Bogman – January 15 – In reply to John McAdams.
“I don’t doubt he wanted to discredit Garrison. This was after he concluded that Garrison was a fraud.”
I know it may be hard for you to believe, professor, but that is not supposed to be the way American journalism works.
You’re supposed to gather the facts on both sides, and present them. The audience gets to decide if those facts add up to a negative or positive.
“Nothing sinister about that. Unless you believe that everybody who opposed Garrison was a sinister person.”
It IS sinister if Sheridan had contacts in US intel assisting him.
Apples and oranges. Did Murrow have direct ties to a powerful and secretive US spy agency that has prevaricated on the assassination of a president for 50 years? False equivalency.
His bosses at CBS did — or at least you folks have been loudly claiming that.
And the “ties to a spy agency” for the Garrison critics are really far-fetched.
You are merely trying to justify your double standard. An exposé directed at somebody you dislike is fine, but one directed at Garrison (whom you like) you fuss and fume about.
Bogman, that is 100% right. There is no comparison between normal journalism writing about McCarthy, whose antics were a stain on American history, and the attack on Garrison by an interested party that was not disclosed.
The real issue is that Lehmann did not disclose his relationship to the people affected by the story. Not his bias, whatever that may have been. If he had disclosed in the story, readers could have better judged the value of the piece. But that he didn’t do the ethical and normal journalistic practice, which he certainly knew about, leads to question his motives.
Oh, and photon’s precious “the poor prominent New Orleans family who was rending to the insult upon his city,” c’mon, that is laughable. How stupid does he think people are? First we question the honesty of the babe in the woods James Angleton, now this. Fainting couches for everyone!
McAdams gets a two-fer with this issue. He gets to insult “buffs” and defend his soulmate McCarthy, so he must be in heaven today.
The problem is that the “relationship” was one of those Leslie/Tom things of “somebody was related to somebody who was related to somebody so isn’t this sinister” things.
And what about people like Phelan and Sheridan and Hugh Aynesworth who didn’t have any such “relationship?”
But Garrison’s tactics were a stain on history.
The entire attack of the buffs here on the journalists who criticized Garrison is based on the belief that he was a Fearless Truth Seeker.
In reality, he was very much like McCarthy.
“The entire attack of the buffs here on the journalists who criticized Garrison is based on the belief that he was a Fearless Truth Seeker.
In reality, he was very much like McCarthy.”~McAdams
Nonsense. Garrison is only part of the story. The Warren Commission fable has been proven to be a tissue of lies, far beyond that simple trial that opened the can of worms.
Whereas McCarthy’s nonsense is proven by the fact that the Soviet Union was nothing but a fat bloated cow, kept afloat by Western Financiers for all the decades of it’s existence, from the original financing of Lenin and Trotsky to the maintenance of their technology.
See: Antony Sutton’s Wall Street series.
The Cold War was a hoax contrived by High Finance.
McCarthy was a buffoon and a dupe that didn’t know the true architecture of modern political power. Like, I might add several commentators on this site.
\\][//
Considering this discussion began with a presentation of Nicholas B. Lemann’s January, 1992 Garrison “hit piece” accompanied by no disclaimer,
and that the unnamed lawyer decribed by Garrison to the FCC chief in 1967 is obviously Nicholas’s uncle, I cannot grasp what your criticism is founded on.
This is a locally elected Judge, of the criminal court, testifying to a grand jury about Sheridan. The description
of Sheridan bears no similarity to any major network, broadcast journalist I am familiar with, but it is in the record
of the grand jury testimony. A reasonable person, Dr. McAdams, what would the reaction of a reasonable person be to
Sheridan, and to Nicholas B. Lemann? Paulf’s reaction seems quite reasonable, it is yours that is troubling.
Obviously Tom S you have some doubts. I refer to your recent Deeppoliticforum Jim DiEugenio questions about the Martin memo. Despite the memo stating that Martin’s CIA source lived in N.O. his entire life and Baldwin had been in Chicago since 1955 Jim assumed the source was Baldwin. Despite no evidence whatsoever , Jim claimed that Baldwin was a very close friend of Clay Shaw. Despite Baldwin’s brother’s adversarial relationship with Garrison Jim thinks that he is a source for a memo supporting Garrison’s investigation.
Shouldn’t that tell you something about DiEugenio’s powers of deduction and his willingness to make unfounded claims?
How do you know that the “CIA source” for Martin’s claim wasn’t Martin himself? Obviously neither you nor DiEugenio have a clue after years of studying the issue who it was. Occam’s Razor.
John, I don’t pretend to be a JFK expert, but one thing you can never school me on is journalism. I was a journalist for 25 years, won several national awards (full disclosure: financial writing).
And you could not be wrong here. It doesn’t matter whether you think the relationship is significant, journalism 101 says you fully disclose relationships. The reader can decide whether they are significant.
Lemann was derelict here, it’s not even a close call.
It’s one thing to disclose a real connection to the case.
It’s another to disclose an “connection” in the mind of somebody like Garrison that Lemann may not have even known about.
Back with that, again? I eliminated that excuse weeks ago, and again less than four hours ago, here.:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-855703
Garrison “fingered” Nicholas Lemann’s uncle Stephen in the last page of a six page FCC complaint letter published in its entirety in the
Times-Picayune on June 18, 1967. I described how your excuse is empty, and here you are with it, again. If Nicholas Lemann was too clueless to
know of the accusations against his uncle by the age of 37 in 1991 (age stated in this 1999 wedding announcement.: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/07/style/judith-shulevitz-nicholas-lemann.html ), and he did give an answer in the 1991 Russo vs. Conde Nast – GQ, about the personal nature of his interest
in the controversy he was writing about.:
….it is reasonable to assume that Nicholas Lemann was also too clueless, ie, not intelligent enough to be selected and then serve ten years
as Dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.
How many times do I have to go over this with you?
I doubt if Murrow had any direct ties. However William Paley, head of CBS, was part of the cabal of Operation Mockingbird, a CIA run “anti-Communist” propaganda organization.
Of course in those days the term and definition of “Communist” & “Communism” was so vague as to include dissident views of just about any manner. Jut like the term “Terrorist” or “Anti-Terrorist” today is a euphemism, and a label for anyone the authorities want to defame.
In a sense “both sides” dealt in Theater, and burlesque theatrics for the “consumers” of propaganda: the “bewildered herd”, as Walter Lippmann had called the general population, or “unwashed masses” as many of the arrogant elite spin masters refer to ‘We the People”.
Again, a full understanding of Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann and their early part in designing the tools of ‘Social Engineering’, and ‘Manufacture of Consent’; is essential for an accurate analysis of the ‘Technocratic Society’. Where the term ‘culture’ is simply the scum grown in a Petri dish.
\\][//
Question here: Did Edward R. Murrow set out to discredit McCarthy?
And isn’t he a hero for doing that?
So why the double standard?
No he did not, he was defending himself and others.
Yes he is.
No double standard. He was defending intellectual freedom.
You try to suppress it with your ad hoc, ad homein, buff comments.
The point is that he set out to attack McCarthy, something you folks think is terrible when people like Sheridan decided Garrison was a fraud and set out to debunk his claims.
Sometimes journalists do an exposé.
Lemme get this straight…. “journalists do an exposé.” Have you been paying attention, at all? The hosts described below the
photo were not only David Baldwin’s kids grandparents, they happen to be Dean Emeritus Nicholas Lemann’s grandparents.
Your talking points are blowing out, at the seams!
“Where the tree tops glisten, and children listen…..”
Please consider that, nine years after the date of the memo at the following
link, the source in the image above, William Martin, (see https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40192&relPageId=5 ) was the director of International House:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=67724&relPageId=2
Edward M. Baldwin’s former law partner, Judge Malcolm V. O’Hara testified to Orlean’s Parish grand jury,
This document is quite the bombshell Tom!
If the Warrenista’s don’t get it after reading this… well huh, they won’t get it. They don’t seem to get it regardless of how obvious it is.
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1198&relPageId=7
I read the whole thing to the end, there is more, much more, and it is damning. The “get Garrison” meme was not mere fantasy. This proves it beyond a doubt.
\\][//
Yeah, Willy. On the surface, at least. I am not quite convinced……
In 1967, brother Edward was having a tough year, and do not forget to consider his law partner, Quaid’s letter to Helms that triggered
a response from CIA counsel, Lawrence Houston that was deceptive, and a memo representing that Angleton was inquiring about Quaid’s background.
…and why was “everyone” not playing nice, like they used to….nine years before?
http://phw02.newsbank.com/cache/arhb/fullsize/pl_002012016_2059_19281_865.pdf
Yes, and you have been accusing people of being spooks on the basis of nothing but your free association.
But deal with the issue: did Murrow set out to “get” McCarthy?
He certainly did.
Do you object to that?
The journalists who exposed Garrison’s antics viewed Garrison the way they viewed McCarthy. And they were right to do so.
Pure speculation. They were peforming, but not in the capacity as journalists. L-H-O
Are you now singing Photon’s, “you have no proof,” tune, too? Fake Ancestry.com city directory pages,
mole “bait” presented in FOIA and to NARA and ARRB as CIA documents describing “covert agent” David Baldwin,
young Nicholas Lemann penning a push back against “JFK, the movie,” as if he were an orphan instead of a grandson
of Monte and nephew of Stephen B. Lemann? The awful truth is that the fine details gum up the delivery of Max Holland’s
opus, “Bedeviled by Spooks,” because nothing is as it seems on the surface, as Photon insists, and I concur.
You think they were spooks, tasked by the CIA to discredit Garrison?
Yes or no.
My studies, so far, indicate everyone was on the same “side”. Everyone who was witting, Garrison, Sheridan, William Martin, Stephen Lemann,
and later, Nicholas Lemann…. and I don’t think this openminded and still developing appraisal is contrary to arguments Photon has raised,
but leaves Max Holland’s “Bedeviled by Spokes,” and a number of other interpretations looking flawed.
My other option is to ignore the implications of the details of my own research. I prefer not to do that.
” Pure speculation” – isn’t that all that your Baldwin-Lemann line is?
So a prestigious member of a prominent New Orleans family didn’t like the fact that a D.A.’s prosecutorial misconduct damaged the reputation of his home city and wrote an article to that effect. So what?
A member of another prominent New Orleans family marries a member of the same family-this doesn’t happen?
If you do genealogy searches enough you can find relationships of the most obscure kind-but they are totally meaningless. So a relative of mine was Abe Lincoln’s girlfriend . Does that somehow connect me to the assassination of Lincoln?
Even if David Baldwin worked for the Trade Mart as late as 1955, what could that possibly have to do with the events of 1963 or the activities of Clay Shaw in the same year? Baldwin lived a thousand miles away; you have proved no association between Baldwin and Shaw existed outside of employment, ie. you have the same level of proof for that relationship as Judith Baker has for her claims of being Oswald’s girlfriend.
I believe that the Post article demolishes any claims that internal undated CIA memos in regard to David Baldwin and other particulars in regards to the Garrison case must be considered accurate and correct.
The late Tom Purvis certainly was an assassination buff and posted up and down on the Internet about his conspiracy beliefs and perceptions. I have no idea why he claimed to have special knowledge about N.O. or the politics there; I believe that he lived in Mississippi.
Most of the Mainstream Media were against McCarthy. Does this mean they were spooks, tasked by come communist cabal to get him, or merely that he was a reckless demagogue and they understood that?
You are so under the spell of Garrison that you can’t conceive of anybody being critical of him unless they are a spook.
Wake up!
Okay, so how does McAdams do the quotes in big bold type?
Dr. McAdams, how do you do the quotes in big bold type?
https://www.w3.org/wiki/HTML/Elements/blockquote
Garrison, Bedeviled by a Family of Spooks and their Nephew Nicholas Lemann, Future Dean of Columbia Univ. Graduate School of Journalism!
http://jfk.education/node/18
I propose that the “Leon” that Perry Russo was introduced to at the David Ferrie “assassination planning party” was in fact the Oswald Doppelganger that Jim Douglas postulates in his book on JFK.
The one that was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater and spirited out the back of the theater after the real Oswald was brought out the front door.
\\][//
Now McAdams and the other mountebanks on this forum May continue to spew their scurrilous propaganda here, but as far as I’m concerned this thread, especially the last entry by Mr Sculley is a coup de grâce. No further argument is necessary. But I am just as sure that the spooks will never give up, howsoever futile their creaking round’a’bout grinds and squeals.
\\][//
Translation: I’ve been cornered on the evidence, and am now turning to abuse.
Our squamous coated adversaries may slither back onto the thread hissing, but they have no more venom in their bite.
\\][//
(This is an attempt to shift away from OT comments mistakenly submitted to the Tippit article.)
You need not advise me as to what to quit or what to learn…..
BTW, I located these in the same file, I hope the images are large enough for you to read.:
http://jfk.education/images/WilliamMartinMay24.jpg
and
http://jfk.education/images/DavidBaldwinIndia.jpg
I’ll concede I do not know the source of William Martin’s details he claimed he learned during a May 23 luncheon with an “associate,” but I had another way to make the pieces of the puzzle fit, and I can assure you that this does not rest on identifying the name of the “associate”. I’ll concede I lean towards Joan Mellen misunderstanding what the memo said, as far as William Martin’s source……
I’m afraid that’s just hearsay from an unknown source.
Are you aware of how many false leads and crackpot pieces of “information” came in to the Garrison investigation?
And why in the world would they need Lemann to “dispurse funds” when they had an office in New Orleans?
And why was Willy claiming that Lemann was “head” of the New Orleans CIA?
Sure it is….hearsay. Monte Lemann just happened to be David Baldwin’s father-in-law and grandfather of Dean Nicholas Lemann, sued by Perry Russo for
defamation….as I think I wrote here, Nicholas Lemann was either witting when he wrote the JFK movie “push back” in GQ magazine, or he is too stupid
to be Dean Emeritus at Columbia Univ. grad scool of Journalism!
Witting eh? If he was Dean Emeritus of Journalism at Columbia he was not that “stupid” when he wrote the article.
I think anyone of moderate intelligence can see that Photon and McAdams are unreasonable people. It is after all their appeal to the lowest common denominator that gives them any audience at all.
\\][//
“Nicholas Lemann was either witting when he wrote the JFK movie “push back” in GQ magazine, or he is too stupid to be Dean Emeritus at Columbia Univ. grad scool of Journalism!”
Lots of people have “pushed back” against Garrison and Oliver Stone’s “JFK” for the very good reason that the Garrison case involved an outrageous distortion of American history and an unjust prosecution of an innocent man.
What did Lemann write in GQ that is demonstrably untrue?
“What did Lemann write in GQ that is demonstrably untrue?”~Jean Davison
Like all good propagandists the dishonesty is in the spin, such as your very own generalization in the comment I am answering, when you say;
“Lots of people have “pushed back” against Garrison and Oliver Stone’s “JFK” for the very good reason that the Garrison case involved an outrageous distortion of American history and an unjust prosecution of an innocent man.”
Garrison’s case was crushed by the successful propaganda campaign that Lemann’s GQ article was part of. Oliver Stone’s “JFK” was in fact a correction of the distortion of American history created by the tome of lies and disinformation of the Warren Report.
We have all seen on this very thread, how you and McAdams spin the facts into a gruel of nonsense by using half truths and partial application of data. I invite anyone to read the entire debate here and come to their own conclusions as to who is being sincere and who is creating a fog of cognitive dissonance.
\\]][//
Quote anything I’ve said here that’s untrue, Willy. By “untrue” I mean demonstrably untrue, not just “something Willy disagrees with,” which appears to be your definition.
Jean,
I’ve repeated enough, I think, the two problems I see as most troublesome. Nicholas Lemann was able to convince the court that Perry Russo filed a defamation lawsuit
in that it was an undisputed fact that Lemann’s motivation for writing the article was his opinion that Garrison had embarrassed New Orleans. If Lemann had disclosed in
his answer to the lawsuit that his Uncle Stephen and his step-grandmother’s son-in-law David G. Baldwin were persons of interest in Garrison’s investigation, and Lemann
had not later advanced to Dean of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, I would not be troubled with his lack of disclosure. I am also giving Nicholas the
benefit of the doubt as to whether or not he knew when he answered the lawsuit summons that his grandfather Monte Lemann was not also mentioned as CIA connected or
that David G Baldwin had been a covert CIA agent. I have not even brought up David’s brother Edward’s working as co-counsel representing at the least, Townley and Sheridan,
with Edward Baldwin representing Gurvich.
All of that lack of disclosure leads me to ask a question of the well informed readers of this thread. If Garrison’s investigation had led him to a point at which
he recognized that he had a major conflict of interest in his role as chief of the investigation and prosecution vs. his personal association with key targets of his
investigation, and recused himself from further participation or oversight, who might he have transferred his responsibilities to? In a courtroom, if the presiding judge
is a friend of one of the parties he is presiding over, he can simply disclose that he believes he has a conflict and the case is reassigned to another judge.
Who, realistically, would have been an alternate for Garrison from the time Sheridan’s prime time “white paper” program was scheduled for airing on NBC?
The Commanding Officer of Oliver Stone while in Vietnam said Oliver was a good soldier in Vietnam so it must have been the drugs he took after coming home that confused him.
So we have a pill head in Stone and a nut in Garrison. Not high on my list. Stone’s “Platoon” is about as bad.
You have misrepresented the timing of the Sciambra memos. If you would actually read this link from Tom you would understand this:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4268#relPageId=29&tab=page
One misinterpretation by Sciambra’s secretary; using the simple word, “twice” when Sciambra used the term “two other times” is what gives you the priggish juice to make a mountain out of a molehill.
You also hand-wave the conflict of interest that Judge Christenberry had, and why he should have recused himself from the Perjury Trial of Clay Shaw.
As pointed out earlier you misframed the timing of Perry Russo’s knowledge of who Oswald and Shaw really were in his interviews we discussed. Both you and your comrade in distraction, “professor” McAdams took part in this charade of nonsense.
How’s that as a start of particulars Jean?
\\][//
My comment above is aimed at Jean Davison’s remarks of January 27, 2016 at 11:20 am.
I have nothing whatsoever to discuss with Mr Clarke here.
\\][//
You’re mistaking your opinion for fact, Willy. Even Sciambra didn’t blame a “secretary” for his “typo.”
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4268#relPageId=30&tab=page
Jean, Sciambra clearly states that he doesn’t write anything, he dictates to his secretary either in person or by tapes, and she types up everything. If it is a “typo” it is hers.
\\][//
Tom S, I will accept that Baldwin was in India in the summer of 1952, but I would like to see a second source to confirm the covert agent allegation . Mellen claimed that Baldwin acknowledged that he was a covert agent, but there is nothing to confirm that. How do you know that the “secret” source you quote is nothing but a rehash of claims made by Martin 31 years previously and simply part of the Agency’s attempt to record all of the claims that came out of the Garrison investigation? If Baldwin had been drummed out of the agency for having loose lips where is the record of the investigation that should have ensued? What do you think happens when there is a security breach involving the CIA or FBI? They just don’t fire somebody; the breach has to be evaluated for what was lost, who got the information, what policies or codes need to be changed, etc. You certainly wouldn’t see a one paragraph claim dangling out in a report with no further verification. And Baldwin would never have gotten the AMA job if there was any hint of intelligence compromise. Remember, this was during the Korean War when thousands of Americans were actively engaged in combat and Asian security breaches would never have been swept under the rug like you claim happened with Baldwin.
Photon,
I did not claim that, I questioned it. As recently as in 1993, Baldwin’s name was redacted in this release, but it is obvious it is his name.:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54212&search=calcutta_and+covert#relPageId=2&tab=page
Vs. in 1998, no redactions apparent.:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54933&relPageId=2&search=calcutta_and%20covert
The “paragraphs” are represented as contents of index cards in CIA files. I’ve presented details on Baldwin that are CIA related background,
from sources represented by CIA to be affiliated with the Agency, but they seem sourced from two CIA affiliates in New Orleans, Dorothy Brandao –
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6793&relPageId=2&search=brandao
M.D. Stevens – http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=30153&search=calcutta_and+covert#relPageId=2&tab=page (handwritten on this 1998 version
of same, is the comment, “not traced, all too peripheral,” but Baldwin’s name is represented as “03” – http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16716&search=calcutta_and+covert#relPageId=2&tab=page ) (This 1998 release of same is still heavily redacted- http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=8178&search=calcutta#relPageId=4&tab=page )
and NOLA ADA William Richard Martin in his memo to Garrison dated May 24, 1967, information sourced from an unnamed associate, former CIA and
lifelong NOLA resident. CIA descriptions of Martin – http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=30154&relPageId=5 and later in Garrison’s investigation,
(dated Feb. 1, 1968) this document describes a later clearance date for Martin and appears to be drafted to distance the Agency from linkage
to Martin while he was actually working as an ADA in Garrison’s office – http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=103862&relPageId=131 and
yet another description of Martin associated with an RID/index D.O.B. and Dominican Republic : http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=103862&relPageId=131
Continued…..
Continued from my previous reply to Photon, re: provenance of documents related to David G. Baldwin ….
Early in 1961, http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81057&search=martin_and+tulane+and+banister#relPageId=2
Banister advises FBI his part-time hire of Tulane student William R. Martin http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81057&relPageId=20
and on the next page, http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81057#relPageId=21
Just a run of the mill, 30 year old Tulane law student….. nothing to see here. I do not understand why you do not accept Martin’s
declaration in that May 24, 1967 memo to Garrison, or why you do not accept that Oswald acted and smelled like an intel asset of
ONI, DIA, FBI, CIA…. take your pick. Ferreting out Cubans of one stripe or another was in fashion, and Oswald was not keeping his
dabbling in it, all to himself.
If you are advising me to take all that I read with a grain of salt, I already do. I don’t then turn around and embrace the WCR, HSCA,
or Max Holland.
Note: Dean Andrews was indicted for perjury when he denied that Clay Shaw was “Clay Bertrand”.
This case did go to trial and resulted in the conviction of Dean Andrews.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4268#relPageId=32&tab=page
\\][//
Anyone who argues that Walter Sheridan or Richard Townley were off on their own journalistic quixotic initiative as they spent days pursuing the Garrison story is either naive, or has never functioned professionally, meaning on the payroll of a US corporation. Sheridan and Townley were respectively on the payroll of NBC Corporate and an NBC affiliate in New Orleans. Boards RULE, full stop. Boards of corporations, even the most honourable and ethical corporations, are responsible to either family or public and/or private investors, and oftentimes all of the above. Under almost all circumstances, Boards still Rule under by-laws (Adolf Berle wrote on this topic)
NBC, a division of RCA with headquarters at 30 Rockefeller, NYC, boasted a board of corporate / political US establishment luminaries when Sheridan traveled to New Orleans in pursuit of a “White Paper” on Garrison. In a perfect world, one where the Fourth Estate of a democracy takes its role seriously, Sheridan would have approached his assignment in New Orleans objectively. Sadly, we have the words of his minion Richard Townley of NBC New Orleans affiliate to tell us that ‘we’re gonna take Garrison down.’ Judge Mac O’Hara indicates in his testimony that Sheridan himself used similar phrases.
So who was on the board of NBC, whose affiliate in New Orleans was owned by Times-Picayune newspaper/station WDSU Edgar Stern with his wife, Sears (& Roebuck) heir Edith Rosenwald? Stern, by his own words was a lifelong friend of Monte Lemann, a figure who TomS has introduced in the last two weeks as significant to the interfamilial relationships that wedged their politics and interests into the International Trade Mart/Clay Shaw/Jim Garrison saga.
Among the NBC board when Sheridan was charged with the responsibility of developing that White Paper:
NBC board, 1963 … Owned by RCA, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, NYC
David Sarnoff. Born outside Minsk, Russia. Radio specialist. Formed RKO.
R.W. Sarnoff. One of his sons
Andre Meyer. Lazard Freres investment house with original roots in New Orleans. Board of Rockefeller’s Chase International Investment (also financial advisor to the Kennedys, and by all appearances a personal friend of Jackie’s) Newmont Mining with LW Douglas of Empire Trust and brother in law of McCloy; board of Allied Chemical with John Jay McCloy. Fiat Co., Italy and Sloan Kettering Cancer Research, 630 Fifth Ave. (Dulles’ NYC office address post CIA)
LL Strauss. Special advisor to President Eisenhower on atomic energy affairs 1950’s. Chairman of the AEC, 1953-58, replaced by John A. McCone who later became Director of the CIA and whose business ties link to Maxwell Taylor of Dulles’ Nation-Wide Securities. Strauss was advisor to Mssrs. Rockefeller in the early ’50’s and a former Rear Admiral of the USNR.
F.M. Folsom. former special asst. to under secretary of Navy, WWII; Knight of Malta. Kuhn & Loeb Investment House, leading investment house of the Rockefellers and the Harriman railroad acquisitions and expansion. (bd of governors NY Foundling Hospital – note to self, not related to Kennedy). Permanent representative Holy See International Atomic Energy Agency
Bennet Cerf. Random House. Colleague of Dorothy Kilgallen on “What’s My Line”; with GC Textor at Random House, Rockefeller related career board member of dozens of military contractors.
Tom,
If Lemann said nothing untrue in his GQ article, which I assume you’re conceding since you didn’t give an example, what difference does it make who he is related to?
I maintain that it is obvious he misrepresented to readers of his GQ magazine article and to the court in his answer to Russo’s defamation lawsuit, his actual motivation for
writing the article and slanting it in the way that he did. Contrary to adding an accompanying note of disclosure of possible conflicts of interests, Nicholas hid behind, “I wrote it because I grew up here and those times made a deep impression on me during my
formative years when Garrison was embarrassing our city,” or words to that effect. I made this quite plain already, Jean. The way he conducted himself, down to the exquisite
timing of the release of the article, considering that several members of his family were persons of interest of the investigation and his uncle Stephen was actively
interfering with and affording protection to prosecution witnesses, acting in concert with more distant relative Edward Baldwin, Nicholas Lemann made quite a role model
for graduate school of journalism students at Columnbia University. If this is not obvious to you by now, Jean, nothing I could say could affect your view of Nicholas’s role,
conduct, duplicity, hypocrisy. What is obvious to me, escapes you, I get that.
“You have misrepresented the timing of the Sciambra memos. If you would actually read this link from Tom you would understand this…”
Easily disproved, since the Sciambra memos have dates on them put there by Sciambra. It’s Tom’s source who claims the memo that Sciambra dated Feb. 27 came before the memo he dated Feb. 28:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4268#relPageId=30&tab=page
Garrison and his supporters have misrepresented the timing, not me.
Sorry, I should’ve said:
“It’s Tom’s source who claims the memo that Sciambra dated Feb. 28 came before the memo he dated Feb. 27:”
You’re absolutely right, Tom. The evidence demonstrates an intense interest by the CIA to undermine the validity of Garrison “crazy” investigation.
If it was so crazy, they wouldn’t have given it a second thought.
Bogman,
Thank you. The memo at this link was written under CIA letterhead when David Ferrie was within a few days of death. In the first paragraph the CIA’s interest due to
Garrison’s offense is described. Garrison revealed that he did not believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Garrison touched the third rail of establishment orthodoxy
and the persecution of the prosecution commenced in earnest.:
Tom,
I don’t know what Lemann’s motivation was but even assuming that he was the devil incarnate, if he said nothing untrue how did anything he wrote damage Garrison’s case?
Are you overlooking the possibility that the people you mention really honestly thought Garrison was prosecuting an innocent man and abusing his power as a D.A.? Many people did and do honestly believe that, you know.
Jean,
Or… in late 1991, Nicholas Lemann was carrying on a then 24 years long campaign by members of his family using overt and covert means to discredit Garrison and anything
associated with him, and by 1991, that included Stone’s new movie. But Nicholas Lemann did not reveal the extent of this campaign against Garrison by members of his family,
either in the GQ article or in his answer to Russo’s defamation lawsuit, or that his late grandfather’s son-in-law, David Baldwin had been a covert CIA agent on foreign
assignment who was soon hired by Shaw at the ITM, after Baldwin’s return to the U.S. from India in 1952, or that Baldwin’s attorney brother, Edward, and Lemann’s uncle
Stephen were two of the most prominent attorneys representing NBC’s Sheridan in 1967.
You can continue to submit minimization comments in reaction to these facts, Jean. I’ll probably reduce my replies to a link to this comment.
If the card on Baldwin is genuine, why does a quoted memo dated 17 Oct 1952 carry a notation 11/17/52?
Why is a hand written addition placed on what is supposed to be an official document?
Why does the card for Baldwin’s so-called paramour claim that she might have worked for the security services of England or Russia-when neither of these entities had security services? Every official confidential communication that I have seen referencing Britain uses the term UK principally in ” NOFORN except UK”. Why would an official CIA communication refer to the Soviet Union as “Russia” when at the time it was composed the chief of Soviet Security was a Georgian?
Who composed these cards and why would they use terms used by the general population but not agencies of the U.S. Federal government? And why the hand-written alterations-none of which have an identifying set of initials.
Do you have any other source for these notes beside the Ferrell collection?
Yup….click on the first link I posted, in my comment at this link: https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-854028
Then tell me that the name is redacted….blacked out, and although the unredacted details on the entire page match exactly details of a page or pages linked from MFF.org,
this is not confirmation that the name is David Gilmore Baldwin, because the text in that spot is redacted.
Photon, I approach “this business” intending to feed the documents and claims linked to official government sources and, for example, Bush’s eulogy of Jerry Ford, invite
them to chew on and swallow their own output, so to speak. They’ve honed in on Oswald, and DeMohrenschildt and Oswald were inseparable until almost immediately after Gen. Walker claimed
to have been shot at. I do not begrudge them their Oswald, but they must take their own involvement with DeMohrenschildt with them, likely as a component of their epitaphs….see Bush,
Devine, Dryer, Macomber, Hooker, et al, three out of five who happened to members of A.U.V. Mr. Darling was their instructor. Devine is documented by CIA meeting with DeMohrenschildt
less than two weeks after the Walker shooting, at the behest of CIA and feigning no prior knowledge of DeMohrenschildt. Dryer, brother of Peter, a longtime classmate of Devine in
a class of 20 boys, informed Joan Mellen in a recent interview that he was Devine’s best friend in Rocehster and that he met independtly with DeMohrenschildt on that same April day in NYC in 1963, and was tipped via a CIA contact that Haitian banker Charles, accompanying DeMohrenschildt, was travelling with a secretary who was reporting to CIA. I believe Dryer
described the secretary arrangement to the HSCA. Hooker was DeMohrenschildt’s step-nephew. Mary Surratt was executed, but her son John was not. Hypocrisy, deception, and assurances that nothing about this or that is sinister do not sit well with me, all things considered.
“Lots of people have “pushed back” against Garrison and Oliver Stone’s “JFK” for the very good reason that the Garrison case involved an outrageous distortion of American history and an unjust prosecution of an innocent man.” — Jean Davison
Lot’s of people have “pushed back” against the Warren Commission Report for the very good reason that the Commission conclusion involved an outrageous distortion of American history and an unjust prosecution of an innocent man.
Tom S, all of your Baldwin CIA info seems to come from the Ferrell foundation. Redacted or not, both cards that you have posted come with a Ferrell heading.
Why would an official CIA communication refer to intelligence sources of England and Russia? Why would it have a hand written note with the wrong date for the memo? Why is there no mention of an investigation that a breach of security would have generated? Burgess and MacLean had defected to the Soviet Union the PREVIOUS YEAR and yet a covert agent supposedly was just ” let go” with no other action recorded?
It doesn’t make sense.
Photon, good morning! I cannot disagree with your observations because your criticism of the content is reasonable, but I disagree with you about taking issue with the source.
The link I suggested to you is to a page (no. 2) under AARC letterhead (no. 1), one large file of 408 of pages, and yes, the file is hosted on the Maryferrell site.:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54212&search=calcutta_and+covert#relPageId=2&tab=page The point is that the identical documents can be found in the CIA
Garrison investigation file, the CIA Oswald file, the CIA Russ Holmes work file, and in at least two HSCA files; maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=42909&relPageId=2
and http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55325&relPageId=203 …both are supporting, but without the page with the purported three index card photo copies,
Core 3d, Baldwin, and Baxter. You could become a member of AARC library and access the identical documents there, or perhaps look for them in the John Armstrong
collection at the Baylor library site. Sometimes Weisberg collected copies that could be found at jfk.hood.edu , but he made the error of becoming close enough to
Jesse Core to consider him a friend, so there are no Baldwin documents and only FBI sourced Jesse Core documents. The unsourced William R Martin memo of May 24, 1967
to Garrison describing David Baldwin in India does not include Baldwin’s alleged difficulties, but it is from an alternate internet source. I doubt you could
propose an explanation for how these suspicious variety of documents with the same details came to be in so many files. Maryferrell content is fed by AARC.
If you persuasively stand the reliability of that arrangement on its ear, you dramatically weaken the foundation of a whole lot of research and scores of
books.
In his time, Garrison had the most background on David Baldwin, but did not use it, from what we can observe so far, and the CIA looked into his brother Edward
and claimed to not have associated him with David. For now, all David’s background does is cast CIA flavored interest on his brother Edward, on his wife’s step-brother,
Stephen B Lemann, and on Clay Shaw and Jesse Core. No Garrison ADA talked about the details in Martin’s May 24 memo, not even Gurvich, testifying in June,
despite raising the question of why Shaw hired first Baldwin and then Baldwin’s friend Jesse Core. Shaw is accused of CIA connections and maybe Garrison was
saving the Martin CIA memo for Shaw’s perjury trial.
And how does the “protecting methods and sources” fall in line with CIA’s intense concern over the Garrrison investigation?
Seems to me they were afraid of this particular can of worms from being opened.
And what makes the Joannides/DRE deception all the more chilling is that it essentially proved Garrison right – there was absolutely a CIA connection to Oswald in NO in the weeks leading up to the assassination.
Tom S., concerning your post of 12:49 and the FBI note referenced:
Why would the CIA stamp this note with a ” no objection to release” authorization when it had no authority to release FBI information? Indeed, by law at the time there wasn’t supposed to be communication between the two agencies and unless the note had already been declassified the CIA should not have even been aware of it.
Which brings me to the supposed ” FBI/ JFK Task Force” stamp: #1 Release in Full #2 Release in Part # 3 Total Denial. Tom S., do you honestly think that there was an FBI/ JFK task force in 1994? Do you honestly think that any intelligence service would ever create a stamp with the term ” total denial” when anybody initialing such a term would be open to perjury charges and prosecution for violation of Federal statutes?
The next question is one that you should consider in relationship to the other Ferrell sourced information you have posted in regard to the Garrison case: Why is this bogus FBI stamp authorizing release initialed by J M ?
FBI – JFK task force commenced in 1992, according to page no. 148 of this 24 page, .pdf file: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/report/pdf/ARRB_Rpt_8_Compliance.pdf
It describes five reviewers assigned and an FBI eager to do the review before the ARRB legislation passed and was signed into law. A little blurb on the page presents
enthusiastic Director, Louis J Freeh…..
Photon, it matters not, what I think, nor what I present at your prompting/demanding, etc. Nothing I could say
or present will result in anything from you, aside from additional challenges. I’m setting an example for other
readers who might have otherwise considered engaging with you. How frequently, just in the last two weeks, have
you unequivocally asserted that this or that does not exist, only to be shown otherwise? Is everything fake?
Do you enjoy being asked that question?
CIA has No Objection, document links:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61265&search=objection_and+release#relPageId=2
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61363&relPageId=2
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61483&relPageId=6
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61329&relPageId=5
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61447&relPageId=2 (DOJ/JFK Task Force)
And- http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61468&relPageId=3 (INS/JFK Task Force)
“The Board anticipates that these statements, under oath, will enhance the public’s confidence that the United States government, in good faith, attempted to release all records on the Kennedy assassination.”`ARRB
Pardon my skepticism.
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/report/pdf/ARRB_Rpt_8_Compliance.pdf
\\][//
Tom S., do you have any evidence that the FBI/JFK Task Force stamp with the three categories mention was used on any other FBI document released?
Do you have any other documents that specifically state that they were reviewed or released by the Task Force?
Who was J M?
“Easily disproved, since the Sciambra memos have dates on them put there by Sciambra. It’s Tom’s source who claims the memo that Sciambra dated Feb. 27 came before the memo he dated Feb. 28″~Jean Davison
Quoting from that page you just posted:
“The assassination Party Memo was actually the first Sciambra memo, which the reader can clearly see by merely looking at the date in the signature block of the memo–February 28, 1967. The other memo was turned in sometime before March 6, about a week after Shaw’s arrest.”
We have already gone over the “typo” of the first February 27 memo – which was corrected by personal report to Garrison that very day upon his return.
Yes Jean, you want to turn this into another of your disingenuous round’abouts. But I will merely save the date-time stamp of this very comment and play it back to you the next time you push this nonsense here.
\\][//
Willy,
I ceased participation because this is all about supporting Patsy Billings Lambert, aka Pat Lambert, and the
legacy of James Phelan, a journalist employed for nearly ten years at the Alton Telegraph in Illinois by
Clark M. Clifford’s family members, the same Clark M. Clifford whose aunt Marguerite’s spouse at the time,
Jerre Hastings, appeared in this photo.:
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1525290.1385076841!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/president-assassin.jpg Link to entire article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/author-85-knew-jfk-killer-oswald-article-1.1525293
(I know, I know…what has any of this got to do with who assassinated JFK?)
Bottomline, Willy, there is nothing sinister, nothing curious, (In Dallas, DC, Mexico City, Sept. – Dec., 1963) everything is as the government has explained it is, and the only lying and criminal officials were NODA Jim Garrison and several of his ADAs, especially Sciambra. Oh, the poor man, that Clay Shaw, look what they’ve done to him! Here, Mr. Oswald, put on this sweater and walk over to the elevator, we’ll get you over to County in time for Sunday lunch!
Tom S, thanks for clearing up my questions and concerns about the records released. You are extremely thorough and have obviously spent a great deal of time researching these records.
But here is the ultimate question I have: After spending an enormous amount of time on theses records, why have neither you nor anybody else found any physical evidence linking any of the individuals that you have extensively researched with the assassination of JFK? Even if you can prove every allegation that you have made about Baldwin is true, so what? How could someone kicked out of what is assumed to be the CIA in 1952 possibly have any connection with a grand CIA plot in 1963? Particularly an individual who was let go because he was loose with information! In addition, even if Baldwin was a covert agent, the fact that he was let go with no evidence of an investigation or disciplinary action at a time when the UK -USA security services were in turmoil after the Maclean-Burgess incident suggests that his status with what ever agency he might have worked for was totally inconsequential .
Clay Shaw was never proved to have anything to do with Oswald, Ruby, the Rifle, the shooting of Tippit, or any other physical aspect of the case in a court of law-even a kangaroo court organized by Garrison.
So what is the point of this obsession with trying to connect everybody and his brother to Shaw if there is no evidence linking Shaw to the assassination?
Photon now, all things considered, you seem to have
acknowledged you have no reason to challenge the provenance of the pieces
of paper in CIA files describing David Baldwin and linked from mff.org documents,
how do the details in those Baldwin documents and the Baldwin details included in the May 24, 1967 memo from William Martin to Garrison, especially considering that Martin continued to work
seven more months for Garrison and had formerly been employed by Banister,
support or erode the reliability of this analysis, (considering also the May, 1967 letter from Atty Quaid, Baldwin’s brother Edward’s law partner to Helms, Lawrence Houston’s reply to it, contradicting the clearance memo regarding Lloyd Cobb, and Quaid’s name ending up in an Angleton memo (see http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=101352&search=quaid_and+angleton#relPageId=3 ). Is it not Angleton’s responsibility to connect a “drummed out” covert agent’s name with the name of his brother, Edward, and Edward’s partner, Quaid?):
Would you agree that the picture painted from CIA files, considering the Baldwin brothers and Quaid,
do not provide the continuity or comprehensiveness to support Max Holland’s analysis in his “Bedeviled by Spooks” presentation?
BTW, the CIA and FBI had access to the Martindale Attorney directory, and not only to its then
current edition, yet we are presented with this rather spare (weasel) wording over Angleton’s name.:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=101352&search=quaid_and+angleton#relPageId=2
It was only a few years before the Warren Commission appointment of this
assistant counsel, that he was a law partner of Edward Baldwin.:
(No matter the skills of sausage maker Max Holland, manure has never successfully translated
into the main ingredient of a quality sausage.)
“So what is the point of this obsession with trying to connect everybody and his brother to Shaw if there is no evidence linking Shaw to the assassination?”~Photon
I refuse to relitigate what has already been put to this thread, but there is in fact overwhelming evidence of Shaw actually being Clay Bertrand; and that he was in on planning the assassination at David Ferrie’s party; and that Perry Russo was there, and made truthful testimony to that matter.
Do NOT ask me what this evidence was one more time. Your tired carousels of rhetorical nonsense are dismissed.
\\][//
Willy,
“Quoting from that page you just posted:
“The assassination Party Memo was actually the first Sciambra memo, which the reader can clearly see by merely looking at the date in the signature block of the memo–February 28, 1967. The other memo was turned in sometime before March 6, about a week after Shaw’s arrest.”
And my point, which has yet to be answered, is that it’s misleading to argue that the “sodium pentathol” memo obviously came “first” because it was dated “February 28” while failing to mention that the memo of Russo’s first interview in Baton Rouge was dated February 27.
The Baton Rouge memo was read into the record by prosecutor Alcock, including the date at the top:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1275&search=%22311_state+street%22#relPageId=88&tab=page
“We have already gone over the “typo” of the first February 27 memo – which was corrected by personal report to Garrison that very day upon his return.”
Typos are caused by hitting the wrong key, not by typing the word “twice” instead of “two other times.”
And Willy, if you’re going to quote me on the dates, please quote the correction I made 3 minutes later (at 12:09).
Jean Davison,
I refer you to my comment on this date:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-854315
This is so convoluted that I really can’t figure out what you mean.
I suspect that’s because if you wrote clear prose, it would be obvious that you have nothing.
“This is so convoluted that I really can’t figure out what you mean.
I suspect that’s because if you wrote clear prose, it would be obvious that you have nothing.”~McAdams
You mean you can’t easily “translate” into doublethink. It is not convoluted at all “professor”, it needs no translation.
Are you no longer proficient in English now that you have been using Newspeak so long?
\\][//
Actually I do challenge the conclusions that you make from these sources. Unfortunately several of the quotes that you post are isolated, stand alone and with no context evident. One of the principals of cryptology is that messages that “stand alone” are difficult to interpret -often ” the company they keep” may be more important than the message itself. Unfortunately these memos based apparently on index cards have no company at all.
In addition, several of these memos refer to Garrison sources and may simply be regurgitation of those claims- several are obviously from the same source. As I previously stated, if Baldwin was dismissed for inappropriate contact with a suspected agent of “England” or “Russia” the story is missing something- the dog that did not bark. Nothing happened-not logical in the climate of Burgess-Maclean unless Baldwin was a ” covert agent” of no consequence.
Are you stating that the New Orleans city directory that you posted to support Baldwin’s employment history is not from Ancestry.com?
If so, how reliable is that?
Sigh…. I am patient enough to function as comments editor, and as Oliver Stone said, it is only a movie.
The Ancestry city directory page crop is legitimate, reliable to my knowledge.
Consider this, dated in 1953, and advise me if you cannot resolve it on your screen.:
http://phw02.newsbank.com/cache/arhb/fullsize/pl_001312016_1724_51559_347.pdf
August 5, 1953 :
….and ask yourself, if everything from different sources, and classified, to boot, adds up, what can (should) one conclude?
OK, can we take this piece at a time, so I can try to figure out what you are saying?
David Baldwin was the fellow who was kicked out of the CIA in 1952 for a serious security breach? Right?
And he went to work for the Trade Mart.
And Core is important how?
Do you think he worked for the CIA, and if so why?
Please just answer these questions, and then we can move on to how you think it matters in 1963.
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-849774 :
and…. (all detaila in one comment, link displayed above)
Stephen Tyler presented an interview with Jesse Core in hos 1992 Louisiana PTV documentary, however
author Mellen did not cite video as the medium, only Tyler’s interview of Core.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index27.htm
ARRB testimony of Stephen Tyler – 1995
So Baldwin’s wife modeled a sari.So what? How does that prove that Baldwin was in the CIA, or that he worked at the Trade Mart?
So Core worked at the Trade Mart? You have produced nothing to confirm that he was in the CIA.
Photon, you got me nailed. Your rules: CIA documents do not constitute proof Baldwin was in the CIA…check, got it! It follows, then, that no proof is of a quality that would connect Core with the CIA, let alone, in it.
Pearson’s obituary could be presenting a lie describing his CIA service, either by the author of his obit, one of his family members, or even the closely connected to intelligence agency “stuff,” the WaPo’s venerable old “reporter,” Walter Pincus may have slipped that CIA reference into Pearson’s obit. In fact though, so far, nothing has been actually refuted, of the details of both sources, CIA declassified documents describing Baldwin sourced from AARC library and from maryferrell.org,
the memo of May 24, 1967, William Mitchell to Jim Garrison, and in fact, everything that can be checked out, checks out, right down to the two men associated with Jesse Core’s wife perfectly matching what was reported about them in a CIA declassified
document (see – http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=30248&relPageId=3 ) that also describes David Baldwin’s CIA “service.” (see – http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=30248&relPageId=2 )
The way you’re carrying on, the sheer unreasonableness of your reaction/objections, I almost think you know where I’m going with this
and you’re mounting the only argument your handlers can equip you with, as inadequate as it is, I do not see an alternative they could
give you to present here. So, you attempt to make it convincing, and we’ll watch and grade your effort.
One long thread without interruption, though not without disruption and distraction.
I’ve not read it all. But I have learned of Baldwin and Core of the CIA running the New Orleans Trade Mart. Shaw/Bertrand not withstanding there, who ran the Dallas Trade Mart where JFK was to speak 11/22/63?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-trademart/
Bogman nails it above on 1/28 at 6:29.
what makes the Joannadies/DRE deception all the more chilling is it essentially proved Garrison right…there was absolutely a CIA connection in new Orleans weeks before the assassination.”
What’s not being said here is Oswald was being “run” by an intelligence service in New Orleans the summer of 63 before he was accused of killing JFK in the fall of 63. His actions support this. Whether he was run by Joannidies or subordinates, Morales, Phillips, Banister, Butler or all.
Tom S, please refer to the Washington Post article of Jan 31, 2016: “‘Eyewash’: How the CIA deceives its own workforce about operations”
Please note the following statements from the article: ” …eyewashing was a standard practice that had been in existence for decades.”
” The practice of sending false internal memos originated in a Cold War era marked by frequent ” mole hunts” for Soviet spies in the CIA workforce.”
If you accept the Washington Post as a credible source( and you already accept Ancestry.com as a reliable source for information not concerning birth certificates, death certificates or census records) it becomes apparent that your blind acceptance of CIA memos without any written association with other CIA records may not be justified.
As such, any claim that you make that the CIA records support your interpretations (such as the claim that Baldwin was a covert agent) must be taken with a large dose of skepticism.
Photon, you are unaccepting of the validity of a page from a 1954 NOLA city directory found in a search at Ancestry.com.
and about descriptions of David Baldwin in 1952, sourced from CIA files.
Are you accepting of the authenticity of Garrison and his investigation? If you think, and you seem to, that both the descriptions of David Baldwin sourced from CIA documents and the city directory page are contrivances, why stop there?
I see nothing in the Shaw trial transcripts along the lines of, “Mr. Shaw, did you hire David G. Baldwin at the trade mart in 1952, or
at any other time? Why?”
Do you accept the veracity of the Washington Post story or not?
And what does posting a picture of Mrs. Baldwin and her kids have to do with Clay Shaw, the assassination of JFK or even the employment history of Baldwin himself?
…Sure, it makes sense, but how does it speak to CIA claims of no Agency association with Oswald?
I find Oswald’s initials intriguing, don’t you?; “Limited Hang Out”
Really? You have to ask that? Mrs. Mildred Lyons Baldwin: (stay tuned, Photon!)
I already commented that her kids had the same grandparents as Nicholas Lemann. Something smells about his answer in
1991 Perry Russo lawsuit against Conde Nast – GQ Magazine.
It is related to the cover up presented as a reasonable assassination investigation, rinse, repeat: 1963-64, 1966-69, 1975-80, 1992-96
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-855510
….and in the same “CIA document” describing the disconnecting of David Baldwin, two friends of Jesse Core’s wife are named.
One, Pearson, is described as a CIA agent, both with obits describing their interests in India. You’re quite a speculator, you over-present an
opinion of fakery of a 1954 NOLA city directory page available at ancestry.com, for example.
Obits of the others named in one of two David Baldwin, CIA documents.: https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-855254
The only thing I am convinced of is that you really, really don’t want David Baldwin to be a covert CIA agent, in India, deceived by “Mrs. Lillian Butler, who was also known to Jesse Core,” debriefed in disgrace, stripped of clearances, and returned to the U.S. to work from late 1952 until spring, 1955, for Clay Shaw at ITM.
“And why was Willy claiming that Lemann was “head” of the New Orleans CIA?”~McAdams
Because Stephan Lemann WAS the head of the New Orleans CIA office. Whether you will admit the Mary Ferrell citation or not, I do, and I do so in light of all of the other connections that Lemann has with CIA and the milieu enumerated by both Tom Sculley and Lesley Sharp on these pages.
\\][//
“I’ve been cornered on the evidence, and am now turning to abuse.”~John McAdams @ January 25, 2016 at 9:36 pm
Well, at last the “professor” admits his role here!
\\][//
(This is an attempt to shift away from OT comments mistakenly submitted to the Tippit article.)
And what is this? :
Two questions, three months earlier, in his six page letter to the FCC, Garrison honed in one lawyer, prominent and representing “the station”
aka WDSU, known in the past to have distributed CIA funds in New Orleans. As I’ve already presented, the name of the lawyer described in that
letter was Stephen B. Lemann, and newspaper and FBI reports indicated both Lemann and Edward Baldwin, partner of James F. Quaid, were representing WDSU employee Townley, yet Lemann’s name is nowhere to be seen in the report the Mcadams site page linked above, is describing. Link (near bottom of comment):
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-851213
Why the absence of Lemann’s name, the only specific link to the CIA described in Garrison’s letter to FCC written before Times-Picayune publication of its entire text on June 18, 1967?
If you click this link, you will see a CIA memo written under the name of James Angleton, :
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=101352&search=quaid_and+angleton#relPageId=3&tab=page
,,,and after you’ve loaded the page at the link above in your browser and view Angleton’s name,
click back one page and ask yourself why James Angleton would be devoting a memo to discussing one of
those lawyers, Edward Baldwin’s law partner, James F. Quaid?
On the Tippit thread, at this link,
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/tell-me-about-the-shooting-of-office-j-d-tippit/#comment-853069
John McAdams replied to comment above, “….Edward Baldwin’s law partner, James F. Quaid?” :
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=101521&relPageId=2&search=baldwin_and%20helms
May 15, 1967 James F. Quaid of Baldwin and Quaid writes to Helms asking to be placed on list of approved attorneys
Edward M. Baldwin was receiving some action from Garrison’s pushback against WDSU’s Townley and NBC’s Sheridan. Both Baldwin and Stephen B. Lemann were reported to be representing Townley and Lemann was representing Sheridan and WDSU.:
Dr. McAdams, the response to the letter to the DCI from Atty. Quaid is routine, it says “we have not acknowledged this letter,” and “Ask DCS to check with New Orleans rep about Quaid”.: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=101360&search=baldwin_and+helms#relPageId=3&tab=page
Again, predictable, routine, so why, as I provided a link to earlier, is Quaid later the sole subject of an inquiry under Angleton’s name? How does a guy who writes to Helms asking to be put on an approved NOLA Attorney list rise to a level of inquiry higher than DCS? My informed speculation is, and authors of books have addressed this, is that one lawyer sees his partner bringing income in from defending Garrison witnesses or those running up legal fees as a consequence of interfering with Garrison’s office.
On paper, the CIA describes lawyer Quaid’s letter as a suspected “provocation”. His partner, Edward Baldwin is representing client rumored to be supported by a CIA “paymaster,” a local attorney paying other attorneys to provide legal representation for those in Garrison’s cross hairs. It this was what was happening, it could simply have been that Quaid wanted to work interchangeably with his partner,
Baldwin, whoever happened to be in the office could respond to a call from a Garrison witness or make a court appearance?
We can now tell there are “gaps” in the CIA paper trail related to this matter….CIA lawyer paymaster, etc., because only documentation from Garrison’s files of May, 1967, and new research partially fills in the gaps, unless CIA is holding what has not emerged until 2017, or longer, and we can certainly see, if the ARRB mandate was ignored in this matter, any withholding is extremely difficult to justify as a matter of national security. It seems an attempt at hiding behind overclassification intending to save face. Baldwin’s brother David had been a covert agent. All of this could be a false front for the file.
In other words, instead of being cozy with this fellow (which they would have been had they been working with his partner), they were wondering what in the world he was doing.
Could Quaid have actually believed that the CIA was hiring lawyers in New Orleans? It’s possible. A fair number of otherwise sensible people in The Big Easy thought Garrison “must have something.”
Quaid’s partner’s Edward Lemann’s brother David had been a covert CIA agent whose father-in-law was Monte Lemann.:
http://jfk.education/images/WilliamMartinMay24.jpg
That’s the unsourced hearsay document from the Garrison investigation again.
‘We can now tell there are “gaps” in the CIA paper trail related to this matter…. and we can certainly see, if the ARRB mandate was ignored in this matter, any withholding is extremely difficult to justify as a matter of national security. It seems an attempt at hiding behind over classification (sic) intending to save face . . .’ — TomS
Very interesting summary. ‘ intending to save face ‘. Of course that is a possibility, and yes ‘if the ARRB mandate was ignored in this matter, any withholding is extremely difficult to justify as a matter of national security’; unless of course “national security’ is defined by those with much to hide rather than a democratic understanding of the term. Might it be reasonable to speculate beyond either of those possibilities, saving face or national security? Might this be an ongoing, five plus decades cover up precisely because of the depth of the assassination plot and the threat that Jim Garrison brought by his attempts to expose it?
The Monroe & Lemann law firm client list boasts Whitney Bank – branches all over Louisiana – which serviced among others the Whitney-Rockefeller family related Freeport Sulphur of which much has been documented related to their interests in Cuba prior to Castro’s revolution. Whitney & Rockefeller family interests extended throughout Latin America so they are among the dozens of US industries with much to lose should Castro’s nationalization of resources spread throughout the continent. Was not Che on his way to advancing similar movements in Bolivia when he was murdered?
Some will consider this as covering old ground, but in light of the new discussion related to Lemann et al, consideration of the murder of Castro began as early as 1959, with (Whitney/Rockefeller family) Freeport Sulphur’s interest central to the conversation. Colby & Dennett, in “Thy Will Be Done”, state: “Castro was targeted for assassination as early as December 11, 1959, by Nelson’s [Rockefeller] old friend from the CIAA [ Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs ] days, J.. King, now the CIA’s Chief of Clandestine Services in the Western Hemisphere. Even before Castro had forced Fulgencio Batista to flee Havana, King and Adolf Berle [elder statesman, advisor to presidents, and expert on US/Latin American affairs] had met to ponder the fate of FREEPORT SULPHUR COMPANY’S mining project at Nicaro, in Oriente Province. Now the Nicaro deposits and sugar plantations in Cuba were facing nationalization. It was clear to King that a “far left” government existed in Cuba. “If permitted to stand,” he wrote CIA Director Allen Dulles, it would ENCOURAGE SIMILAR ACTIONS AGAINST AMERICAN COMPANIES ELSEWHERE IN LATIN AMERICA.….” (emphasis mine)
Turning attention now to the Monroe family of New Orleans’ Monroe & Lemann law firm. Jules Blanc Monroe founded the firm enjoying the notoriety of his father, Chief Justice Frank Adair Monroe; Jules brought his son, Malcolm Logan Monroe into the firm. Both Monroes served for decades on the board of the Whitney’s banking enterprises in Louisiana. They both served . . .
(cont.)
(cont.)
. . . on the New Orleans leg of Southern Railway Co.s’ New Orleans & Northeastern RR. Malcolm was a member of the Board of Governors of the [Alton] Ochsner Foundation Hospital and a trustee of Oshner’s Medical Foundation. Ochsner’s Information Council of the Americas (INCA) was headed by Ed Butler (whose cousin was implicated in the Houma LA weapons ‘heist’), propagandist for the extreme right, and was underwritten financially by Texas oilman Clint Murchison whose enclave outside of Athens, TX boasted members of Dallas establishment including Ted Dealey of the Dallas Morning News publisher of the infamous black border ad on the eve of President Kennedy’s trip to Dallas. It’s an interesting side note that Richard L. Townley (intimately involved in the NBC debunking of the Garrison investigation and now implicated with David Baldwin in that effort who was a close relative of Stephen Lemann, the Monroes’ law partner) spent a significant portion of his final years serving as the Senior Editor of the “Malakoff News”, a small town located 12 miles from Athens, TX and the Murchison’s Koon Kreek Club.
Jules Blanc was also a board member of Chicago based Swift & Co. (with significant interests in Latin America). On the board of Swift, serving for years as head of their Latin American division was A. Thomas Taylor, husband of Geraldine Swift, heir to the Swift fortunes. Taylor would become president of Rockefeller’s Deltec International focused on Latin American investments after Deltec took over Swift & Armour’s Latin American beef operations. A. T. Taylor served on the board of American & Foreign Power, the utilities firm heavily invested throughout Latin America and persistently under threat of nationalization. AFP’s CEO was New Orleans native H. B. Sargent, a board member of Lone Star Cement whose significant profits were dependent on favorable political conditions in Latin America. Lone Star Cement board included Costa Rican born Stanley Osborne. Osborne and Swift executive A.T. Taylor were also long term board members of United Fruit, infamous for involvement in the overthrow of the government of Guatemala to secure their interests in the region.
Adolf Berle, in discussion with CIA’s Western Hemisphere JC King about possibilities of murdering Castro, privately played a significant role with Nationwide Insurance which employed Ruth Paine’s father at the time of the assassination. William Avery Hyde was on loan in November, 1963 to a ‘government’ sanctioned effort somewhere in Latin America.
This milieu of industrial giants with deep ties in New Orleans filtering down the pipeline to a powerbase of local conduits, Jules and Malcolm Monroe and Stephen Lemann may well be why the Garrison investigation made its way to the desks of Helms and Angleton, and Clay Shaw and David Ferrie may now be added to a long list of patsies.
“I’m afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.” – Jim Garrison
primary sources: Who’s Who in America, Moody’s Industrial Manual, “Thy Will Be Done” by Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett
RE: gaps in CIA released documents…. we have this,
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54933&relPageId=2&search=calcutta
But what are we to make of this?
http://jfk.education/images/WilliamMartinMay24.jpg
….and this?: (Monte was Dean Nicholas Baldwin’s grandfather, he said he wrote the GQ magazine article because Garrison embarrassed NOLA)
Full text of “Courtbouillon Vol 23 No 1” – Internet Archive
https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=SOegVpOsLtaK-gXojp6gCA#q=monte+children+thomas+%22*He+married+a+second+time%3B+Mildred+Lyons%2C+Oc-+tober+11%2C+1947.%22
https://archive.org/…/courtbouillon_vol23_no1031_djv…
Internet Archive
MONTE M. LEMANN … Children by his first mar- riage were Thomas Berthelot and Stephen Berthelot. He married a second time; Mildred Lyons, Oc- tober 11, 1947.
http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/orleans/obits/1/l-11.txt
003004 Lemann – Mildred Crumb Lyons Lemann, A Homemaker, Died Friday At Her Home In New Orleans. She
Was 94. Mrs. Lemann Was A Lifelong Resident Of New Orleans. … In 1929, She Worked At Metairie Park
Country Day School, Where She Coordinated The School’s Non-Academic Activities. Survivors Include A Daughter,
Mildred Lyons Baldwin;
A Sister, Ethel Crumb Brett; Two Stepsons, Thomas B. Lemann, And Stephen B. Lemann; …. Times Picayune 01-14-1990
http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/orleans/obits/1/b-03.txt
000618 Baldwin – Mildred Lyons Baldwin, Age 79 Years, On Monday, August 12, 2002 At Touro Infirmary.
Mrs. Baldwin Attended Metairie Park Country Day School And William And Mary College. She Was An
Accomplished Classical Pianist Who Loved Chopin And Debussy. Other Interests Included Acting, Modern
Dance And Cooking. She Was The Wife Of The Late David G. Baldwin For 50 Years. She Is Survived By 2
Sons, Stephen Brooks Baldwin Of New York City, Geoffrey Stuart Johnston Baldwin Of New Orleans And An
Adopted Daughter, Jean A. Cunningham Of Los Angeles, Ca. Private Services Will Be Held. In Lieu Of
Flowers Memorial Contributions To Metairie Park Country Day School Would Be Appreciated. Times Picayune
08-13-2002
000608 Baldwin – David Gilmore Baldwin, A Retired Communications Director For The American Medical
Association, Died Wednesday Of Pulmonary Disease At Touro Infirmary. He Was 78. Mr. Baldwin Was Born
And Raised In New Orleans And Lived In Chicago And Washington, D.C., Before Returning To New Orleans 16
Years Ago. He Attended Tulane University And The New School Of Social Research In New York City. He
Joined The Royal Canadian Air Force In 1939 And Earned The Distinguished Flying Cross And Bar. After
Working For His Father’s Firm, Baldwin-Mclean, As Assistant Director Of Public Relations, He Joined The
New Orleans Item, Where He Wrote The Lagniappe Column And Worked On Special Assignments. In 1955, He
Became A Speechwriter For Pennsylvania Gov. George Leader….. Survivors Include His
Wife, Mildred Lyons Baldwin;…. 11-30-1996 Times
Picayune
and this?
”
”
continued
…continued from “The first Cia General Counsel was Lawrence R. Houston….”
And your source for the Baldwin recruiting Shaw business was?
You really don’t believe that anything you find written down somewhere has to be true, do you?
FYI, Dr. McAdams,
Angleton is presented as inquiring about Edward M. Baldwin’s partner, Quaid. Where do you suppose the document in the CIA file
including Angleton’s memo is, that advises that Quaid’s law partner, Edward Baldwin, an attorney representing Sheridan and Townley, is the brother of the officially disgraced covert agent, David G. Baldwin, or the document advising that the Baldwins are brothers-in-law of
Stephen B. Lemann?
I approach the research first from the genealogy. I found the obituaries necessary to learn the background. I found David G. Baldwin’s wife’s mother’s
obit and noted her daughter, David’s wife Mildred, and her two step-sons, NIcholas’s father, Thomas B. Lemann, and his brother, Stephen B. Lemann,
and then I worked to find out what I could about them, and that lead me to their father, Monte, and the last thing I did was find the documents in
the John Armstrong archive on the Baylor University library website. When was the last time you discovered and presented any new, primary research?
From the names, the “parts” fit like a glove, right down to Photon ignoring the question of why he said David G. Baldwin could not be a covert CIA
agent. I’ll be happy to revise my comment about the CIA docunents not fitting the scenario if you can tell us who “Mrs. Lillian Baxter” was?
The CIA alleges she caused David G. Baldwin to be drummed out of covert CIA cover in India, and he came back to the U.S. to be hired by Shaw at the ITM.
She is described as of dual U.S. and Indian citizenship, formerly married to a planter, but now a prostitute possibly spying for the Soviets:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54933&relPageId=2&search=calcutta
Nicholas B. Lemann is either witting and disgraceful, or he is too stupid to earn his Dean position on the merits, and that won’t change, no matter
your opinion of the documents in the Garrison files. Someone came pretty close to describing what was actually going on….I’m talking about the
memo by William Martin dated May 24, 1967, not the CIA documents telling us the sordid tale of Baldwin leaving the CIA in disgrace, or Quaid’s
letter developing into a matter under Angleton’s name on a memo when the reaction to his letter began with a routince check with a DCS rep. in NOLA.
Are you aware that the DCS chief had a special place in his heart for NOLA? He was Squirrel Ashcraft, recognized as an authority on the development
of Jazz in the first half of the 20th century. The more I consider what you do, load your website with page after page presenting, “nothing sinister here,”
it is all just as the CIA and FBI reports say it is, the more I wonder why I reply to your comments.
You have no interest to learn anything, and you are regarded an expert in this field, but I cannot recall learning anything new from you.
I’m confident you cannot say you’ve learned nothing from me that you did not already know, so I find your response to these newly discovered details, predictable.
Baldwin was not a CIA agent.As I stated above he would have had problems even getting in, which you seem to be unaware of.
You have posted nothing from any reliable source proving that Baldwin was a CIA agent, and much to prove that he wasn’t-the time line, for instance.
Who his relatives were is immaterial if you cannot prove your salient point- that Baldwin was a CIA agent. Unsourced claims from individuals who have no demonstrated credibility or knowledge of the particulars simply doesn’t cut it. I have posted up and down examples of conspiracy ” facts” that had no basis in fact at all, given credence by CTers on the basis of being continuously repeated. Tink Thompson’s errors, the Hathcock myth, the Cheryl McKinnon myth are just a few of the ” facts” that have become CT lore -all of which a nobody like me could uncover with a little help from sources that actually know about the topics. The NTSB is a government agency that strives to find the truth about accidents. What is wrong with using an agency like that to obtain real and documented information?
You really are of another system, Photon. William Richard Martin, a cleared DCS contact since 1964, supplied that info to Garrison.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=30154&relPageId=5&search=durham_and%20martin%20and%20garrison
It is supported by at least 2 CIA declassified documents http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54933&relPageId=2&search=calcutta
and http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40196&relPageId=2 . I think the part about Baldwin being a covert agent separated from the agency is
a cover because his brother Edward is working feverishly against Garrison, and Edward’s partner Quaid sends a letter to DCI Helms that triggers a response
from CIA chief counsel Lawrence Houston that seems to center around an important contradiction to the CIA status bestowed on ITM’s Lloyd Cobb, almost
simultaneously to the date Quaid wrote to Helms.
We have the coincidence of William R. Martin drafting a memo on May 24, 1967 that describes Martin learning from an unnamed source that David Baldwin was covert
CIA in India in 1950 and it described his cover….unique info, but all of it classified in 1967. We now know that David Baldwin’s father-in-law Monte M Lemann, in 1950, and
until his death in 1959, seemed to have some ties to the Agency, according to Martin’s memo, and.:
https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=hXCnVvbWBoeh-AXZ16-YAg#q=bonsal+monte+m+lemann+allen+dulles and
https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=hXCnVvbWBoeh-AXZ16-YAg#q=bonsal+monte+m+lemann+lawrence+houston
I’m sharing what I learn, Photon, or….do you think this is what I should be serving up?:
Monte Lemann’s grandson Nicholas B Lemann’s decision to write that article in the January, 1992 GQ Magazine issue and to respond to Perry Russo’s defamation lawsuit with
that stuff about Garrison “embarrassing New Orleans” was unconscionable, and so was Nicholas’s appointment as Dean of Columbia’s Grad. School of Journalism.
We’ve got David Baldwin’s little brother Edward defending Gurvich, Townley, and Sheridan, and David Baldwin’s brother-in-law Stephen, Monte Lemann’s son, is rumored
to be CIA paymaster. From your perspective, it is probably all just a smear of some fine, upstanding citizens, and Perry Russo deserved to be lied to in Conde Naste’s
Nicholas Lemann’s answer to the court in 1991.
Everything in William Martin’s memo dated May 24, 1967 is consistent with what I had already found, independently of the details in that memo. Ironically, your protest over David Baldwin ever being covert CIA operating in a foreign country speak to “the juice” he must have had to get hired as an actual CIA officer, in the first place.
As usual, you need to explain what your point is.
You specialize in connecting everybody to everybody else, but you can’t connect any of them to any assassination conspiracy.
You can show that they opposed Garrison, but that makes them public spirited citizens to everybody but die hard Garrisonites.
Okay, Dr. McAdams,
In the course of less than 80 days, Lawrence Houston informed Atty. James F. Quaid by letter:
After this was written, dated March 15, 1967, describing a clearance for attorneys run out of Lawrence Houston’s office.:
I do hope the “panel” Lloyd Cobb was cleared for was not a separate and illegal domestic Ops
program, compared to whatever clearance Edward M. Baldwin may have been operating under, and his partner Quaid attempted to be cleared for.
If Max Holland was correct, what would he make of all of this, “nothing sinister,” “stuff”? Dr. McAdams, I’m still waiting for you to agree
that Nicholas B. Lemann was either too stupid to be appointed Dean at Columbia Grad. School, or witting of his myriad of family contacts and
activities that made his “undisputed fact” in the court proceedings of Perry Russo’s defamation lawsuit…..that he wrote the GQ article because
Garrison embarrassed New Orleans, disingenuous. David Baldwin’s mother-in-law, Mildred Crumb Lyons Lemann, was the closest thing to a paternal
grandparent that Nicholas Lemann had between 1959 (year of Monte Lemann’s death) and 1992, when he wrote the GQ hit piece. I wonder if the greater
Lemann-Baldwin family sat around reading the GQ article on Christmas day, 1991, or possibly earlier, on Thanksgiving day?
Dr. McAdams, you told me recently, “what you see is what you get.” Are you of the philosophy that the ends justify the means, that it was okay for
Nicholas Lemann, condsidering his family ties undisclosed in the GQ article, to reveal none of his insider ties to Perry Russo’s plaintiff counsel?
I ask because of this development, and I’m guessing you react to it as if it is a travesty.:
Where did you get “since?” It says “in 1965 and [illegible].”
And why would the CIA tell somebody who merely talked to the DCS about any covert op?
Neither of those documents mentions Richard Martin. Just what is your point?
What Martin passed along to Garrison was hearsay from an anonymous source.
I described the ADA in Garrison’s office who wrote the May 24, 1967 memo to Garrison as William Richard Martin.
Martin’s CIA profile, #2…. I posted profile #1 already, describing him as cleared in 1964, worked at International House:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=14708&relPageId=5
I don’t understand your objection. Where do you suppose the info came from that David Baldwin had been a covert CIA agent working in India in the early 1950’s, if not from a CIA source? Was this available to anyone with a security clearance in May, 1967?:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54933&relPageId=2&search=calcutta
and http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40196&relPageId=2
I’ve also posted a crop of a page of a 1954 NOLA City Directory displaying David G Baldwin, wife Mildred L., employer,
International Trade Mart. (Link: https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-849786 )
Where did the line about Monte M Lemann signing off on the appointment of William P Burke, Jr. as DCS chief
in NOLA come from, if not a CIA source? What got the idea into Garrison’s head that Stephen B. Lemann, so of Monte, step-brother of David Baldwin’s
wife, could possibly be a CIA paymaster of lawyers “in close contact” with Garrison witnesses and media members, Townley and Sheridan.
You’ve said there is nothing sinister here, but there is “stuff” here…..and more from a Lemann family member in the very week or so when “JFK the Movie”
was released on Dec., 21, 1991.
Are you aware that Nicholas Lemann, his father Thomnas, his mother Barbara, and another family member are represented on the list of NOLA passport distribution
in the time frame Oswald experienced express delivery of his own new passport? Just as Gaudet was in the mix, the alleged Visa number next to Oswald’s hidden
by the WC or by the FBI before the WC ever learned of it. These folk are all over the Garrison investigation, mentioned in the Passport list in the WCR, and
Nicholas hits Russo and Garrison in the same year the two men both died, circa 1992. At some point here, your comments are not reasonable, Dr. McAdams,
Juice? He was kicked out of the Agency for a “serious security breach.”
In 1952!
But you still think he was a covert op in New Orleans in 1967.
Do you even know how to read these documents?
Dr. McAdams,
I still think David Baldwin was witting and covert domestically when he returned from India in 1952 because I can find no trace of “Mrs. Lillian Baxter,” a
Calcutta individual known to both Baldwin and his friend at the American Embassy in India, Jesse R Core III,
and because Baldwin returned from India, allegedly in disgrace and was hired by Clay Shaw at the ITM, and then Jesse, also tainted in the affair, since
an embassy counsel should not be associated with a woman suspected as a Soviet spy and described as taking classified info from Baldwin and being a prostitute,
and because none of those taints interfered with either Baldwin or Jesse covering the PR duties at the ITM from 1952 well into the 1960’s and it seemed to have no
effect on the other CIA officer who was linked to Marilou Ruggles Core, Jesse’s wife.
See : http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=8178&search=SHAW_AND+1951#relPageId=3
…and:
It also seemed not to get in the way of Baldwin’s brother Edward working in
concert with Stephen B. Lemann to reach and offer legal counsel to most of the important Garrison witnesses, and to the media personnel interfering with
Garrison’s investigation.
So….yes, I think the document describing David Baldwin’s parting ways with the agency is as suspect as his NANA, Louisville Courier, and NOLA States Item covers he was allegedly hiding behind in India.
I want to share now that, at the risk of hurt “feelings” of you or Photon, it disappoints me that neither of you seem willing to
engage in a candid discussion. I try to set an example for other commenters as to the posting of quality sources for arguments and opinions expressed in submitted comments. The reaction of the two of you is that nothing qualifies as a reasonable source, and CIA documents are as reliable as either of you wishes them to be.
If this thread is an example of what other commenters can expect if they engage either you or Photon, why would anyone attempt it?
Your cites are routinely links from your website, many times amounting to the opinions of David Reitzes, and sometimes Max Holland.
I see. The CIA was lying to itself in a secret internal document, produced to try to determine what Agency connections, if any, Garrison might find to any of his New Orleans suspects.
And you folks have long cried “release the documents!”
But then when the documents are released, and show things you find inconvenient, you just refuse to believe them.
Okay, new rule by Dr. McAdams. All CIA documents can be assumed to mean exactly what they say. Got it!
Dr. McAdams, please show me other instances of the CIA describing, in a CIA document, a covert CIA agent operating in a foreign country
and associated with Official Cover, or bona fide US Embassy staff in said country, (Counsel Jesse R Core 3d) (Link: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54933&relPageId=2 )
and linking the wife of the associated embassy staffer
with yet another CIA officer, (Link: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=8178&search=SHAW_AND+1951#relPageId=3)
and all of them tainted in the descriptions of them. This alone should raise your suspicion.:
MAX HOLLAND — CIA Public Relations Man:
Anyone who does not grasp that Max Holland is a CIA apologist, and asset needs to take note that Holland is published on the CIA’s very own website:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/fall_winter_2001/article02.html
“asset”
noun
a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.
. . . . . .
After reading the apologia in Holland’s article: ‘The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination’; just try to attempt a denial that this is not “a useful or valuable thing” to assist the public image of CIA.
And after you try that, try to tell me why we should take Holland’s spin on things seriously? He is obviously a public relations man for CIA. Anyone who can’t see that is utterly naïve.
\\][//
Tom,
“Are you aware that Nicholas Lemann, his father Thomnas, his mother Barbara, and another family member are represented on the list of NOLA passport distribution
in the time frame Oswald experienced express delivery of his own new passport?”
What does this mean? These people got passports in the same “time frame” Oswald did?
This scathing rebuke of Max Holland by Gary L. Aguilar should be read by anyone who actually takes McAdams or Photon seriously:
http://www.ctka.net/pr900-holland.html
\\][//
OK, so you have shown that the CIA blew off Quaid. And this makes him sinister?
You don’t understand the concept “begging the question.”
Since you are a Garrisonite, you think that any opposition to Garrison must make one some sort of spook.
But that argument carries zero weight with people who aren’t Garrisonites.
That, by the way, includes the majority of established conspiracy authors who were around at the time of the “investigation.”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/buffs_on_jim.htm
BTW, how did the Russo suit turn out?
Which makes the people who made “Argo” or “Zero Dark Thirty” assets too.
Wait! You probably believe that.
Of course, Holland’s article is about Communist disinformation.
Do you believe there was any such thing, Willy?
New rule by Tom S.: documents can mean anything I want them to mean.
It’s one thing if the CIA issued a press release. But we are talking about secret internal documents. The CIA lying to itself is what you are claiming.
You can’t even prove Baldwin was in India. All you have is hearsay evidence from Martin ( no source noted ) plus one reference that you refer to twice as if it was from two sources.
The girlfriend that he supposedly had in India totally disappears from the record. A simple explanation is that there was no girlfriend and the whole narrative was made up- or incorrectly reported. File a FOI suit and see if Baldwin ever got a check from the Federal government-and stop believing that scraps of paper with unsourced second hand information proves anything. Usually it doesn’t.
Tom,
What did Lemann write in his GQ article that was untrue? Could you quote it, please?
As you know, when Russo sued the GQ publisher for its characterization of him, the U.S. District Court ruled against him. Its ruling made many of the same points Garrison’s critics have been making for years:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/806/603/1747985/
Anyone who has pursued a corporate career in any discipline will appreciate the fact that Nicholas Lemann was writing for The Atlantic at the time of his GQ article on the Garrison/New Orleans investigation. His editor at the time was William Whitworth whose own career began with Jock Whitney’s “New York Herald Tribune” in the 1960’s. Whitworth stopped off at The New Yorker as did Lemann (later), and Lemann stopped off for a long and high profile stint at Michael Levy’s “Texas Monthly”, evidently honing his “folksy and sardonic” skills. Levy was offered an inside look at the HL Hunt family operation in the early ’80’s – while Lemann was on board ™ – but evidently he eschewed the possibility of an expose in exchange for a lucrative advertising contract. This is the nature of contemporary investigative journalism?
(This is an attempt to shift away from OT comments mistakenly submitted to the Tippit article.)>>
“And yet when Russo came forward after Ferrie died, he told a Baton Rouge TV reporter that he’dd never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until he was linked with the assassination.”~Jean Davison
So Russo, who knew that Ferrie was plotting to kill a President (but was “joking”) just died, and Jean doesn’t consider that Russo likely was scared to death that Ferrie had been murdered; which he likely was. And therefore Russo would be publicly backing away from any further knowledge or connections with this crew he was likely desperate to extricate himself from.
Russo said, “he had never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until he was linked with the assassination.” Russo was introduced to a “Leon” by Ferrie, just like he was introduced to a “Clem Bertrand” by Ferrie. But none of this sinks in for our Warrenista agents here.
As far as “the Garrison fans” remark, I should point out to the CIA fans here, that we have been quite able to explain every little puzzle you have put forward so far – because the truth of this matter is OBVIOUS, and the veils covering that truth have been blown away throughout the 52 years of the System’s attempts at tampering with the minds of the people.
So it is wise, while walking Warren’s dogs to keep a poopscoop available. You don’t want to touch those droppings with your bare hands.
\\][//
When people throw insults (and dog poop!), it reflects on them, not me.
The fact remains that the record shows that Russo said nothing to reporters or to Sciambra about Ferrie being involved with Oswald or Shaw, nothing at all about any “assassination party” in which they plotted together when he first came forward in Baton Rouge. Since that’s in the public record, no one can ever change that fact. Here are the links…
Russo interview with a TV reporter Feb. 24, 1967:
http://www.jfk-online.com/pre31kemp.html
Bill Bankston State-Times interview, Feb. 24, 1967 (scroll down slightly):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo1.txt
The Sciambra memo which begins:
“INTERVIEW WITH PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO
311 EAST STATE STREET
BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA
On February 25, 1967 I interviewed PERRY RUSSO at the above mentioned address….”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo2.txt
In his book Garrison claimed that in “an interview the morning of Friday, February 24,” Russo told a Baton Rouge reporter “about a meeting he had attended at Ferrie’s apartment at which the assassination of President Kennedy had been discussed. The story, written by Bill Bankston, appeared in the State-Times that afternoon.” (“On the Trail of the Assassins,” p. 176.)
You can read that State-Times interview above. Where does it say that? Where does the Sciambra memo say that?
They don’t. This story was cooked up later.
Transcript of interview of Perry Russo by Jim Kemp
Q: Did you ever hear Ferrie make any threatening remarks about President Kennedy?
A: Well, during the — ’63, that was an extensive period of time that I knew him, in ’62 and ’63. Ferrie was obsessed more or less with the idea of Kennedy and what he was doing to Cuba or to Castro, and what Dave Ferrie was — actually, at any instance coming over to the house. For one thing, I lived on Elysian Fields in New Orleans, and he would come over at night, you know, uncalled, anything like that, as was his habit. And we would talk, and generally speaking, I was a Republican. I was against Kennedy in general, you know, for policies. And that was the opening door and he could elaborate on the issue, and quite frequently, and this is especially during the summer, he talked in general terms, not specifically about Kennedy, about how easy it would be to assassinate a president of the United States because of the fact he was in public view so much and unprotected more or less and there was so many people and the availability of exit and the fact that he could drive a plane to get out of the country, and he used to just posingly — jokingly pose the question that, you know, he and I could do it; you know, just in a joking way, he said it could be done. And that was all of the conversation during the summer.
Q: Did he ever make any more specific threat, like get him?
A: Well, right. Now, in late September or during October, the month right prior to the Kennedy assassination in November, Dave Ferrie had occasion to come over to the house on several instances and I went to his place, and just passing, and he made specific references that, in talking about Kennedy, he said, ‘We will get him and it won’t be very long.’ Now, the last time I can remember him saying that was sometime in October, but he was obsessed with that idea.
Q: Did he ever mention Lee Harvey Oswald’s name?
A: No.
Q: No conversation at all about —
A: No. I had never heard of Oswald until the television of the assassination.
. . . . .
Now anyone who has studied this case knows full well that the people Russo was introduced to had assumed names, Clay Shaw was introduced as Clem Bertrand, Oswald was known as simply “Leon” to Russo at the time of this interview.
I is obvious disingenuous spin to post this as anythng definitive against Russo.
\\][//
“Now anyone who has studied this case knows full well that the people Russo was introduced to had assumed names, Clay Shaw was introduced as Clem Bertrand, Oswald was known as simply “Leon” to Russo at the time of this interview.”
You still don’t get it. Russo didn’t mention Clem Bertrand in these early interviews, either.
Also, Russo later testified that he was introduced to “Leon Oswald,” not simply “Leon”:
http://www.jfk-online.com/pre04russo.html
Whether you accept it or not, the record shows that Russo’s story changed dramatically.
“Whether you accept it or not, the record shows that Russo’s story changed dramatically.”~Jean Davison
That hearing was on March 19, 1967. The interview on TV and the newspapers were February 25 of that year. Of course by the time of the hearing Russo knew who Shaw and Oswald actually were, and his testimony changed accordingly.
\\][//
“That hearing was on March 19, 1967. The interview on TV and the newspapers were February 25 of that year. Of course by the time of the hearing Russo knew who Shaw and Oswald actually were, and his testimony changed accordingly.”
You *still* don’t get it. In February Russo said NOTHING about a conversation involving two men he would later identify as Shaw and Oswald, nothing about Ferrie and these two plotting an assassination.
Please read the Sciambra memo, followed by Garrison’s version of what Russo told Sciambra. Two different stories.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo2.txt
I have read that before Jean, and it certainly does not reinforce your claims here. Russo clearly describes Ferrie, Bertrand, and Leon, along with Cubans planning the assassination and then a getaway by air.
So what is your point here?
\\][//
Look Jean, Sciambra explained that his first written memo was incomplete in his testimony before the Grand Jury, he explained that he didn’t have time to finish dictating it before he was due to meet with Garrison again, and he explained verbally what Russo had told him about the party the night that Ferrie was making plans for the assassination of Kennedy.
This is ALL in the COMPLETE record of this case. You are cherry picking and going back over arguments already made to stir mud into this thread.
\\][//
If this is inaccurate, please explain how and why…..
Is anyone here arguing that David Ferrie and Clay Shaw determined that President Kennedy must die, that they developed the plans for 11.22.63 in Dallas, that they orchestrated the implementation of those plans, and that they had the power to assure the cover up – even for the first five years? The Lemann, Baldwin, Core, Quaid, Monroe, Sheridan, Townley story scratches the surface of why Garrison pursued Shaw. Getting stuck in the Russo testimony and the related memos is taking multiple steps backward when in fact several giant steps forward have been introduced in the last two weeks. Why is that?
I propose, ‘declare a victory’ and move on.
Leslie,
I began this “round” two weeks ago, attempting to find all I could about the background and connections of Ed Butler, leading me to Core, and Core to Baldwin,
and Baldwin to his attorney brother Edward “tag teaming” with Stephen B. Lemann. I noticed that Mary Ferrell had an index card describing Lemann and I found
that his nephew did a Garrison “hit piece” timed with the release of “JFK the movie,” and that the Lemann “hit piece” published in GQ magazine, January 1992,
triggered a lawsuit for defamation by Perry Russo. I found that Nicholas Lemann is Dean Emeritus of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
I’ve strayed, or been tugged into the area of Perry Russo’s and ADA Sciambra’s credibility, which are separate from the other issues and separate from each other,
to an extent.
I think Nicholas Lemann has become an excellent target of protest, and this is the contemporary issue emerging from this, and FOI requests should be filed
on Monte M. Lemann, William Richard Martin, David G Baldwin, Jesse R Core, Marilou Ruggles Core, Michael Charles Pearson, Mrs. Lillian Baxter, Edward M Baldwin, James F. Quaid, Stephen B Lemann, and on Nicholas Lemann. In the meantime there would be no harm in Oliver Stone calling out Nicholas Lemann and Conde Naste/GQ.
“I have read that before Jean, and it certainly does not reinforce your claims here. Russo clearly describes Ferrie, Bertrand, and Leon, along with Cubans planning the assassination and then a getaway by air.”
Willy, for Pete’s sake, learn to read. You are quoting from Part II, which is Garrison’s 1991 “revised” account of what Russo told Sciambra, not Sciambra’s memo, which doesn’t mention Bertrand.
There was simply no assassination party account until the Sodium Pentothal session.
If you think otherwise, post the link to the testimony. And the excerpt that shows that.
And later excuses by Sciambra don’t count.
So he wrote a memo that mentioned the two trivial sightings of Shaw, but not the really explosive part about the “assassination party.”
And he has Russo seeing Shaw two times, neither of which was the “assassination party.”
And he has “Oswald” as the roommate, in spite of the fact that the roommate could not have been Oswald!
Is this ad admission that the memos are really embarrassing to the Garrisonites?
The Sciambra memo describes a February 25 interview, and the Mercy Hospital session was on February 27.
Russo is such an unreliable character who changed his story often enough that anything he said should be called into question. What I would like to know is why nobody who is infatuated with his stories is asking the obvious questions- was he ever treated for mental illness, why did he lose his Insurance job, why did a college graduate end up driving a cab-for at least two companies? To go off on tangents trying to establish that individuals who have no physical connection whatsoever to the assassination, Lee Oswald or Ruby have connections (no matter how tenuous ) with individuals associated with the Garrison circus is not logical.
Tom S, you still have not placed Baldwin in India in 1951 or 1952. Despite your unsourced paragraph there is not a shred of evidence that Baldwin was ever in India at all? If you can’t come up with a secondary source for him being in India( not directly related to the paragraph you mentioned- a paragraph isolated, with no relationship to any other note concerning Baldwin) your whole exercise becomes irrelevant-as the direction of this topic has become.
Photon, I’m increasingly bored with your parlor games. Photon writes, “Tom S., when I stamp my feet, stand on your head and recite the alphabet from Z to A, three times!”
“Is anyone here arguing that David Ferrie and Clay Shaw determined that President Kennedy must die, that they developed the plans for 11.22.63 in Dallas…~Leslie Sharp
YES.
“…that they orchestrated the implementation of those plans, and that they had the power to assure the cover up”~Ibid
NO.
. . .
I declare that we have proven that Clay Shaw was also known as Clay Bertrand, and that he was at David Ferries house along with Oswald, and anti-Castro Cubans making plans to kill President Kennedy. And that Perry Russo was there and witnessed these things.
If anyone makes further argument against this declaration of victory, I will charge them with contempt and order them drawn and quartered.
How’s that Leslie?
\\][//
“If this is inaccurate, please explain how and why…..
“…the assassination party memo was actually the first Sciambra memo, which the reader can clearly see by merely
looking at the date in the signature block of the memo–February 28, 1967. The other memo was turned in sometime
before March 6th, about a week after Shaw’s March 1st arrest…..”
This was Sciambra’s cockamamie excuse that Garrison supporters have repeated, but it makes no sense. The “other memo,” the one in which Russo talked to Sciambra for the first time, was dated February 27, which is earlier than February 28, so what is he talking about?
The first memo dated Feb. 27 clearly states its subject:”INTERVIEW WITH PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO/311 EAST STATE STREET/BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA”:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo2.txt
The actual second (2/28) memo is also clearly labeled “Interview with PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO at the Mercy Hospital on February 27, 1967,” and begins, “On February 27, 1967 Al Oser and I [….] took PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO over to the Mercy Hospital…” where he was asked questions after being given sodium pentathol.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo3.txt
This is when Russo first mentioned the party, not in Baton Rouge. There’s no indication whatsoever in that memo that Sciambra is including a detail that Russo had mentioned to him earlier. None. It’s Sciambra’s CYA fiction.
Several other excuses have been offered to explain why the first memo mentions no assassination plot — Sciambra just “forgot” to mention the most important thing Russo told him, or he mistakenly said Russo saw Shaw “twice” and mentioned two trivial incidents instead of saying “two *other* times.” The crime of the century and he leaves this out. Lame, lame, and lame.
Also, by March 5-6, Garrison was in Las Vegas, where he gave Phelan a copy of the first memo, so Sciambra must’ve finished it earlier than that.
TomS. I suppose we could divide up that list and start filing? Or track down someone who has already done so.
I’ve studied the professional bio of Nicholas Lemann on several sites and have not yet located one that offers specific dates, but as best I can determine he was with “The Atlantic” at the time he penned the article for GQ reflecting on the Garrison case and its impact on “his beloved city”. I also notice Lemann spent time at “Texas Monthly” which is interesting for a number of reasons not germane to this (at least that I would want to introduce here). Lemann’s editor at “The Atlantic” in late 1991/92 would have been William Whitworth, an Arkansas native. Early in his career Whitworth reported for “The New York Herald Tribune”, an investment of Jock Hay Whitney, one of America’s first venture capitalists; in fact Whitney’s friend and colleague, Benno Schmidt, Sr. coined the term. Schmidt sat for decades on the board of another Whitney investment, Freeport Sulphur. It should be recalled, the Monroe & Lemann (that would be Nicholas’ family) law firm were counsel to the Whitney banking empire in Louisiana and interchangeably served on Whitney’s board.
This is not ‘dot connecting’; it is highlighting how careers are built and how journalists may or may not be persuaded over the years by ideology, loyalty, or perhaps even familial or professional debts.
Whitworth spent 14 years at “The New Yorker”; Nicholas Lemann was with the same magazine for years prior to being named Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University.
Of interest, and again no dot connecting or any suggestion that Nicholas Lemann would have been influenced so young in his life, but certainly his parents would have been – as we have seen – fully engaged in politics in 1963 as well as beneficiaries of legal clients including the Whitney banking and by logic, Freeport Sulphur. The President of Columbia University at the time of Kennedy’s assassination was Grayson L. Kirk who sat on the board of Nation-Wide Securities with Allen Dulles, and Maxwell Taylor. Kirk’s Dean of Columbia Law was William Clements Warren, a co-author with Adolf Berle who (as mentioned previously) as early as 1959 discussed a Castro “solution” with CIA Western Hemisphere chief J. C. King. Interestingly, the son of Benno Schmidt (Whitney/Freeport Sulphur) served a brief stint as Dean of Columbia Law School in the mid-80’s. Schmidt Jr.’s boss at Columbia was Michael Sovern who served as legal consultant to Henry Luce’s Time Magazine from 1965 until the early ‘80’s. Luce of course being the owner of the ‘original’ Zapruder film that Garrison had to subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court to secure.
This tapestry speaks to continuity and ethos.
RUSSO SAYS ON TV
Didn’t Know Oswald
Before Assassination
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Perry Russo, the “confidential informant”
in Dist. Atty. Jim Garrison’s probe of the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy, told a television interviewer he had
never heard of Lee Harvey Oswald until he was linked with the
presidential assassination.
WDSU-TV of New Orleans broadcast on Tuesday night an interview
it made with Russo shortly after the death of David Ferrie two
weeks ago. Garrison described Ferrie as a central figure in the
assassination probe.
“I never heard of Oswald until on television (after) the
assassination,” Russo said in the interview. He said Ferrie
never mentioned Oswald’s name.
Russo, 25, an insurance salesman now living in Baton Rouge,
told a three-judge state court earlier Tuesday that he heard
Oswald, Clay Shaw and Ferrie plotting to assassinate Kennedy.
Russo also said in the interview that “Ferrie was obsessed with
Kennedy and the idea of what he was doing to Cuba or Castro.”
“Quite frequently he (Ferrie) talked in general terms and not
specifically about Kennedy though about how easy it would be to
assassinate a president of the United States because of the fact
that he was in the public view so much and unprotected more or
less and there was so many people — the availability of exit and
the fact that he (Ferrie) could fly a plane to get out of the
country. And he (Ferrie) jokingly posed the question that if he
and I could do it, it could be done,” Russo said in the
interview.
* * * * * *
Again Jean, you should make it clear that at this time, Russo did not know the real names of these people. He was introduced to Clay Shaw as “Clem Bertrand” and to Oswald as, “Leon”. How was Russo to know who these people really were at the time of these early interviews?
But we DO know those facts NOW don’t we Jean? YOU know these facts. It is disingenuous of you to post this nonsense knowing full well that it misrepresents the truth.
\\][//
But by the time of the interview, he knew perfectly well what Oswald looked like. But he didn’t mention them being there.
Didn’t mention the famous accused assassin!
McAdams,
Russo made it perfectly clear that he didn’t recognize Oswald until he saw him on TV in that very interview. He had known Oswald only as “Leon” up to that moment. And he still hadn’t seen a photo of Clay Shaw at that time, who he only knew as Clem Bertrand. So he could not say anything about a “Clay Shaw” at that time.
You will certainly twist this as you will, nothing other than that is expected at this stage of your game.
\\][//
(Repost from Tippit thread)..
Why don’t you address this point McAdams:
“DCI Helms ordered an ad hoc committee to formulate a strategy—six of CIA’s highest officials comprised this “Garrison Group.”
After all the squattle you laid on me about Marchetti misconstruing what Helms was doing about the Shaw situation, you suddenly have no comment about this further proof that the CIA was having strategy meetings of the highest order on ways to infiltrate and disrupt Garrison’s case.
And don’t try to tell us that is supposition, when that is clearly CIA’s modus operandi when dealing with the opposition.
Why don’t you address the fact of Lt. Edward O’Donnell lying to Perry Russo in front of several witness about a tape recording he did NOT make?
Why don’t you address the issues of substance raised here “professor”?
\\][//
I’ve long had a web page on the “Garrison group.”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
You appear not to have read it.
Basically, the CIA was spinning its wheels. They could come up with no plausible response to Garrison.
Your Garrison group page is incomplete!
Covert CIA agent David Baldwin, hired by Shaw as ITM PR director, circa 1952, was brother-in-law of said CIA paymaster and WDSU council,
Stephen B. Lemann. I’m not finding that in CIA released documents….
So you buffs, who have been shouting “release the document for decades,” don’t believe the documents when they are released.
And you attack the documents when they don’t say things that you believe, but which aren’t true!
Jim Garrison, the KGB, and the CIA
An open letter to Foreign Affairs magazine — by Oliver Stone
The Nation magazine, August 5 /12, 2002
Two important facts from the Paese Sera story remain true:
1. CMC was forced to leave Italy (for Johannesburg, South Africa) in 1962 under a cloud of suspicion about its CIA connections.
2. Clay Shaw was a member of CMC’s board, along with such well-known fascist sympathizers as Gutierrez di Spadaforo, undersecretary of agriculture for Mussolini; Ferenc Nagy, former premier of Hungary, and Giuseppe Zigiotti, president of the Fascist National Association for Militia Arms.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/JGarrison_KGB_CIA_OStone.html
\\][//
You are going to have to post a better source than Oliver Stone on that.
It was the communist press that said that CMC was CIA connected. The Christian Democratic and Social Democratic papers scoffed at that claim.
And most of the people claimed to be “fascist sympathizers” weren’t.
Ferenc Nagy
Nagy documented his life and political career in The Struggle behind the Iron Curtain, published by MacMillan in 1948. In 1959, he was reported to have been the president of Permindex, a trade organization headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.
~Wiki
\\][//
Gutierrez di Spadaforo, a member of the House of Savoy, whence came Umberto, the last of Italy’s kings. Spadaforo, a man of considerable wealth, with extensive holdings in armaments and petroleum, had once been the undersecretary of agriculture for Il Duce, Benito Musolini. Through his daughter-in-law, Spadaforo was related to the famous Nazi minister of finance, Hjalmar Schacht, who had been tried for war crimes in Nuremberg.
http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2011/08/creature-of-cia-centro-commerciale.html
\\][//
One of the major stockholders of the Centro was a Major L.M. Bloomfield, a Montreal resident originally of American nationality and a former agent with the Office of Strategic Services, out of which the United States had formed the C.I.A. (Note: This was significant not only because of his espionage background but because of a curious non-scheduled air trip taken by Clay Shaw and David Ferrie to Bloomfield’s home city of Montreal in early 1961 or 1962; see Chapter 9.)
http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2011/08/creature-of-cia-centro-commerciale.html
Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, the son of Harry Bloomfield, was born in Canada, about 1910. A Zionist, Bloomfield joined the British military and served in Palestine as an Intelligence Officer under General Charles Orde Wingate. Bloomfield was involved in training the Jewish army, Haganah (1936-1939).
President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Office of Strategic Services in 1942. Bloomfield was recruited and given the rank of major. In 1947, the OSS evolved into the Central Intelligence Agency, and Bloomfield continued doing contract work for the new organization. He was a regular visitor to Israel and met the Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion on 4th May, 1949.
A successful lawyer he worked for years at the law firm of Phillips and Vineberg in Montreal. He was also a major stockholder of Permindex, a corporation based in Switzerland. He was also the author on several books on on international law including The British Hondurus Guatemala Dispute (1953) and Egypt, Israel and the Gulf of Aqaba (1957).
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbloomfield.htm
\\][//
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=98349&relPageId=42
You guys have been suckered by Communist propaganda!
So are we to assume that it was pure coincidence that Kennedy was killed on his way to give a speech at the Dallas Trade Mart?
It seems to me that the International Trade Mart plays a central role here.
The New Orleans chapter:
After World War II Shaw helped start the International Trade Mart in New Orleans which facilitated the sales of both domestic and imported goods. He was known locally for his efforts to preserve buildings in New Orleans’ historic French Quarter.
\\][//
“and, in fact, he has never been in Italy.”
~McAdams
How do you know Shaw was never in Italy?!?
He was in Europe during WWII, a major in 1946. He served as secretary to the General Staff.
He was on the Board of Directors of Permindex. He did not need to have personally been in Italy at the time to have had that position.
\\][//
You are kidding, right?
Are you questioning that, or asserting that?
You are correct if you are asserting that. Somebody might accept a position on the Board as an honor or expression of support, and then it turns out that he can’t make the meetings.
But how could he be engaged in spooky activities in Italy if he was not in that country?
“But how could he be engaged in spooky activities in Italy if he was not in that country?” ~McAdams
It was an international operation “professor”, Shaw was involved in spook activities in New Orleans.
\\][//
“You guys have been suckered by Communist propaganda!”
McAdams made this remark after I gave further evidence sources than Oliver Stone concerning Permindex and Major L.M. Bloomfield, Gutierrez di Spadaforo, Ferenc Nagy.
The “professor” rather than acknowledging this information then goes forward with further distraction based squattle, such as contesting whether Clay Shaw was in Italy or not – which has no relevance as to whether Shaw could have been on the board of directors of Permindex.
He also asked if I was serious about my connecting the international nature of the various “Trade Marts”, and noting that JFK was in route to the Dallas Trade Mart when he was murdered in Dealey Plaza.
As a Coincidence Theorist Mr McAdams dismisses connective issues such as these with his arrogant approach to what he seems to consider “debate”. He then will act in mock surprise when those he calls. “conspiracy buffs” react to his taunting with sharp tongues themselves. Going so far as to have the temerity to charge us of making “ad hominem” attacks on his delicate person.
I make note of these issues merely to note that the discussions here can only be as “civil” as the “professor” himself will allow for.
\\][//
Anybody really interested in the Russo claims should realize that when Russo described ” Leon Oswald” he was actually describing Jim Lewallen, Ferrie’s sometime roommate. He was called ” Lee” by others in Ferrie’s crowd and fit Russo’s description, down to the scraggly beard and unkempt disposition.
Everything else that Russo claimed about Shaw and Bertrand was fed to him during his Pentothal session by an inexperienced interviewer.
That is the truth, which a jury came to in less than an hour.
So you do believe that every place called “trade mart” was somehow connected to every other place called “trade mart” and all were sinister.
Shaw’s Trade Mart in New Orleans was not an international organization.
The CMC may have been, but it had no presence in the U.S.
Which proved what?
Certainly not that the CMC was a CIA front.
And certainly not that Shaw had anything to do with the JFK assassination.
“Which proved what?
Certainly not that the CMC was a CIA front.
And certainly not that Shaw had anything to do with the JFK assassination.”~McAdams
Simply background information that you wished to have verified. I verified it.
No it didn’t prove what you are asserting that I asserted. What proved that was the information revealed in the Garrison case against Shaw, and verified time and again as new information has come forth.
Mush of that information is now posted on this very page “professor”, so don’t ask me to reiterate it once again.
\\][//
I’ve long had a web page on the “Garrison group.”
McAdams I have read your propaganda nonsense many times.
You say here, “Basically, the CIA was spinning its wheels. They could come up with no plausible response to Garrison.”
That is because there was no believable response and CIA knew it. Therefore the only strategy that would work would be a full court press in the media, that CIA had and has in their back pocket. They put everything they could into smashing Garrison’s case.
Remember those six high level CIA strategists?
Now to sit there at your keyboard using the same strategies that the CIA used, how do you expect us to believe you are not a spook?
\\][//
Hold on tight to your tin foil hat.
I addressed that on the other thread.
Did you not notice?
O’Donnell was trying to bluff Russo into admitting what he had told O’Donnell. Russo was scared of Garrison and Garrison’s people.
“I addressed that on the other thread.
Did you not notice?
O’Donnell was trying to bluff Russo into admitting what he had told O’Donnell. Russo was scared of Garrison and Garrison’s people.”~McAdams
Of course I noticed it and I answered your comment.
You claim that Russo was afraid of the Garrison people, that is not true. Russo said himself in a videotaped interview that he was afraid of Walter Sheridan and his people, who included Clay Shaw/Bertrand. Sheridan attempted to bribe Russo to change his testimony and offered to move him to California and get him a good job there.
Russo refused. He said also that he was wired with a mic and recorder for that meeting with Sheridan and the whole thing was captured on tape, which he delivered to Garrison after the confrontation with Sheridan.
You know that O’Donnald testified to lying about tape recording Russo in a meeting where only he and Russo were present. You claim that O’Donnald was “bluffing” the grand jury interpreted it as O’Donnald was lying.
\\][//
In other contexts he said he had to stick with his “assassination party” story or else he would be charged with perjury by Garrison’s people.
“In other contexts he said he had to stick with his “assassination party” story or else he would be In other contexts he said he had to stick with his “assassination party” story or else he would be charged with perjury by Garrison’s people.
~McAdams
The “context” Russo said that he would be “In other contexts he said he had to stick with his “assassination party” story or else he would be charged with perjury by Garrison’s people”; was in the context of what he was being told by Walter Sheridan, which were lies__You know this and I know this.
\\][//
Do we know that the CIA even knew of Garrison’s accusation about Lemann?
Garrison was throwing around so many accusations the CIA was having trouble keeping up with them.
Yeah, the CIA knew and they covered it up….the absence of any mention of this little “arrangement” is a strong argument for what I just said….
Edward M. Baldwin, law partner of James F. Quaid, Baldwin representing Sheridan along with WDSU counsel Stephen B. Lemann, happened to be the
brother-in-law of Lemann’s step-sister, Mildred. Mildred was the step-aunt of Columbia Univ. Dean, Nicholas Lemann, and Monte Lemann was father
of Stephen and Thomas Lemann and father-in-law of CIA’s David Baldwin.:
http://jfk.education/images/WilliamMartinMay24.jpg
Begging the question again.
You think this fellow is a spook, therefore the CIA should have mentioned him, therefore the failure to mention him is spooky.
Circular logic.
“For example: is it a “coincidence” that the Northeast is now getting a huge snowstorm?”
This is an example of John McAdams’ very flawed reasoning. Note that he, a global warming denier, likes to, Inhofe-Style, throw snowballs as “proof” that global warming isn’t happening, but he misses the larger context of what we know, which is that the greenhouse effect is both driving average global temperatures up, AND making for an new environment of more intense rain and snow events, such as the current blizzard. Note also that the Northeast has had consistently warmer autumns, later first frosts, earlier thaws in spring, and you see someone glibly missing the larger point for the tiny details. This is how he argues the JFK case too. He picks over the minutia but doesn’t have the broad perspective to see the larger political things that were happening, the alliances being made, as Talbot and others point out, isolating Kennedy and allowing for an assassination coup to take place. The only way he can try to win is to isolate tiny details in someone like Bill Simpich’s or Cyril Wecht’s arguments, and launch a full bore, cherry picking, Inhoff-style snowball stunt to try to discredit them.
Interesting that you are obsessed with “global warming.”
But my point was that it is a coincidence. Pretty much everything is a coincidence, if you take a broad enough view.
“Pretty much everything is a coincidence, if you take a broad enough view.”~McAdams
Yes, this is “Coincidence theory” full blown and steeped in tepid naïveté and crass denial of facts proving conspiracy.
\\][//
Russo, however, said Sheridan “was not investigating any facts. His only purpose was – and he stated it pointedly – he said, ‘I’m going to take Garrison out of this.’ He says, ‘You’re going down with him.’”
Russo said that Sheridan offered to relocate him, get him a job, and protect him from extradition. In exchange for that, Russo said, Sheridan wanted him to retract his identification of Shaw and his testimony about the party attended by Shaw, Ferrie, and Oswald, where Russo said an assassination plot was discussed.
“What Walter Sheridan was asking me to do was an absolute lie,” Russo said. “Shaw was there. Ferrie was there. Oswald was there.”~Russo
No comment, aye “professor”?
\\][//
Not what he told Sciambra in Baton Rouge.
You really need to look at how often Russo changed his story:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/willing.htm
“Not what he told Sciambra in Baton Rouge.”
~McAdams
Yes it is what he told Sciambra in Baton Rouge, this has now been established beyond the shadow of a doubt.
“Professor”, you and your Warrenista comrades are so far behind the curve now you will never catch up.
There is information about Permindex and Shaw lurking on the web that you have never encountered – and when you do you will have nothing to counter with – the connections between Permindex – Intellegence – and Clay Shaw are soundly found in the record.
I am just giving you a warning right now, but these things will be revealed here on JFKfacts at some time in the near future.
\\][//
“Correct. He was bluffing, trying to get Russo to admit to what he had told him.”~McAdams
You don’t know that is wasn’t Lt. Edward O’Donnell that was lying about what Russo said to him when they were alone.
Here you have O’Donnell clearly lying about the tape recording, and you characterize that as “bluffing”.
Perry Russo in his video taped testimony said that it wasn’t Garrison he was afraid of, that it was Walter Sheridan and his people, including Shaw that he was afraid of.
There is a very good chance that O’Donnell was one of Sheridan’s people.
\\][//
“Pretty much everything is a coincidence, if you take a broad enough view.”
That’s the opposite extreme of “pretty much everything is a conspiracy”. You do realize that, don’t you?
I take a more nuanced position. Some things are coincidence, some things are the result of actions taken by others. The trick is to keep an open mind and let the facts fall as they may. I do that with global warming, with cigarette studies, and with the JFK assassination. I don’t rush to the denialist position, nor do I screen out “inconvenient truths” to borrow from Al Gore.
Grand Jury Questioning of William Gurvich:
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr/grandjury/pdf/Gurvich2.pdf
This is most interesting, I think it shows the duplicity of this character Gurvich. He has nothing of substance to offer in his charges that Garrison did anything unethical or illegal, and he will NOT state anything for the record under oath here to validate those public charges he had made.
\\][//
The Case of Jim Garrison Versus the Free Press
by Tamara Naccarato
“Yet, the criticism which Stone and the movie have recently undergone suggest that the press is still highly critical of Jim Garrison. Indeed, the Times’ article, which begins with a discussion of the movie JFK, immediately moves on to discuss the theories of a communist and a mafia conspiracy. The article labels Garrison’s government conspiracy as the “most bizarre” and points out that critics argue that it is a “paranoid vision of America, one in which a fascist elite murdered the president.”~Tamara Naccarato
http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1991-2/documents/TheCaseofJimGarrisonVersustheFreePress.pdf
\\][//
ORLEANS PARISH GRAND JURY
PROCEEDINGS OF
MARCH 22, 1967
PRESENT:
MESSRS. ALVIN V. OSER AND JAMES ALCOCK
Assistant District Attorneys
[JIM GARRISON, District Attorney]
MEMBERS OF THE ORLEANS PARISH GRAND JURY
WITNESS:
PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO
[…]
Q. This man you were introduced to, called Shaw, how were you introduced to him?
A. Well, Ferrie introduced me to everybody — Shaw was sitting there — he might have said something like, Perry Russo is a student, and all that stuff, right down the line, and this is so-and-so . . .
Q. What did he call Shaw?
A. Well, he called him Clem Bertrand.
Q. Clem Bertrand?
A. Clem Bertrand.
Q. At any time did you know the person you now know as Shaw — did you know him as any other name, other than Clem Bertrand?
A. Not until March 1.
Q. Until the day of his arrest?
A. Well, Andy [Sciambra] told me his real name.
[…]
http://www.jfk-online.com/russo3221.html
\\][//
This testimony was after Russo had been questioned under Sodium Pentothal and hypnosis.
Interesting that you folks simply won’t deal with early versions of his testimony.
Dr. McAdams,
If your claims are reliable, it follows that Lou Ivon and Sciambra blatantly lied, and are you saying
the information in this reproduction of the text of the search warrant was obtained “under hypnosis.”:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Clark%20Ramsey%20Statements%20On%20Shaw/Item%2001.pdf
I know this is “your line” and you’ve created so many Urls displaying details to support it that you’ve successfully rendered first page google search results almost exclusively to your take on this, but to a reasonable person it is still a far fetched scenario. In Dallas, four years before, and although they “lost”
the alleged perp while in their custody, the Dallas Police and DA’s office were jam packed with altar boys,
but over in NOLA, pinocchios were too numerous to count in the NODA’s office, the police department, and of course,
Judge Haggerty was a rubber stamp for the pinnochios. Phelan, Sheridan, and Aynesworth, and the people paying
them were the real heroes…. got it!
You cannot admit (grasp?) that you lose all of your self ascribed authority to tar anyone as a buff!
The first version of the “assassination party” story was when Russo was under Sodium Pentothal.
The full-fledged version, with Shaw and others actually talking about a plot, only emerged under hypnosis.
Please read the following:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/willing.htm
“This testimony was after Russo had been questioned under Sodium Pentothal and hypnosis.”~McAdams
There is no such thing as “Truth Serums”, it is an overblown myth of spy movies. Lie detectors are in the same realm as far as reliability. And the Warrenistas will argue these obvious points when it is to their advantage to do so; like if it is posited that a stress analysis test vindicated Oswald as telling the truth when he said he didn’t kill anybody.
Sodium Pentothal is a drug which is commonly used in operating rooms as general anesthesia, though in recent years it has been largely replaced by better alternatives. Sodium Pentothal generally just makes the subject high and carefree in attitude.
So making a big deal out of this is like all the rest of the nonsense we get from these CIA fans.
As far as hypnosis; unless you have experienced being hypnotized yourself you likely have very little understanding of what it is like. I have been hypnotized and it is nothing like presented on TV and in the movies.
\\][//
That’s the point. What he said when subjected to Sodium Pentothal was not any sort of reliable testimony.
According to Dr. Edwin A. Weinstein of the Washington School of Psychiatry:
“That’s the point. What he said when subjected to Sodium Pentothal was not any sort of reliable testimony.”~McAdams
No that is NOT the point. The point is that the administration of Sodium Pentothal is moot one way or the other.
Russo made his claims before the administration of the drug, before lie detector tests, and then reiterated his claims later as well.
He also accused Walter Sheridan of attempting to bribe him, he was wired with a mic and recorder at the time and Garrison has that bribe on tape although he never made it public.
Sheridan was CIA, Helms had a six man high level strategy teem working on smashing Garrison’s case against Shaw/Bertrand
Gurvich, Phelan, and O’Donnell were proven to be liars in testimonies given to the N.O. Parish Grand Jury.
Your entire propaganda agenda has collapsed in like a house of cards in a tornado of revelations. You are washed up McAdams. Your entire case against Garrison has been proven to be a fabric of lies.
\\][//
But it isn’t moot. Under Sodium Pentothal or hypnosis, subjects are extremely suggestible.
Which means any testimony elicited in that way is vastly unreliable.
The more you are cornered on the evidence, the more irate and abusive you become.
[Moeved from Tippit thread]>>
Willy Whitten
January 24, 2016 at 11:35 pm
BY MR. ALCOCK:
Q Did you make a tape recording of this interview with Perry Russo?
A No.
Q When you were in the District Attorney’s office in the presence of Mr. Barnes, Mr. Russo and Jim Garrison and Mr. Sciambra, did you repeatedly tell Perry Russo that you had made a tape of it?
A I asked him if he would like to hear a tape play-back of our conversation because at that time Perry Russo had denied that he ever told me that Clay Shaw was not at Dave Ferrie’s apartment, and I told Perry Russo at that time “Would you like to hear a tape of our conversation” in an effort to reenforce Perry Russo into admitting the truth, not admitting the truth, but admitting to what he told me when I interviewed him, and then I was in your office on that occasion Perry Russo had done a double take and denied that he ever told me this.
Q Did you repeatedly say that you had a tape recording of this conversation and he asked you “Let me hear the tape”?
A I asked him if he would like to hear the tape, and I don’t have any tape. In fact, Mr. Sciambra asked me the same question –excuse me, before I left your office that afternoon, I told Mr. Sciambra I did not have any tapes.
Q Why did you keep asking Mr. Russo if he wanted to hear the tapes?
A I don’t know how many times I asked him.
Q Why did you keep asking him that if you didn’t have any tape?
A I just explained why.
Q But you had no tape. Is that correct?
A That is correct.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/O-Donnell.txt
. . . .
Now here we have LT. Edward O’Donnell lying to Perry Russo in front of several witness about a tape recording he did NOT make of the interview that was only attended by Russo and himself. Wherein Russo denied saying that he told the officer that he had not actually been at the party with Clay Shaw/Bertrand.
And now we are expected to believe this officer who clearly lied to these people, rather than believe Russo. This in view of the fact that Garrison’s investigation was under attack by the authorities; established on many fronts on this thread.
My question to Mr McAdams is, when will this spinning BS on your part come to an end here?
\\][//
Why do I get the distinct impression that JFK isn’t ancient history… that there is a continuing operation to protect the truth from coming out still in progress.
I wouldn’t have believed that before. But it’s looking more and more like reality.
Bogman,
Since the advent of the Internet and especially the latest developments in what is termed “Social Media”, literally legions of ‘Keyboard Psyche Warriors’ have been fielded by the “Homeland Security State”.
Simply looking into Cass Sunstein and his book on countering “conspiracy theories” will give you some indication of the critical important the State sees in this propaganda venture. Sunstein’s work is a literal playbook for “Cognitive Infiltration” if you read it you will see the familiar tactics used here on this very forum.
See:
http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theories-Other-Dangerous-Ideas/dp/1476726620
\\][//
Thanks, Willy. I’ll check it out.
I did have one strange occurrence on the DailyKos site of all places. After reading “JFK and the Unspeakable” I got inspired to post a summary of its contents around the anniversary of the assassination. Went away for a day and came back to find someone had somehow put the word “Hoax” as my first tag. I had not and, supposedly, no one else could have.
Bogman,
I think there might actually be a PDF of Sunstein’s book, but I don’t have the time to look for it at the moment…
\\][//
The first time I posted on this site I kept waiting on my post to be deleted as I wrote it.
I kept looking out the window down my driveway, about 200 yards, waiting for a black suv to pull up into it.
You are kidding, right?
On this board, one really can’t tell.
“I kept looking out the window down my driveway, about 200 yards, waiting for a black suv to pull up into it.”~Ronnie Wayne
“You are kidding, right?
On this board, one really can’t tell.”~McAdams
It’s not as funny as you might imagine “professor” – such things are no joke.
\\][//
I’ve found that mainstream liberal blogs and websites tend to be very scornful of JFK skepticism — and, for that matter, scornful of JFK himself. I wouldn’t expect a warm welcome from sites like Daily Kos or Democratic Underground. Some of this, I think, comes from sheer ignorance about the case and reluctance to be associated with “those conspiracy people.” But a lot of it is due to the scorn heaped on JFK by prominent left-wing writers like I.F. Stone, Noam Chomsky, Alex Cockburn, Chris Hitchens, and numerous others. They did a lot to muddy JFK’s reputation and make liberals more reluctant to defend his legacy.
The one exception to the rule, thanks to the great David Talbot, is Salon.
To my surprise, I have found what you say to be exactly the case as well.
J.D. and Bogman,
Scorn for so-called “Conspiracy Theory” is obviously an ‘equal opportunity’ proposition concerning both the Left and Right spectrum.
This is where familiarity with the Hegelian Dialectic is beneficial: Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis.
Or as some state it; “Problem/Reaction/Solution.
It generates a synthetic sociopolitical reality based on “Popular Myth” avoiding the true architecture of political power.
Some familiarity with Hegel’s Utopian Idealism may be in order to fully grasp the agenda of the dialect as put forth. In a nutshell; Hegel believed that the State was the manifestation of the Will of God on Earth as played out by the human psyche.
Thus total ‘Statism’ is the goal of the Hegelian game-plan.
\\][//
THE CIA AND THE CULT OF INTELLIGENCE
by Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, Introduction
by Melvin L. Wulf
© 1974, 1980, by Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks
AND YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH, AND THE
TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.—John, VIII: 32
(inscribed on the marble wall of the main lobby
http://cryptocomb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/The-CIA-and-the-Cult-of-Intelligence.pdf
\\][//
“give a man a mask and he’ll tell you the truth.”~Oscar Wilde
“He took a face from the ancient gallery and walked down the hall.”~Jim Morrison
In December 1973, former CIA officer Victor Marchetti went public with information that fanned the embers. Marchetti, executive assistant to the Deputy Director of CIA before his 1969 resignation, had been present at several high‑level meetings in which DCI Helms expressed sympathy for Shaw’s predicament. Marchetti overheard Helms instructing General Counsel Houston to help Shaw, consistent with the Agency’s interests. Marchetti aired this information shortly before publishing his 1974 exposé.
\\][//
You are going to need to supply an exact quote of what Helms actually said.
The one quote from Marchetti I can verify is this:
I think the buffs are interpreting the “give them help” to mean give the Shaw defense help. But a more reasonable interpretation is to give help to the New Orleans CIA office.
This is especially true given what we know about the “Garrison group” that was trying to figure out ways to counter Garrison.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
Here is another part of Marchetti’s account:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shawcia.htm
In other words, Marchetti was explicitly told that Shaw talked to the DCS, and the relationship had bee “cut off a long time ago.”
So you have to badly distort Marchetti to make him a pro-Garrison witness.
“I think the buffs are interpreting the “give them help” to mean give the Shaw defense help. But a more reasonable interpretation is to give help to the New Orleans CIA office.”~McAdams
Like you yourself admit, documents and testimonials can be interpreted in different ways depending on ones point of view.
My point of view is aligned with Marchetti’s point of view:
“There exists in our nation today a powerful and dangerous secret cult—the cult of intelligence. Its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency. Its patrons and protectors are the highest officials of the federal government. Its membership, extending far beyond governmental circles, reaches into the power centers of industry, commerce, finance, and labor. Its friends are many in the areas of important public influence—the academic world and the communications media. The cult of intelligence is a secret fraternity of the American political aristocracy.”~Victor Marchetti & John Marks
— THE CIA AND THE CULT OF INTELLIGENCE
\\][//
But what you quoted does not in the slightest contradict what I quoted Marchetti saying: that he was told, in the inner circles of the CIA, that Shaw had talked to the Domestic Contact Service, and that the relationship had ended long ago.
“But what you quoted does not in the slightest contradict what I quoted Marchetti saying”
~McAdams
I was not contradicting what Marchetti saying, I am pointing out that what he was saying isn’t necessarily the truth, but that there are deeper layers…that is why I quoted the section from The Cult of Intelligence.
Do you really not get that the CIA is founded in deceit? Can you truly be so naïve?
\\][//
John, do you still have “student” workers?
You were first citing him as saying that Helms admitted that Shaw was a CIA spook.
Are you now admitting that Marchetti did not say that?
But only said that he was told that Shaw was a contact with the DCS, long past?
“I can’t read the first image, and the second and third are simply claims from Garrison himself.”~McAdams
The first one is from Alvin Oser to Garrison. It tells of a Fair Play for Cuba meeting at Edward Reissman’s house, which in fact was owned by Kloepfer.
It also has information that Stephen Lemann was the person spreading CIA money around to those attempting to disrupt Garrison’s investigation of Clay Bertrand/Shaw.
\\][//
Why, Willy, how are you able to read the doc images, are you using the CTRL key on your keyboard, and perhaps, the
plus (+) key, or on a windows machine, clicking the right mouse key while your cursor is over the doc image, and then
selecting “view” from the pop-up menu? I have one of those new-fangled touch screens, so I guess I’m spoiled by the
ease it permits in making smaller images larger for these tired ole eyes.
“Willy, how are you able to read the doc images.”
~Tom
Very simple, I put the image into an email, there I can enlarge the image as far as it will go without blurring out.
After you have pasted an image into an email box, all you have to do is click on it and it will give you point marks at each corner, which you can grab and pull to enlarge the image.
\\][//
Where is that? I don’t see any such thing.
Outline the part you think shows that and post it.
I can blow the image up in any of six or eight applications I have on my machine.
That doesn’t help the resolution. It just makes the blur bigger.
But I don’t see anything that looks like “Stephen Lemann.”
See page 3, item 12, for the relevant info presented earlier in the images you having difficulty reading.:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Reissman%20Leonard%20Dr/Item%2002.pdf
Thanks to Leslie for finding the link.
The first document image presented in my comment, here: https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-852016
….is dated May 5, 1967, and displays a handwritten notation in the upper right hand
corner describing the identical file name as the file name heading the document at the
link I provided to the Weisberg archive, early in this comment.
But that’s just the Garrison memo we have already seen.
Garrison cites “information given us” without any indication as to the source of the information.
You should know that Garrison was a sucker for any piece of “evidence” that any crackpot produced that he found congenial.
It follows, then, that I am a “sucker,” too? We shall see…. the lowly comments editor of an undistinguished website
purporting to determine “the facts,” vs. a Harvard PhD, Marquette Associate Prof. of Political Science, along with the
Dean Emeritus of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, author of a late 1991 article appearing in GQ
Magazine.:
You are correct about one thing, Dr. McAdams, the smart money is betting on the two professors, but can even they answer this
question, how many coincidences would be too many? A homicide detective would have answer with a lower number than your anticipated answer of “an infinite number,” is not too many coincidences.
Depends on how one defines a “coincidence,” and how large the sample of events you are surveying.
For example: is it a “coincidence” that the Northeast is now getting a huge snowstorm?
“But a more reasonable interpretation is to give help to the New Orleans CIA office.”~McAdams
Who was the head of the New Orleans CIA office Mr McAdams?
\\][//
Let me guess: you think it was Clay Shaw.
“Let me guess: you think it was Clay Shaw.”
~McAdams
No that is not what I think “professor”.
You’re supposed to be the “Answer Man” here!
Who was the head of the New Orleans CIA office Mr McAdams?
\\][//
McAdams,
Stephen B. Lemann was resident CIA Chief in New Orleans at the time:
…
A Record from Mary’s Database
Record:
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Sources:
New Orleans Telephone Directory for 1963; Gaudet files
Mary’s
Comments:
See: Wm. P. Burke, Jr.; Hunter C. Leake, III; Stephen B. Lemann (resident CIA Chief in New Orleans – with Law Firm: Monroe & Lemann); Mrs. Dorothy Brandao
https://www.maryferrell.org/php/marysdb.php?id=2166&search=lemann
\\][//
Willy,
Stephen B. Lemann was only the uncle of the author of the 1992 GQ “hit piece” article published to coincide with the
release of the movie, “JFK” on December 21, 1991, Nicholas Lemann, currently Dean Emeritus of the Columbia University
Graduate School of Journalism, so possibly Dr. McAdams, who abhors “connections” when it suits him, does not quite
understand your point of displaying that particular link to and text from Mary Ferrell’s index files.
I’ll let Jim Garrison himself, give support to the “factoids” from that index card in Mary’s files.:
On June 18, 1967, just 2-1/2 months after the March 1st arrest of Clay Shaw, the entire text of NODA Jim Garrison’s
six page complaint letter to FCC Chairman Rosel H. Hyde was “featured” (on page 20) and it happened to include this,
in the last page of the complaint letter.:
And:
Now, Dr. McAdams can interject William Sheridan’s long relationship with RFK and Sen. Ted, and dump heaps of scorn on
authors Mellen and DiEugenio, as well as on the contents of their books, ask repeatedly what could anyone possible see as controversial about Nicholas Lemann or his status as Dean Emeritus of such a prestigious graduate school of journalism,
but how is any of that responsive to the facts?
PDF of ‘The Brass Check” by Upton Sinclair:
https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/hj/sinclairtbc.pdf
The Brass Check is a muckraking exposé of American journalism by Upton Sinclair published in 1919. It focuses mainly on newspapers and the Associated Press wire service, along with a few magazines. Other critiques of the press had appeared, but Sinclair reached a wider audience with his personal fame and lively, provocative writing style.[1] Among those critiqued was William Randolph Hearst, who made routine use of yellow journalism in his widespread newspaper and magazine business.
Sinclair called The Brass Check “the most important and most dangerous book I have ever written.”[2] The University of Illinois Press released a new edition of the book in 2003, which contains a preface by Robert W. McChesney and Ben Scott. The text is also freely available on the Internet, as Sinclair opted not to copyright the text in an effort to maximize its readership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brass_Check
\\][//
“Stephen B. Lemann was only the uncle of the author of the 1992 GQ ‘hit piece’ article published to coincide with the
release of the movie, “JFK” on December 21, 1991.”
Wow… game, set and match.
If Lemann the nephew had been up front about his uncle heading the CIA offices in NO, it might be OK. But then no one would think the article credible either.
Coming out like this, it seems again the invisible hand of the CIA is constantly playing its game on the American citizenry.
Eff them.
That’s not a primary source.
Give me a primary source saying that.
Tom, you are being absurdly slow to get this.
Garrison is not a reliable source.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
You think you can impeach all of Garrison’s critics by quoting Garrison!
Try posting some solid evidence for a change.
Dr. McAdams,
As I already commented, you certainly make up your own rules. Garrison was including in a complaint filed to the Chief of the FCC
that a lawyer closely associated with WDSU was paying other lawyers and had been making payments on behalf of the CIA in the past.
Do you really think he would include those claims in a letter to the FCC chief if he knew them to be untrue or misleading.
How many times do I have to inform you that Garrison’s source was a memo from another of his ADAs, William Martin, dated May 24,
1967. I know your thinking of memos written by ADA Scambria, so what is this questioning of reliability of facts related to
Stephen B. Lemann?
Do I misunderstand your claim, in this other instance? I take it on its face. Details in a memo from a Garrison ADA are gospel! :
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-851875
John Mcadams – Reply to Bogman:
‘That’s silly. The content of the Sciambra Memo makes it clear it was the first interview with Russo, in Baton Rouge.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo2.txthttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo2.txt “
Mr Alcock: Do you recall whether or not Mr. Sciambra told you at the time, that he, upon leaving Baton Rouge, on February 27 reported verbally to Mr Garrison that Perry Russo did in fact tell him about the party or gathering in which the assassination was discussed?
James Phelan: Yes.
Clay Shaw Trial Transcript, 26 Feb 1969 (Testimony of James Phelan)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1305&search=first_and+time#relPageId=62&tab=page
\\][//
Can’t find the actual file but apparently Blakey and Lemann exchanged a couple of letters during the HSCA:
RECORD NUMBER : 180-10077-10431
ORIGINATOR : CITIZEN
FROM : LEMANN, STEPHEN B.
TO : BLAKEY, G. ROBERT
TITLE : [No Title]
DATE : 02/24/1978
PAGES : 3
DOCUMENT TYPE : LETTER
SUBJECTS : OSWALD, LEE, POST-RUSSIAN PERIOD; EMPLOYMENT
CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED
RESTRICTIONS : OPEN IN FULL
CURRENT STATUS : OPEN
DATE OF LAST REVIEW : 06/15/1993
COMMENTS : BOX 116. FOLDER TITLE:
“That’s not a primary source.
Give me a primary source saying that.”~McAdams
. . .
It is obvious on the Mary’s Databas page that the primary source on Stephen B. Lemann (resident CIA Chief in New Orleans – with Law Firm: Monroe & Lemann) is from the Gaudet files:
FBI – HSCA Subject File: William Gaudet
\\][//
That’s what Sciambra said after being confronted with the fact that his memo didn’t mention Russo saying anything about an “assassination party.”
In fact, the memo has Russo saying he saw Shaw two times, neither of which was the assassination party.
You are citing Sciambra’s lame excuse as evidence!
Where is the document? Produce it.
You are really slow catching on about Garrison.
Yes, he would lie. But he would also believe wacky and crazy things. Really believe them.
So you need a real source.
It would be nice if these documents were on a website and consisted of individual linkable
page images.
Update, a link to the highlighted page in the second image, below: (Page 3, #12: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Reissman%20Leonard%20Dr/Item%2002.pdf thanks to Leslie)
These are marked at the bottom as NARA copies. The first page is dated May 5, 1967,
not May 24th, and from ADA Oser to Garrison, not from ADA William Martin…. the second page
displays “the goods” or at least support for what Garrison described in the last page of his
June 18th complaint to FCC. It is undated on the page, itself, and is part of a longer memo
dictated to: “For Reissman File and Lead Files”, but certainly related to the topic Oser initiates. This
question is not entirely relevant to these two pages, but do you think the ADAs did not believe
what they documented in memos they authored? Lawyers are commissioners of the court, and the court
assumes they are not willfully lying in filings or in court appearances. Garrison may be the
biggest liar in the country, but could the ADAs all be, as well? I see you’ve accused Sciambra….
Link to that memo, and let’s see what it says.
I can’t read the first image, and the second and third are simply claims from Garrison himself.
My question to Professor McAdams is this – are you paid salary or hourly to monitor and refute statements on JFK facts?. As you respond at all times of the day and night, I’m hoping for your sake it is an hourly wage. I would also guess you have a database which you use to respond with LN citations, since your replies are very quick indeed.
My question is, and Tm S. or Jeff M. could verify this easily,do they all come from the same IP? Or at least from the same location?
Hey Bart…..
Everybody is where they are supposed to be, from what we know of what they’ve said, or is known about them,
example, employed by a certain University and reside in proximity to it, etc.
We have a saying in “the states,” “this ain’t my first rodeo.”
When I was a mod at the Ed Forum, Bart, and I discovered this, no discussion followed, except one of the admins,
who is still prominent there, questioned my decision to share the IP #’s used to perform the deception.
I thought they would take the fake posters’ posts down, since real names are required there. How do you justify
leaving up posts after it is proven they were sourced from an admitted felon, Lee Israel?:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6437&page=2#entry259631
So…I’m on it, I’m not here to waste my own time or the readers’!
“You were first citing him as saying that Helms admitted that Shaw was a CIA spook.”~McAdams
I did not say anything of the kind. I said, and I quote:
‘In December 1973, former CIA officer Victor Marchetti went public with information that fanned the embers. Marchetti, executive assistant to the Deputy Director of CIA before his 1969 resignation, had been present at several high‑level meetings in which DCI Helms expressed sympathy for Shaw’s predicament. Marchetti overheard Helms instructing General Counsel Houston to help Shaw, consistent with the Agency’s interests. Marchetti aired this information shortly before publishing his 1974 exposé.’
I did not characterize that quote in anyway whatsoever. YOU are the one who has continued to make further quotes by Marchetti on that matter. The only other quote I have made on this thread was from Marchetti’s book ‘Cult of Intelligence’, which I made perfectly clear was a general statement no in anyway linked specifically to the Garrison case against Shaw.
You have set up for yourself a windmill sized straw-man that you are now jousting with like Don Quixote, that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I have said here; except for your own misinterpretations’.
Anyone reading through this thread can verify this for themselves.
\\][//
Since you believe Marshetti on that, do you also believe him when he says he was told that Shaw talked to the DCS (something Garrison might “misinterpret”) and that connection had ended long ago?
McAdams,
This is my last reply to you concerning Marchetti, in which I will reiterate what I have already said about the remarks he conveyed by Helms. I said that I did NOT necessarily believe that those remarks were accurate, that Helms may have said various things about Shaw and his troubles that could be interpreted one way or another and could be lost in translation.
The gist of the matter however is that Helms and the agency were professionally CONCERNED about the Garrison trial.
Now regardless of whether you are willing to admit it or not, Garrison was clearly being bugged, followed and defamed by a concerted agenda. All the data combined proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I refuse to be forced into the mold of gullibility that you yourself pretend to set in. I am simply sick and tired of dealing with your spurious spinning rhetorical game.
You may feign your ‘astonished innocence’ as often as you please, but I am not buying it. And I am not going to let you reframe my own commentary under your false lights.
\\][//
Of course they were. Nothing sinister about that. They even had a “Garrison group” to try to figure out how to deal with him.
Basically, they ended up spinning their wheels.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
Nonsense. “Bugging” was a crackpot claim.
If you believe it, post your evidence.
Same with “followed.”
As for “concerted agenda:” a lot of people quickly concluded that Garrison had no case, and was persecuting an innocent man. So they opposed Garrison.
That’s not spooky.
In fact, it patriotic.
You ought to get a “there is nothing sinister here,” ink stamp, if you don’t have one already.
The discussion here is whether, instead of adhering to statute, i.e. obeying the law, the CIA conducted
domestic “Ops” against Garrison’s investigation, with enthusiastic assistance of major news media, local
and national, many “journalists,” and a small army of attorneys who released themselves from the ethics
governing their professional conduct. Throw in the intrusive conduct, vs. the presumed lack of bias, at worst,
of the FBI and federal district court, and the already irrelevant issue of whether “Garrison had a case,” for
the purpose of discussing what I’ve outlined above, is moot.
How, on earth, can you presume to “know” with such certainty? Your treatment of Sciambra’s memo timinig, vs. his
claims, fits your opinion. You need him to be a liar who ordered a witness to undergo Sodium Pentathol “verification”
of…..what, if the witness had not already made attendance at an “assassination party,” claims, because you need
the arrest of Shaw to be not effected in good faith.
I’ve looked into this, and I stand by what I’ve written. The people who you’ve put your trust in, are not “the stand up
guys” a reasonable person would link to, “there is nothing sinister here”.:
Above is a quote from Aynesworth’s boss, Newsweek’s EIC, Osborne Elliott. The CIA was tasked with briefing and reporting
to the president on intelligence matters and operating covertly outside the U.S. borders. Newsweek, NBC, et al, were
responsible for reporting the news, not making it.
However, as a political science professional of PhD accomplishment, your entire focus is on Clay Shaw’s victimization
at the hands of a depraved, publicity seeking, politically motivated and possibly mentally ill, NODA.
Your reaction and steadfast adherence to it, are predictable of an ostrich, not of a political scientist!
Defendant Shaw had recourse, he was innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt
and was owed due process in the criminal courts. The question that would be expected to be your paramount concern is, what recourse do the American people have, in the face of such a brazen flexing of coordinated, corporatist “muscle,” as descended upon NODA Jim Garrison and his investigation of and attempted prosecution of Clay Shaw?
Translation: I keep pressing you for evidence, and you can’t supply it.
Post your evidence of a “CIA op.”
And get this into your head: mere opposition to Garrison is not evidence of an “op.”
You are assuming that Garrison was a righteous truth seeker, and only evil CIA operatives could possibly oppose him.
But you won’t discuss Garrison’s “evidence.”
Want to talk about Perry Raymond Russo?
If not, why not?
In fact, we know what the CIA was doing. The documents have been released. Go to:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
Go down to:
“The View From Inside the Agency”
Read the damn documents!
You are actually telling me you believe Sciambra’s lame excuse for the fact that his memo about the Baton Rouge interview didn’t mention any “assassination party?”
Russo’s earliest statements in Baton Rouge newspapers (before the Sciambra interview) don’t mention any “assassination party.”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo1.txt
There were three media inverviews in Baton Rouge:
So he wasn’t mentioning any “assassination party” in Baton Rouge.
Then there are several sources for what Sciambra said when he returned from Baton Rouge.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bethell8.htm
Same account, direct from Billings:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/billings.htm
Two questions, why did Garrison permit Billings or Phelan such intimate access to the investigation so early,
and to others in the ensuing two years leading up to the Shaw trial, and why did Phelan not include this in
his Sat. Eve. Post article?
“Translation: I keep pressing you for evidence, and you can’t supply it.”~McAdams
I am writing in English to an English reading public here “professor”, my words need no translation, and they mean exactly what I have said.
You have been supplied plenty of evidence, but you will not accept it as evidence because of your obvious statist biases, and that the facts collapse your faulty position like a house of cards.
\\][//
Garrison probably thought he was really “on the trail of the assassins.”
Why are you omitting the context?
The prior question was:
So this was Sciambra’s excuse for why his memo did not include any “assassination party.”
“Why are you omitting the context?
The prior question was:”~McAdams
. . .
“Professor”, the “context” does not alter the answer to that question in anyway whatsoever. To put the whole testimony in “context”, one would need to read the entire testimony. That is what “QUOTES” are used for in commentary such as this. Using such short quotes, giving the essence of a conversation or testimony is in no way sneaky or dishonest, it is simply a matter of brevity. When a source is given and the link to that source is given, you have no valid complaint.
THIS is the crux of the matter:
“Phelan. Yes.”
Have you read this McAdams? You want context for this whole affair? Here it is:
Grand Jury Questioning of William Gurvich:
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr/grandjury/pdf/Gurvich2.pdf
\\][//
Yes, Phelan heard Sciambra’s lame excuse after Sciambra was confronted with the fact that the Baton Rouge memo had no “assassination party.”
I agree with you Willy. Context doesn’t matter.
Reporter: ” Did you kill the President?”
Oswald: ” No, I have not been charged with that.”
There is no documentation anywhere that Oswald was hard of hearing.Had he been innocent he should have said “no” or ” hell no” or ” absolutely not” or something similar.( If CTers can assume what Oswald SHOULD have done so can I).Despite being cool as a cucumber he still couldn’t give a clear, concise answer to what was a simple question. It was his chance to proclaim his innocence. But he didn’t.
Because he couldn’t -at least to a spur of the moment question.I have seen certain CTers on this site repeatedly claim that if Oswald had shot JFK he would have admitted it-why is not clear to me but the assumption is apparently that a political assassin would want to announce to the world his success. But they never consider admission by omission-as Oswald’s statement actually is. Oswald had no trouble lying-he did it repeatedly during his time as a prisoner of the DPD. Why would an innocent man facing the death penalty need to lie-about ANYTHING?
I think that Robert Oswald was right-Lee was itching to proclaim to the world that he finally was successful at something-but on his own terms and at his own time. ” No, I have not been charged with that” is entirely consistent with that.
Right. He because convinced that the Garrison investigation was a fraud.
“Right. He (Gurvich) because convinced that the Garrison investigation was a fraud.”~McAdams
You are going to misframe this situation involving Gurvich now – even though anybody reading this discussion can go to the testimony itself and see that Gurvich did not have a single proof for any charges he made in public statements about Garrison being unethical or doing anything illegal.
In other words (as you are so fond of saying) Gurvich had been attempting to slur Garrison’s reputation, but did not in fact have anything of substance to cite for making such charges.
This is not a matter of “interpretation” “professor”. Gurvich was asked time and again over pages of testimony transcripts to provide, “ANYTHING” he might think of that would prove the positions he held publicly; and Gurvich had no response. He had “NOTHING”, as the jurors finally ended up remarking.
It becomes crystal clear from both Phelan and Gurvich’s testimonies under oath, that they were part of a concerted campaign to defame Garrison for political reasons, and to provide covert assistance to a guilty man: Clay Shaw aka Clay Bertrand.
Grand Jury Questioning of William Gurvich:
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr/grandjury/pdf/Gurvich2.pdf
\\][//
“I agree with you Willy. Context doesn’t matter.”
~Photon
Again through disingenuous rhetorical BS, you are attempting to say I said something I clearly did not say.
I pointed out to McAdams that his so-called “context” did not alter the answer Phelan gave to the direct question asked of him.
I pointed out the larger context could be gleaned only from reading the entire testimony, and that the so-called “context” that McAdams framed was NOT the real and full context.
So you are using the classic Straw-Man argument to go on and make a spurious case against remarks made by Oswald, and putting your own disingenuous spin on Oswald’s words.
It is in this; these very clear and obvious misframing and rhetorical gamesmanship that proves time and again that you are simply a propagandist for the illegitimate National Security State: an apologist for the criminal enterprise sitting in extra-constitutional power in DC.; you are a collaborator in this criminal enterprise.
\\][//
It only “becomes clear” because you want to believe it.
“It only “becomes clear” because you want to believe it.~McAdams
It is crystal clear to anyone with critical thinking abilities.
Your opinion is steeped in psychological DENIAL.
Whether it is your “true opinion”, or whether it is an appeal to the uninformed by a propagandist is the real question to be found out and answered on these pages.
\\][//
‘Despite being cool as a cucumber he still couldn’t give a clear, concise answer to what was a simple question. It was his chance to proclaim his innocence. But he didn’t.’ — photon
min. 1:52 “I emphatically deny these charges”. — Lee Oswald
Ha, Leslie. This could have been O’s greatest statement, not “I am a Patsy” but, “I emphatically deny these charges”. The words of a lone nut?
I should clarify my statement about journalism above.
I worked as a reporter for a small daily for a couple of years. Reporters do look for interesting angles for their stories, but I think it’s completely unethical for a reporter to deliberately look to discredit someone.
You may be convinced the subject of your story is a monster but that doesn’t mean you should look for it. More often than not, the unexpected happens in stories. Saints can turn out to be sinners and visa versa and everywhere in between.
My editor always told me never to try to slant my story to one side or another. The facts will tell the true story and be that much more powerful to the reader.
Well, Sheridan had worked for the ONI, FBI and NSA in addition to the Justice Department. He could likely call on friends and former co-workers for whatever he needed.
Translation: you have no evidence of any such thing.
He was clearly a loyal Kennedy family retainer and ally.
“He was clearly a loyal Kennedy family retainer and ally.”
~McAdams
Sheridan worked for RFK at one time. Now you are insinuating once a Kennedy employ always a Kennedy employ? That seems to go against the grain of your denying that; “once an intelligence agent or asset always an agent or asset”.
This seems to me a self contradiction philosophical construct “professor”.
\\][//
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
Bad things happened to Bobby Kennedy and his brother Ted. Didn’t they McAdams?
Of course we need not mention their older brother John here do we? No of course not, we all know what happened to him.
Some of those John trusted betrayed him as well.
Of course I doubt if the “Professor” recalls the historical figure Mark Antony. But he was an “honorable man”…like all of McAdams heros, the Dulles bros. Angleton, Johnson, Shackley, Landsdale; people ‘beyond reproach’ like that.
\\][//
But you have no evidence that Sheridan betrayed Bobby.
You simply assume that anybody who opposed Garrison was evil.
The evidence is there. He held a job at the NSA equivalent to that of JJ Angleton at the CIA. The chances they never communicated ? He worked for the FBI and the Office of Naval Intelligence, both of whom had files on Oswald we the people have never seen. Some of which we never will.
Read Destiny Betrayed, pgs. 55-59 for a better perspective.
As far as his loyalty… RFK didn’t meet him until the Mafia hearings in the late 50’s. With his FBI, ONI, NSA, Justice, and yes, CIA connections where did his Loyalty lie?
DiEugenio is a Garrison fanatic. He sees CIA spooks behind every bush, and under every bed.
McAdams is a Warren Commission fanatic, he thinks spooks are honorable men that wouldn’t tell lies or be involved in any shady activities whatsoever.
Heck those guys from Langley would never try to fool anybody! Anybody who thinks that must be a dang Commie!
Gotta admit, you’re a hoot John.
\\][//
And you are a Warren Commission fanatic. You label people as “CTers” and “Buffs” who spout “factoids” at the drop of a hat.
BTW Professor, your comment is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack, something you insist you deplore.
Quoting DiEugenio and Mellen is simply an Appeal to Authority.
But that’s a bogus argument, particularly when the “authorities” cited are not real authorities on a technical matter, but crackpots.
“But that’s a bogus argument, particularly when the “authorities” cited are not real authorities on a technical matter, but crackpots.”~McAdams
So you deny using ad hominem as your mode of argumentation, yet with the next breath call DiEugenio and Mellen “crackpots”.
Quite remarkable “professor”…
\\][//
If citing Joan Mellen is an empty “appeal to authority,” surely the same could be said of John McAdams’s numerous self-promoting links to his own website.
Why should we care what a former associate professor of political science has to say about fingerprints, ballistics, bullet trajectories, or medical evidence?
A cracked pot can’t call the kettle black.
You refute the work of reputable researchers with fluff?
Unfortunately, only time can tell the truth.
I’m pointing out that when somebody is cited as an expert, attacking their claim to disinterested expertise is a legitimate rebuttal.
Make your argument from evidence. Not citing crackpot conspiracy authors.
Mr. McAdams,
When you say make your case from evidence, are you referring to the “evidence” collected by the FBI and the DPD and the CI?
If you are, I am sure you are well aware of the fine job those folks did in 63 and 64.
Remember, it is an open and shut case and the work of one crazed and deranged loner.
“But that’s a bogus argument, particularly when the “authorities” cited are not real authorities on a technical matter, but “CRACKPOTS” (emphasis mine) — John McAdams
Crackpot:
noun
an eccentric or foolish person.
adjective: crackpot
eccentric; impractical.
Fascist
an advocate or follower of fascism.
synonyms: authoritarian, totalitarian, autocrat, extreme right-winger, rightist;
Pig
informal
gorge oneself with food.
“don’t pig out on chips before dinner”
informal
crowd together with other people in disorderly or dirty conditions.
Oh, .John, you’re still fuming over the licking DiEugenio gave you when you debated him on Black Op radio in ’09.
Will you never recover? ; ~ >
Gary Aguilar
January 21, 2016 at 12:50 pm
“Oh, .John, you’re still fuming over the licking DiEugenio gave you when you debated him on Black Op radio in ’09.”
“Will you never recover?”
Gary, could you kindly give me a link for DiEugenio licking John on “Black Op” radio?
I need to hear this for myself.
It appears you continue to buy John Newman’s BS which is also swallowed hook line and sinker by your Mr. DiEugenio.
I fear your prognosis is not good here. But it was still nice speaking with you again.
“Quoting DiEugenio and Mellen is simply an Appeal to Authority.
“But that’s a bogus argument, particularly when the ‘authorities’ cited are not real authorities on a technical matter, but crackpots.”
Yet more ad hominem, John Boy. Poorly written at that. But please keep on posting in this style, it can only have the opposite effect you imagine.
BTW, even if you’re right about everything, and Joan and Jim are wrong about everything (highly unlikely), you’ll never be in their league with regards to writing. They can lay out their arguments in cogent, logical fashion. You inevitably resort to ad hominem attacks and lazy, clumsy attempts at smears. Just like the Roy Cohn Wannabe that you are. And you can’t even do that effectively.
I have to thank Dr. Aguilar for the belly laugh on 1/21 @ 12:50 above. Kudos Sir.
Wow, two CoWs now. Thanks, Tom S. You’re going to make me choose my words and facts as cautiously as I can from here on out!
Bogman,
Your wording succinctly framed the issue as best as I think it can be described, and if, for a change,
we can narrow the discussion in this Comment of the week to precisely what you responded to Dr. McAdams
with, maybe we can enjoy an informative and thought provoking examination that IMO, has much broader
implications for everyone interested enough to visit Jfkfacts.org and read the articles and comments.
This particular string of comments only began yesterday, but already we are informed of deep seated
opinions; authors Mellen and DiEugenio have squandered their reputations and broader reliability,
(See Dr. McAdams at: https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-851260 )
but curiously, (at least to me) Nicholas Lemann has not. He is “sitting pretty” by conventional measures.:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-851213
The major motion picture, JFK, is associated with a release date of December 21, 1991.:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102138/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Is Dr. McAdams’s opinion of authors Mellen and DiEugenio, vs. his lack of concern with regard to Nicholas
Lemann’s well timed Garrison “hit piece” and Lemann more generally, reasonable, considering the facts?
Did the news media do a fair job of reporting the efforts of NODA Jim Garrison and his investigation related to the arrest and prosecution of Clay Shaw and the subsequent attempt to prosecute Shaw for perjury?
I invite you to consider the Shaw trial transcript of the cross-examination of journalist James Phelan.
It is an easy read, despite the pages involved, and IMO, illuminating.:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1305&search=first_and+time#relPageId=59&tab=page
Thanks, Tom. I plan on reading the Phelan transcript tonight.
Can you post a link to what you read?
It’s the link Tom posted, Ronnie:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1305&search=first_and+time#relPageId=59&tab=page
The Shaw trial testimony of Phelan.
Why should I be “concerned” about Lemann?
Are you assuming that anybody who opposed Garrison is suspicious? If so, you are drinking the Dieugenio Kool-Aid.
I distrust Mellen and DiEugenio because the mangle the facts.
You might try posting something that Lemann got wrong.
Can you?
Aside from what Lemann did or did not get wrong, are you ignoring the influences in his life? Perhaps you can bring us up to date when Lemann broke from the mould of “Oswald as the Lone Assassin”, and penned an objective piece on the significance of the Garrison investigation?
A refresher course, John:
John McAdams January 27, 2014 at 7:13 pm Maybe you can explain to me what the point of this document is.
leslie sharp January 28, 2014 at 7:21 pm . . . or are you asking what was the point of the document when it was generated?
leslie sharp January 28, 2014 at 10:36 pm John, I am going to anticipate your response.
The Stephen Lemann referenced in this document was a member of the NO law firm that represented the Whitney family interests in New Orleans, including Whitney Bank. The Whitney’s were original investors in Freeport Sulphur. I recognize that you have vehemently objected to the research presented by Lisa Pease relating to the mineral company, but you cannot disavow that Freeport was operating throughout the Caribbean and Latin America.
The Stephen Lemann family and firm also had affiliations with a company called Avrico – which was in essence United Fruit, i.e. Samuel Zemurray and the Dulles brothers whose board members have included such notables as John Jay McCloy of the Warren Commission and Robert Lehman of Lehman Brothers. Avrico and Whitney Bank have shared a New Orleans address, 228 St. Charles Ave.
This from the United Fruit Historical Society:
After Zemurray retired in 1951, he remained as chairman of the executive committee of United Fruit. In that position it has been said that he had an important role in engineering the overthrow of the government of Guatemala in 1954, after the democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz began expropriating the company’s plantations in order to follow his agrarian reform project. Zemurray led a campaign that portrayed Arbenz as a dangerous Communist ( Read Edward Bernays – my emphasis ) in the American media. Working together with an advertisement company he distributed alarmist propaganda among the press and Congressmen in which he showed Guatemala as a foothold of the Soviet Union in the Western Hemisphere. This campaign was eventually successful, since the CIA sponsored a military coup against Arbenz, in which the rebels used United Fruit boats to transport troops and ammunition. The colonel who led the coup, Carlos Castllo, set back Arbenz labor and agrarian reforms and harshly repressed the opposition. In 1961, United Fruit also provided two ships for the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
(cont.)
(cont.)
Why would you think that UF and Whitney/Freeport Sulphur related attorneys vis a vis Stephen Lemann et al had distanced themselves from these activities by the early 1960’s? and if they had not, is it not interesting to you that Lemann (and through him these same entities) surface in a Garrison document that mentions Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, and through various NO citizens, Clay Shaw? And that in this document, it is evident that Garrison suspected attorney Lemann as a CIA paymaster.
update: R.C. Hill and New Orleans and United Fruit in the Hugh Murray article, and the reminder that Carlos Bringuier was a member of INCA featured speaker November, 1963
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/Third-Fourth%20Decade%20The/Item%2007%2
Aside from what he did or did not get wrong!!
So whether he was factually correct is irrelevant.
If you can’t show that he got his facts wrong, then talking about “influences in his life” is just irrelevant ad hominem.
You think he is “suspicious” just because he disagrees with you.
Dr. McAdams,
That comment of your is priceless. I hope you never forget that it is your reaction to what has been presented
with regard to Nicholas Lemann here in this week’s COW comments, and here:
It could be reasonably argued that discussion here of Nicholas Lemann and his uncle Stephen actually was sown
a year ago, when you made the comment I quoted above.
Bogman picked up the theme and ran with it, a few days ago.:
Comment as you elect to, but I know you know this is not about what you make it out to be. Clay Shaw was arrested on
March 1, and Garrison drafted his complaint letter to the FCC before June 18, 1967, the day the text of it was printed
in the Times-Picayune.
On December 21, 1991, the movie, “JFK” was released. Nicholas Lemann’s “hit piece” on how Jim Garrison embarrassed
the city Nicholas Lemann grew up in and loved, appearing in the January, 1992 issue of GQ magazine was already written.
But Lemann was not done, he rose to an influential position at one of the most prestigious university graduate journalism
departments in the country, despite the absence of any disclaimer in the GQ article, or in the court proceedings I linked to
about the accusations of the interference by his own uncle in the Garrison investigation and prosecution(s).
Garrison described that interference rather specifically in the last page of his six page complaint letter to the FCC,
describing an attorney closely tied to “the station,” WDSU. Lemann is at the center of a much swifter reaction in 1991,
although the reaction (interference in) to the original Garrison investigation in 1967 was impressively swift.
Lemann proceeds from there to live a charmed life, but authors Mellen and DiEugenio are vilified and marginalized.