            For someone who demands documentation (and then apparently doesn’t read it when you’re directed to it), you’re very loose with allegations of cranks and crackpots. It reminds me of defense attorneys who try to explain away every piece of evidence against their clients, including allegations that prosecution witnesses are delusional, cranks, etc. The jury gets to choose between the greatest series of coincidences in history, or the probability that the weight of the evidence shows the truth of the matter.

  47. I love this when McAdams doesn’t know when to give up. Pretty soon, there won’t be any china left for him to break.

    This quote that he uses above and on his site from Ivon is a perfect example of why his site is not one that can be relied upon for good information. See, sometimes one does not need a direct misrepresentation to disguise the truth. One just does not tell the whole story, i.e. you present a half truth.

    At first, Ivon was not getting results in his search for Bertrand. But then he decided to ask Garrison to stop coming with them. (Garrison, pgs. 84-85) As Garrison describes it, and as the files indicate, after this they did get multiple confirmations of Shaw as Bertrand.

    Now, why was JG not being there important? Garrison does not detail it in his book, but Joan Mellen did, and so did Ivon with me. Garrison had alienated many, many people in his relentless crusade in the French Quarter to clean up the B girl drinking rackets. (Destiny Betrayed, 170-71) He shut down, fined and suspended so many places that many people lost their jobs and/or livliehood. Therefore, they were not eager to help him find who Bertrand was, even though they knew.

    We know this for a fact because it was certified by two witnesses named above, Planche and Bennet. They told Joan Mellen this explicitly: that they knew Shaw was Bertrand, but they were bitter at Garrison for the French Quarter shutdown since they worked there. (ibid, p. 210)

    As per the other line of malarkey about people wanting to get in on the act, again this holds no water. Because the FBI and Justice Dept. revealed through three sources that in the original inquiry in 63-64 1.) The FBI was looking for Bertrand, and 2.) Shaw was Bertrand. (ibid, pgs. 298-99) When two inquiries independent of each other come up with the same evidentiary finding, well, tough to object to that. Unless you’re John McAdams.

    You would think that the professor would now read my book. So he wouldn’t run into so many counter punches. But he just keeps on wading in with his guard down. Keep it up, i can go on forever since its clear you know so little about New Orleans and have never been there. ( I mean, to use Epstein? Angleton’s stooge? You can’t do better than that?)

    • John McAdams says:

      Because the FBI and Justice Dept. revealed through three sources that in the original inquiry in 63-64 1.)

      Oh, you mean some cranks came forward to say that Shaw was Bertrand, and the FBI took their statements?

      Do you actually think that shows the FBI determining that Shaw was Bertrand?

      I mean, to use Epstein? Angleton’s stooge?

      Ad hominem, Jim.

      Epstein was honest. You have no evidence that he was Angleton’s stooge in dealing with Garrison.

      It’s true that Legend shows Epstein more dependent on Angleton as a source than it should have been.

      But that doesn’t mean he was lying to undermine Garrison.

      Of course, you believe that everybody who opposed Garrison was a CIA spook, don’t you?

    • BradR says:

      Exactly who were Planche and Bennet? Is there any evidence they had actually met Shaw before the investigation? I thought that they came forward after “recognizing” Shaw on TV. Did Garrison think they were credible enough to use as trial witnesses? Jim, they are just names with nothing else.
      Andrews later said he made up the entire Bertrand story. So he is a liar – either at the beginning, or when he recanted. So how can you tell what statements are actually true? A good historian dismisses sources who give contradictory answers to the same question, but you seem to think that if one of the answers fits your peorception the source has to be valid. Your litany of names associated with this issue is chock full of false witnesses and confirmed liars. Gordon Novel has given mutually contradicting answers to the same question, ie. lying at least once. But you think that you know when he is telling the truth. How?
      You list William Morris as a witness. But you neglect to mention that he was a convict In a Texas prison who had no prior knowledge of Shaw before the investigation was made public. If he was such a great witness why didn’t Garrison use him?
      Habighorst’s credibility was destroyed at the trial. You should have known that.
      “Oswald, who asked for Bertrand through Shaw’s pimp, Gene Davis”. But Davis testified under oath that he didn’t know Shaw, only that he had seen him before. He also stated unequivocally that he had no idea who Oswald was prior to the assassination. So where did you get that information? Any verifiable sources? Any sources at all?
      It has become apparent to me that you are more interested in listing multiple names as witnesses or sources than in actually verifying if any of them are credible. Since many are clearly not and often mentioned only from one source with no confirmation your conclusions cannot be taken as anything but speculation based on inaccurate data and preconceived notions. If your ” facts” are wrong so must be your conclusions.
      The Sheridan nonsense is more serious, however. Who stood to gain from Garrison’s attempt to demonize him?

    • John McAdams says:

      So nobody would talk to Ivon because Garrison was with him?

      If Garrison was with him this whole time, why did Ivon need to write a memo to Garrison explaining that:

      From the information we have obtained concerning this subject, I’m almost positive from my contacts that they would have known or heard of a CLAY BERTRAND. The information I received was negative results.

      You are simply making excuses for a Garrison lie, that “Everyone down here knows Shaw is Bertrand.”

      And you need to quit fussing and fuming that I haven’t read your book. I’ve read large parts of the first one, and it’s clear that you will accept any source that you find agreeable, no matter how questionable.

      You think you have proven all kinds of things, and get huffy when challenged. But when pressed for evidence, you draw a blank.

      For example: have you ever produced the source where Dulles supposedly admitted that he was giving Novell orders?

      Where is it?

    • John McAdams says:

      Because the FBI and Justice Dept. revealed through three sources that in the original inquiry in 63-64 1.) The FBI was looking for Bertrand, and 2.) Shaw was Bertrand. (ibid, pgs. 298-99)

      That’s simply untrue, Jim.

      If you claim it is true, you need to post the sources.

      A link would be fine, or verbatim quotes from the relevant documents.

      • Phil Gurholt says:

        Mr. McAdams,

        How certain are you that Oswald acted alone?

        Is there any existing information that gives you the slightest doubt to your current position?

  48. One of those strands was Regis Kennedy. He didn’t know what he was talking about, in New Orleans? I don’t think so professor. He is the guy who knew about Shaw’s CIA work in Italy.

    Secondly, as per Epstein, take a look at the Assassinations, pgs. 21-22. And also the Schiller album of the Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report. Epstein started to turn in the late 60′s. And I talked to Ivon and Turner about his article in the New Yorker on Garrison. When I read parts of it to Ivon, his reply was “Bull…..”. On more than one count.

    You don’t do this sort of thing, do you? You don’t call people down there and cross check accusations. Therefore, your site, as far as Garrison goes, might as well have been written in the seventies. Its that dated. This view of Garrison–a la Kirkwood, Brener, Epstein etc– has been superseded with work done from the ARRB files.

    As per the forces opposed to Garrison, its very easy to expose the ties that many of them had to Washington. Those documents are declassified also. But you will not see them on your site either, as I noted above with Sheridan. Because you need these guys in order to present your obsolete version of New Orleans.

    So the question becomes, if certain declassified records are important to the story,so as not to present a half truth, and if one is supposed to be an academic who believes in scholarly work and the whole picture, why aren’t they on your site?

    • John McAdams says:

      As per the forces opposed to Garrison, its very easy to expose the ties that many of them had to Washington. Those documents are declassified also.

      You mean like Sheridan, who was a Kennedy loyalist?

      And you think he was smearing Garrison at the behest of the CIA?

      Your problem with “ties” Jim, is that you want to argue that the people who opposed Garrison were puppets of the CIA, tasked to smear Garrison.

      But we know that the CIA tried to figure out what to do about Garrison, and could come up with no viable plan of action.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm

    • John McAdams says:

      One of those strands was Regis Kennedy. He didn’t know what he was talking about, in New Orleans?

      Your source on that was third-hand hearsay.

      Have any quote from Kennedy himself to that effect?

      Then there is the question of why the CIA would tell the FBI in New Orleans about its spooks in Italy. Ever hear of “need to know?”

      Was Shaw ever in Italy? If so, over any five-year span? Did it even occur to you to check that?

      And then there is the fact that you are ignoring multiple secret internal CIA documents that say that Shaw talked to DCS — and had no further contact (other than, say, running into Hunter Leake in downtown New Orleans restaurants).

      Why do you ignore the CIA’s own secret internal documents, and latch onto something that an unreliable witness told Moo Sciambra that Kennedy said?

      I talked to Ivon and Turner about his article in the New Yorker on Garrison. When I read parts of it to Ivon, his reply was “Bull…..”.

      So you expected Ivon to admit his boss was a fraud? And Ivon and Turner to admit they were involved in a fraudulent case?

      His memo speaks volumes. What Epstein reported is consistent with that Ivon wrote.

  49. BradR says:

    Jim, Kennedy had no knowledge of Claw Shaw’s activities in Italy and testified to that at the Grand Jury. Why are you making these easily disproved claims? Did you ever look at the transcripts of sworn testimony that impeaches much of what you have posted here on this subject? It seems every day you come up with another unsubstantiated claim or unconfirmed allegation. It is easy to check these fables out on the Internet.
    It doesn’t seem that you can see the forest for the trees. Garrison cleaned up Bourbon Street, but he avoided like the plague indicting anybody with ties to Carlos Marcello, the real kingpin of the New Orleans underworld. And exactly what were Garrison’s ties to Marcello? Who benefited from the Clay Shaw investigation?
    That sordid affair diverted attention away from the real architects of the JFK assassination; it discredited conspiracy research for 10 years while witnesses, conspirators and sources died or dried up. And who was Marcello tight with? None other than Jimmy Hoffa, whose Central States Pension fund bankrolled the New Orleans mob. And Hoffa wanted JFK and RFK dead. And what happened to Hoffa when the House Committee started gearing up ? The Mob got rid of a loose cannon, just like with Oswald. Thus the cost of Jim Garrison’s “investigation”- a dried up trail to the real killers of JFK.

    • John McAdams says:

      Garrison cleaned up Bourbon Street, but he avoided like the plague indicting anybody with ties to Carlos Marcello, the real kingpin of the New Orleans underworld.

      The HSCA asked Garrison about Marcello.

      The result was hilarious. Garrison claimed not to know that Marcello was the city’s mafia kingpin.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jim-hsca.htm

      On the Trail of the Assassins is equally hilarious:

      The periodic allegations that I am on friendly terms with organized crime figures are amusing, in light of my record . . . .

      It has been my policy not to respond to each of the many canards which have been part of the campaign to discredit my investigation, nor to waste time trying to prove negatives. For what it is worth, however, I do not even know Carlos Marcello, the man with whom I am frequently linked by my detractors. Nor, for that matter, did I ever in my years as district attorney come upon any evidence that he was the Mafia kingpin the Justice Department says he is. (p. 288)

      So this great investigator Garrison didn’t know who the Mafia boss of New Orleans was?

  50. You are saying that something I wrote was not accurate, when you have not even read my book?

    Really. And I listed the pages and those pages annotate the information.

    Now, if you are too lazy to look it up then fine. Again, I have noted that throughout this discussion; that you keep on walking into counterpunch after counterpunch. And even after doing this several times, you still refuse to read my book. Then you say, “Well, I read large parts of your first one.”

    What the heck does that mean? The second edition of Destiny Betrayed is a 95% rewrite. That is because it is based largely on the new ARRB files. Which I did not have the first time around. So that comment of yours is meaningless. You have read nothing of my book.

    Instead, you actually resort to this: saying that something I wrote is not accurate. When it is based on the new files. Which you don’ t know about.

    This is scholarly? And you are an academic?

    I will say one thing. I think you have improved the visibility of my book. The sales have improved the last week.

    Keep it coming professor.

    • John McAdams says:

      Jim, you don’t seem to get it.

      You make assertions here, you are expected to support them.

      You cannot expect people to simply accept your interpretations of evidence.

      If you fail to post evidence, that strongly suggests that you don’t want your use of evidence scrutinized in this forum. So post your evidence, links to documents, or verbatim quotes would be good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more