textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/jfk-echo.xml

<xml><p>From: dona@bilver.uucp (<ent type='PERSON'>Don Allen</ent>)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> Text: Echoes of Conspiracy - INTRO
<info type="Message-ID"> 1991Dec26.194623.19758@bilver.uucp</info>
Date: 26 Dec 91 19:46:23 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - <ent type='GPE'>Winter Park</ent>, FL
Lines: 46</p>

<p>-----------------------------------------------------
<ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> Text file: "Echoes of Conspiracy" INTRO
-----------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>All this continued discussion on <ent type='PERSON'>Oliver Stone</ent>'s movie, "<ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>" has
prompted me to look through my collection of text files and see
what I could find. I found this piece, done by <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> L. <ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent> in
1986, which was on a Conspiracy Sig section of a BBS a few
years back. It's being posted in 4 parts.

I've glanced through it and am presenting it for your perusal,though
I'm *not* making any claims as to it's conclusions. Rather, I leave
it to you, the reader, to judge for yourself whether or not it has
merit.

Comments are welcome, flames to me are in-appropriate as I didn't write
the article. Take it or leave it for what it's worth :-)</p>

<p>File lengths (excluding header,sig and part designation):
---------------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>eoc1.txt - 41392 bytes
eoc2.txt - 40344 bytes
eoc3.txt - 39752 bytes
eoc4.txt - 41050 bytes
-----
162538 bytes - Total </p>

<p>---------------------------------------------------------
Note: Thanks to jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>),
geb@speedy.cs.pitt.edu (<ent type='PERSON'>Gordon Banks</ent>), and acm@ux.acs.umn.edu (Acm) Peter
Kauffner for their lucid comments on this thread. I've enjoyed all
of their postings. </p>

<p>Happy Holidays to all!</p>

<p><ent type='PERSON'>Don</ent></p>

<p>
--
-* <ent type='PERSON'>Don Allen</ent> *- InterNet: dona@bilver.<ent type='ORG'>UUCP</ent> // Amiga..for the best of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 <ent type='ORG'>\X</ent>/ Why use anything else? :-)
<ent type='ORG'>UUCP</ent>: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal <ent type='ORG'>PROMIS</ent>?
/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. <ent type='PERSON'>William Henry</ent> /\/\</p>

<p>From: dona@bilver.uucp (<ent type='PERSON'>Don Allen</ent>)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> Text: Echoes of Conspiracy - <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>1.TXT
<info type="Message-ID"> 1991Dec26.194825.19833@bilver.uucp</info>
Date: 26 Dec 91 19:48:25 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - <ent type='GPE'>Winter Park</ent>, FL
Lines: 626</p>

<p>*<ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>1.TXT*</p>

<p>------BEGIN PART 1/4---------------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY February 28, 1986
Vol. 8, #1 <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> L. <ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent></p>

<p><special>"Reasonable Doubt":</special>
<ent type='PERSON'>Henry Hurt</ent>'s book should be in your local bookstore now, although it did
not reach some of the big chains quickly. The official publication date was
January 27. (Holt Rinehart Winston, 555 pp., $19.95)
I am too close to the case (and to the book) to judge "Reasonable Doubt"
as a whole, rather than by assessing each piece of evidence as new or old, and
each argument as familiar or unfamiliar, persuasive or implausible.
We will see what the reviewers and publicists do with a book which claims
that it is not pushing a specific solution to the mystery of the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assass-ination. So far, I have seen no ads and only the reviews listed below.
Hurt's reluctance to endorse a single solution is particularly under-standable in light of the history of his involvement in the case. Exposure to
the legendary Ed <ent type='PERSON'>Epstein</ent> and then to a volunteered "confession" could make
anyone wary of anybody's solution. The beneficial result of that introduction
is that <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> was very willing to look at the work of critics who could provide
hard facts and careful analysis. Even the jacket copy says nice things about
the <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent>s, and nothing about who killed <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>.
Understandably, <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> is not optimistic about the chances for a resolution:
"The seeds of neglected evidence sown across the landscape in the wake of the
assassination have matured into a jungle of powerful contradictions. Nourished
by solid information, each promising theme contends with other themes. The
entanglement has become so impenetrable that no single theory, no final
answer, can break free to stand unchallenged as a solution...." (P. 429)
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> endorses <ent type='PERSON'>Jim Lesar</ent>'s suggestion of a special unit in the Justice Depart-ment, with specific <ent type='ORG'>Congressional</ent> funding, patterned after the anti-<ent type='NORP'>Nazi</ent>
Office of Special Investigations.
Since I don't think I know who killed <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>, Hurt's approach generally
appeals to me. I think the book does a good job of reflecting the ambiguity of
much of the evidence, and the variety of plausible explanations.</p>

<p><special>A new perspective on the murder of J. D. <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>:</special>
Hurt's most striking new evidence, surprisingly, does go directly to the
question of "who did it" -- but in the <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> case. He does not overemphasize
it, but it is a lead which raises the same kind of basic challenge to the
integrity of the <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> evidence as <ent type='PERSON'>David Lifton</ent>'s work does to the <ent type='GPE'>Bethesda</ent>
evidence.
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> persuaded me that <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> was in <ent type='GPE'>Oak Cliff</ent> an hour after <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> was shot
to take care of some very personal business. <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> talked to a woman who had
an affair with <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>. She thought she was pregnant by <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>; the timing
suggests that she may have just learned this on November 22. This was a
problem not only for <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>, who was married, but also for the woman. She had
recently been reconciled with her ex-husband, who was previously jealous
enough to follow her and <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> around <ent type='GPE'>Oak Cliff</ent> at night.
Hurt's exposition reflects the kind of caution that lawyers would be
expected to encourage. For example, he does not name the woman, whom I will
refer to as <ent type='ORG'><ent type='ORG'>Rosetta</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Stone</ent></ent>. Her name is available to anyone with access to the
HSCA volumes who can ignore a typo in Hurt's footnote and find the <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>
material in Vol. 12. (Or see "<ent type='GPE'>Coverups</ent>," 12/85) Her name has been known to
some critics for years. <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> credits <ent type='PERSON'>Larry Harris</ent> with finding her, prompted
by an anonymous 1968 letter to <ent type='PERSON'>Jim Garrison</ent> which <ent type='PERSON'>Gary Shaw</ent> obtained.
(<ent type='ORG'>Rosetta</ent> was not named in that letter, but described as a waitress who worked
with <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> at Austin's Barbecue.)
It is not clear if <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> believes that he and <ent type='PERSON'>Harris</ent> have discovered why
<ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> was killed, or merely why he was in <ent type='GPE'>Oak Cliff</ent>. He seems persuaded by
other evidence that <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> did not do it.
The jealous husband and <ent type='ORG'>Rosetta</ent> "both deny any knowledge of Tippit's
death other than what is in the official account." (P. 168) <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> does not go
into detail, but I doubt that he accepted Mr. Stone's denial at face value.
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1 -2-</p>

<p> <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> does quote a retired <ent type='ORG'>DPD</ent> officer who "asserted flatly and without
prompting that he believed <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> was killed as a result of a volatile
personal situation involving his lover and her estranged husband. He added,
'It would look like hell for <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> to have been murdered and have it look
like he was screwing around with this woman.... Somebody had to change the
tape.... Somebody had to go to the property room and change those [cartridge]
hulls and put some of Oswald's hulls in there....'" Other <ent type='ORG'>DPD</ent> officers
reportedly share these beliefs.
The book contains a brief discussion of the implications of this account.
"The purpose [of the alteration of evidence], perhaps, would be twofold:
to seal the case against <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> [in the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> case] by showing irrevocably his
capacity for violence and to wrap up the case of Tippit's murder without
disgracing him, his family, and the unborn child. And, of course, there would
be an outpouring of grief [and financial support - <ent type='ORG'>PLH</ent>] for a police comrade
slain by the presidential assassin." (P. 168) I would emphasize that if such
relatively innocent tampering can be confirmed, the question of tampering with
the evidence against <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> in the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> case has to be raised with new intensity.
This area seems ripe for additional investigation, official or unofficial.
For example, what can we now make of the sighting (near the <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> murder
scene) of a license plate number traced back to a friend of <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>, Carl
<ent type='PERSON'>Mather</ent>? (12 HSCA 37) The HSCA apparently failed to reach a conclusion, but if
you ignore the claim that <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was in the car, the story -- and Mather's
nervousness when interviewed by <ent type='PERSON'>Wes Wise</ent> -- might be significant.
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> reviews the familiar evidence on Tippit's problematic presence in
<ent type='GPE'>Oak Cliff</ent>, and the radio instructions which sent him there. He interviewed
R. C. <ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent>, supposedly instructed to go to <ent type='GPE'>Oak Cliff</ent> at the same time, who
seemed puzzled by Hurt's questioning and reluctant to talk. Dispatcher Murray
<ent type='PERSON'>Jackson</ent> "stoutly denied knowledge of any fraudulent manipulation of the tapes
in order to provide an excuse for Tippit's being so far away from his assigned
district at the time of his death," but his account seems unsatisfactory to
me. (Pp. l62-3)
Before I knew about <ent type='ORG'><ent type='ORG'>Rosetta</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Stone</ent></ent>, I argued that the messages in question
didn't sound right. In November 1981, I raised this issue in a letter to Dr.
James <ent type='PERSON'>Barger</ent>. (#1986.1, 2 pp.) If tampering with any of the recordings could
be shown, the timing problem in the acoustical analysis resulting from the
"hold everything secure" crosstalk match might have to be reconsidered.
I suggested that both the tone and wording of two key messages were in
the "formal mode" which one would expect only in important messages -- or in a
later re-creation. "You are in the <ent type='GPE'>Oak Cliff</ent> area, are you not?" seemed
significantly more formal than "What's your location?", "Are you en route to
<ent type='ORG'>Parkland</ent>, 601?", and similar inquiries recorded that day; it resembles "You do
not have the suspect. Is that correct?", where the "formal mode" is expected.
Similarly, "You will be at large for any emergency that comes in" contrasts
with "Remain in downtown area, available for call" and "Stand by there until
we notify you."
This kind of analysis has been of evidentiary value in at least one other
case, involving a tape (released by <ent type='PERSON'>Larry Flynt</ent>) purportedly of a conversation
between <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> De Lorean and <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> informant <ent type='PERSON'>James Hoffman</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Jack Anderson</ent>
reported that psycholinguist <ent type='PERSON'>Murray Miron</ent> was able to establish that the tape
had been faked. (24 May 84, SFC, #1986.2) In addition to the anomalously
unresponsive content of "Hoffman's" remarks, his "speech cadences... 'are
consistent with those to be expected from one who has rehearsed or is reading
from a script.'" <ent type='PERSON'>Anderson</ent> described <ent type='PERSON'>Miron</ent> as a "longtime <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> consultant."
The Justice Department should certainly sponsor that kind of analysis of the
<ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> messages.</p>

<p><special>JFK's physician believes in a conspiracy:</special>
There is a second very provocative piece of new evidence, resulting from
Hurt's 1982 phone call to Adm. <ent type='PERSON'>George Burkley</ent>. He said "that he believed that
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1 -3-</p>

<p>President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy." He
subsequently refused "to discuss any aspect of the case." (P. 49)
As JFK's personal physician, and the only doctor present at <ent type='ORG'>Parkland</ent> and
the <ent type='GPE'>Bethesda</ent> autopsy, <ent type='ORG'>Burkley</ent> was in an especially crucial position. He did
not testify to <ent type='ORG'>the <ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent></ent> (which published his contemporaneous
report containing basically no medical details, CE 1126.) He did give five
interviews to <ent type='PERSON'>William Manchester</ent> (the last one in July, 1966). <ent type='PERSON'>Manchester</ent>
recently told me that <ent type='ORG'>Burkley</ent> did not then believe there had been a conspi-racy. However, <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> notes that in a 1967 oral history interview, <ent type='ORG'>Burkley</ent> was
asked if he agreed with <ent type='ORG'>the <ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent></ent> on the number of bullets that
hit <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>; he replied, "I would not care to be quoted on that." The HSCA
interviewed <ent type='ORG'>Burkley</ent> at least once, generating in addition an outside contact
report and an affidavit -- all unpublished and unavailable.
Along with the <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> evidence, the <ent type='ORG'>Burkley</ent> assertion of conspiracy calls
for intense examination by the Justice Department and, I hope, by some
reporters. (For my letters to Assistant AG <ent type='PERSON'>Stephen Trott</ent>, ask for #1986.3
[1 Feb 86, on <ent type='ORG'>Burkley</ent>] and #4 [2 pp., 4 Feb 86, on <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>].)
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> devotes only a few pages in a "grab bag" chapter to Lifton's thesis,
but there is some interesting speculation in an area where <ent type='ORG'>Burkley</ent> might know
crucial facts. (Incidentally, much of the "classical" critique of the single
bullet theory and other aspects of the medical and physical evidence in Hurt's
earlier chapters seems obsolete. The <ent type='ORG'>SBT</ent> is implausible but supported by a
surprising amount of HSCA evidence; if it is wrong, tampering on a <ent type='ORG'>Lifton</ent>esque
scale must have taken place, and we need to either pursue Lifton's argument or
come up with another scenario. Studying the flaws in the official inves-tigations is not likely to produce progress in this area.)
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> concludes that "<ent type='ORG'>Lifton</ent> builds a powerful case" that JFK's body was
separated from the ceremonial motorcade, and that his "evidence is equally
strong on the point that <special>something</special> happened to the wounds on the body between
<ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Bethesda</ent>. However, his sinister interpretation of what might have
happened does not have the strong supportive evidence found for his basic
points." (P. 427)
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> suggests that "<ent type='ORG'>the Secret Service</ent> and other powerful elements in the
government might have felt an overwhelming necessity to examine the body for
evidence at the soonest possible moment," given fears of a conspiracy. "It
does not seem unreasonable that these circumstances could have coalesced into
an overriding concern for national security that demanded the President's body
be placed on an autopsy table as soon as humanly possible -- without awaiting
the folderol of transporting the body through the streets with the family and
public at hand. Moreover, it does not seem unreasonable that certain security
people in the government were appalled that the official autopsy was going to
be conducted at the whim of the family and by <ent type='ORG'>Navy</ent> brass with pitifully little
experience in forensic pathology."
When I saw this speculation in Hurt's draft of this section, it struck me
as plausible and well worth pursuing. The perspective of people who realized
that the body might provide conclusive evidence of a conspiracy should be
taken into account (and I don't think it generally has been).
Certainly an "innocent national security autopsy" does not explain away
Lifton's evidence indicating changes to the wounds, and <ent type='ORG'>Lifton</ent> can discourse
at great length (and with considerable persuasiveness) against such a hypo-thesis, which I raised with him in general terms long ago.
At the very least, however, Hurt's analysis might lead us to new infor-mation about what key people really think happened to JFK's body before the
<ent type='GPE'>Bethesda</ent> autopsy. I have assumed for years that there must be some expla-nation going around in official and family circles, and I was surprised that
none surfaced after "<ent type='ORG'>Best Evidence</ent>" was published.
Hurt's manuscript led me to check the record on the authorization of the
autopsy. Is it possible, I wonder, that the record significantly minimizes
Jacqueline Kennedy's opposition to an autopsy? If the opposition was very
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1 -4-</p>

<p>strong or more prolonged than is generally assumed, I have no trouble
believing that someone decided to go ahead with an "inspection" regardless.
Burkley's own account noted that, while kneeling before <ent type='PERSON'>Jackie</ent>, he
"expressed [the] complete desire of all of us and especially of myself to
comply with her wishes, stating that it was necessary that the President be
taken to a hospital prior to going to the <ent type='ORG'>White House</ent>. She questioned why and
I stated it must be determined, if possible, the type of bullet used and
compare this with future material found." (CE 1126, p.6) This makes more
sense if you insert a few words: "her wishes to go directly to the White
<ent type='ORG'>House</ent>, but stating...." In his oral history interview, <ent type='ORG'>Burkley</ent> said that
Jackie's decision to go to <ent type='GPE'>Bethesda</ent> was arrived at "after some consideration,"
which might mean it took a while to convince her.
It is not unfair to read Burkley's comments critically, with the
suspicion that he was minimizing Jackie's reluctance to authorize an autopsy
or even his own knowledge of alternative plans. As late as the 1967 oral
history interview, he took the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> family line on JFK's adrenal and back
problems, describing <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> as an "essentially normal, healthy male," with above-average "vigor and vitality."
Kenneth O'<ent type='PERSON'>Don</ent>nell testified that "we didn't tell her [<ent type='PERSON'>Jackie</ent>] there was
to be an autopsy." (7 WCH 454-5) Evidently the matter was discussed with her
in terms of going to a hospital to remove bullets.
Restrictions during the <ent type='GPE'>Bethesda</ent> autopsy have been dealt with in some
detail by both <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>Lifton</ent>. The HSCA did not publish anything about
earlier restrictions -- e.g., Jackie's resistance to the whole idea of even a
limited effort to remove the bullets. The HSCA may well have gathered
relevant evidence.
One reason Hurt's hypothesis appeals to me is that concern for Jackie's
feelings -- since her wishes were essentially bypassed -- might explain why
there was no quasi-official detailed rebuttal to Lifton's book. I would be
glad to share more of my thoughts on this hypothesis with reporters or anyone
else in a position to work on it.</p>

<p><special>More highlights of "Reasonable Doubt":</special>
The chapters on <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>New Orleans</ent> and on the questions relating to
intelligence agencies are particularly good.
Neither <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> nor its case against the <ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent> gets a lot of attention.
I generally like Hurt's analysis of <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent>, but I am not impressed by his
treatment of <ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>.
The detailed citations, including many to unpublished <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>
documents, add to the value of the book as an overview. There are also many
references to Hurt's own interviews.
Some interesting hypotheses were already familiar to me (and some got to
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> through me), but I'm particularly pleased to see them in wider circulation.
For example, <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> explores the idea that <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was (or thought he was)
working on behalf of Sen. Thomas Dodd's investigation of mail-order firearm
sales. This was suggested by <ent type='PERSON'>Sylvia Meagher</ent> ("Accessories," p. 194) and
pursued in detail by <ent type='PERSON'>Fred Newcomb</ent>. It might explain Oswald's peculiar weapons
purchases. (P. 300 ff.)
In this context, <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> also reports some of my old analysis of a Klein's
Sporting Goods ad in Oswald's possessions, torn from a magazine which was
found in <ent type='PERSON'>Adrian Alba</ent>'s garage -- after a mysterious stranger, claiming to be a
friend of Alba's, showed up on the morning of November 23rd to "borrow" some
magazines. (P. 297)
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> also reports <ent type='PERSON'>Larry Haapanen</ent>'s observations on the official concern
about Commie influence in the <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> civil rights drive, and its possible
relevance to Oswald's alleged presence there. (See 3 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 7, pp. 3-5.)
The book also includes quite a few interesting points which were
completely new to me. For example:
A <ent type='ORG'>Naval Intelligence</ent> officer at <ent type='ORG'>the Moscow Embassy</ent> says he thought that
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1 -5-</p>

<p><ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was being handled for the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> by someone in the Naval Attache's office.
(P. 243)
There is some new information from Hurt's old interviews (for "Legend")
of some of Oswald's Marine associates. One such person told <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> that he had
been recruited for intelligence work when he left the <ent type='NORP'>Marines</ent>. (P. 243)
SA Vince Drain believes the palmprint on the rifle was faked. (P. 109)
There is a more-plausible-than-most story of a telephone warning by <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent>
to Billy <ent type='PERSON'>Grammer</ent> of the <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> Police. <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> notes that if <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent> was really
under <ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent> pressure to kill <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, it would make sense for him to try to
abort the transfer with such a phone call. (P. 407)
A technical examination done for <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> suggested that the curbstone at the
location of the Tague shot may well have been patched. (P. 138)
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> interviewed alleged <ent type='PERSON'>Marcello</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent> associate <ent type='PERSON'>Harold Tannenbaum</ent>,
who was not as dead as <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> thought. He denied any <ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent> connections.
(P. 180)
<ent type='PERSON'>Billy Joe Lord</ent>, who shared Oswald's cabin on the boat to Europe, added
little of substance about <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, but told of a peculiar interest in him by
someone in <ent type='GPE'>France</ent>. <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> suggests this could have been a <ent type='ORG'>KGB</ent> check to see if
U.S. intelligence was talking to people who had been associated with <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>.
(P. 207)
<ent type='PERSON'>Louise Latham</ent> of the <ent type='GPE'>Texas</ent> employment office made some odd comments,
suggesting that she sent <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> out for a job more than once. <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> seems
suspicious of her husband's "post office" career. (P. 221)
<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> Hurt's widow told <ent type='PERSON'>Henry Hurt</ent> that he had admitted being drunk and
trying to call <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> in jail. (This should take care of that story.)
(Pp. 244-5; cf. 2 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 7, p.5)
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> speculates that the KGB's interest in the <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>s may have been to
establish <ent type='ORG'>Marina</ent> as a sleeper agent. (Might that explain the allegedly
anomalous friendship between the <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>s and the DeMohrenschildts?) (P. 240)</p>

<p><special>And now for something completely different:</special>
It's... Chapter 12, "The Confession of <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Easterling</ent>."
At least, I think it's completely different.
I find Easterling's story too incredible to be worth summarizing here.
Whenever I hear about meetings involving the speaker, <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Ferrie</ent>,
and <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent>, I reach for my skepticism. In fact, any story involving Clay <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent>
starts with two strikes against it. <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> makes a point of the alleged
uniqueness of Easterling's claim of direct involvement (pp. 348-9), but what
strikes me is the similarity of so many elements in his story to others we
have heard over the years.
I do not believe Easterling's story has anything like the same level of
plausibility as even the most speculative allegations elsewhere in the book.
My impression is that this chapter fails to reflect the critical judgment
which <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> applied to the more familiar evidence in other chapters.
The chapter both starts and ends with descriptions of <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> as a
psychotic, alcoholic, violent criminal. A long footnote (p. 351) describes
aspects of his "confession" as "flagrantly preposterous" and delusional.
Certainly <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> can't be accused of hiding all the flaws in Easterling's story.
Some of Hurt's justification for devoting a chapter to <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> is mild
enough. He grants that "By any standard, [he] is a terribly sullied witness."
However, "in the absence of a full revelation of facts by government agencies,
it would be irresponsible not to present Easterling's story." (P. 383) As a
reader, I would have settled for an appendix or a long footnote.
Fortunately, Easterling's name does not appear outside this one chapter.
But this confession is what got <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> into his own research on the case, as he
explains in the introduction. (P. 7) It must have colored his approach to
the evidence he later encountered. His personal experience in dealing with
the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> on this matter certainly contributed to his very negative evaluation
of the official investigations of the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> case. That is, <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> learned that
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1 -6-</p>

<p>Easterling's was definitely not the best of the conspiracy allegations which
were not taken seriously.
The publisher's handout (#5, 5 pp.) does devote a paragraph to "the most
shocking revelation of all" in the book, alleging that "<ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> presents...
a convincing case that he could have been involved with a group that murdered
the president." As is all too common in a publisher's supplementary material,
the other specifics mentioned in this handout fail to reflect the general
coherence and scope of the book. They include some familiar questions which
the book does not claim to answer. (For example, why did <ent type='PERSON'>Humes</ent> burn his
notes? The book just reviews the old evidence; <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> called Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Humes</ent> about
Lifton's book, but he would not discuss details. [Pp. 42, 427]. Similarly,
"what government official permitted [Souetre's] deportation?" See p. 419;
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> doesn't seem to know.) Unfortunately, this handout may discourage
reviewers from focusing on the important new information.
It would be disappointing if many readers and reviewers dismiss the whole
book because of this one chapter. On the other hand, if any official
investigators, or many reviewers or <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> readers, seem to be taking <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent>
seriously, I will be glad to jump into any debate on the details.
One structural problem is that the bad <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> story has the same
relationship to the rest of the book as the good story about Mr. &amp; Mrs.
<ent type='ORG'><ent type='ORG'>Rosetta</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Stone</ent></ent> does to the <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> chapter: each appears towards the end, each
is fairly heavily qualified (and many readers won't be able to tell how much
of the caution is <special>pro forma</special>), and there is not the detailed followup or
evaluation of the new material that I would like.
Disclaimers aside, there are signs that <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> has taken <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> very
seriously at some point. (Some of his language suggests that his conclusions
were rewritten and somewhat weakened.) For example, "In the end, [his]
claims... could not be substantiated to the point that no doubts about the
veracity of his confession remained." (Intro, p. 8-9) The chapter itself has
a slightly less disturbing formulation: "In the final analysis it is not
possible to prove that the <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> confession is true." I think it is
possible to conclude, from Hurt's presentation, that the confession is false.
Hurt's fallback justification is more defensible, although I do not agree with
it: "However, it is possible to show that there is, at least, every reason
for the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> to investigate Easterling's leads vigorously." (P. 389)
Another example of hedging which gives Easterling's account more support
than it deserves: "A careful reading of Easterling's account cannot lead to
any certain conclusion as to who killed <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> F. <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>. It is perhaps
significant, however, that when one considers those who may have wanted
<ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> dead -- <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> exiles, <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Fidel</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent></ent>, fanatical right-wing oil men,
renegade elements of the intelligence services, the mob -- they all play roles
in this remarkable story." (P. 390) I would turn this observation around:
almost all the plotters in the most popular conspiracy theories play roles in
Easterling's account.
Unfortunately, the section of this chapter entitled "A Final Assessment"
includes a recounting of some of the familiar old evidence which allows <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>
not to dismiss <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> entirely, but which in fact supports any number of
conspiracy theories. The existence of such evidence is indeed crucial to a
final assessment, but only in combination with a very skeptical approach to
<ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent>.
My guess is that Easterling's alcohol-soaked brain became incapable of
distinguishing between what he remembered happening to him, and what he had
heard about the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> case. I wonder if a psychiatrist familiar with the crim-inally insane would tell us that this particular kind of delusion is common.
In any case, the omission of a professional psychiatric opinion of
Easterling's story, by someone familiar with the kind of details on the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>
case which have been publicized, is a conspicuous deficiency in this chapter.
As noted in my comments on Blakey's book, there may well be no signif-icance to a claim by <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>ny <ent type='PERSON'>Roselli</ent></ent> that he "knew" there was a shot from the
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1 -7-</p>

<p>grassy knoll. (3 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3, p. 3) I have no trouble believing that <ent type='PERSON'>Roselli</ent> or
some member of his family (or Family) heard <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Lane</ent>'s lecture (if not
Garrison's scenario) and was convinced. (Everyone has heard <ent type='PERSON'>Lane</ent>, it seems.)
Admittedly, it is a little harder to picture <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> in a public library,
reading "Accessories After the Fact." Still, anyone living in <ent type='ORG'>Baton Rouge</ent> at
the time of the <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> investigation would be exposed to a regular flow of
details about the mysteries of the case. (P. 379)
I think the most likely explanation for <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> is not simply a hoax
but a basically genuine delusion, supplemented by the prospect of financial or
other benefits.
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> says that, if Easterling's confession is a hoax, "then there is a
fascinating story to be told about such an extraordinary scheme." (P. 351)
True enough, and even if it is a delusion which <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> himself never
understood, there should be an interesting story about how and why <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> (and
the Reader's <ent type='ORG'>Digest</ent>) took it seriously enough to pursue.
<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> does not discuss the Digest's original interest in the project, or
its decision not to publish the book. (See 6 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 2, p. 6.) <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> told me
that the new editor-in-chief was not completely persuaded that the thrust of
the book was correct. In fact, the book does not identify <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> or the two men
to whom the book is dedicated as Reader's <ent type='ORG'>Digest</ent> employees. (Why, the reader
might wonder, was <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> doing interviews for Epstein's "Legend"? [P. 7]) Was
the <ent type='ORG'>Digest</ent> ready to publish the <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> story in one of the three excerpts
which were to appear starting in the June 1984 issue, using more of the
confession and fewer of the doubts? There may well be a story buried here.
Although it is hard to take the confession seriously enough to really
worry about its impact if the <ent type='ORG'>Digest</ent> had endorsed it, any allegations
involving <ent type='PERSON'>Fidel</ent> or <ent type='PERSON'>Raul Castro</ent> have a potential for serious mischief.
In 1974, the brother of Easterling's original <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> contact showed him photos of
material "apparently... exhibited in <ent type='PERSON'>Raul Castro</ent>'s den." (Pp. 380-1) This
included photos of <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Ferrie</ent>, and <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent>/Banister, with
X's over the faces of the deceased and a question mark for <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent>. Oh,
and also the <ent type='NORP'>Czech</ent> rifle which had been used, mounted, with a plaque reading
"<ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> 1963." The best I can say about this fantasy is that <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent>
might have thought -- if he was thinking at all -- that the Reader's <ent type='ORG'>Digest</ent>
wanted to hear it.
I have many specific objections to Hurt's analysis. For example, he has
the same problem as <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> with the claim that <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> was associating with
<ent type='PERSON'>David Ferrie</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>. The stories (of <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent>, and of the <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent>
witnesses) are much more plausible if it was <ent type='PERSON'>Guy Banister</ent>, not <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent>. The HSCA
wrote around the witness-credibility problem, concluding that <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> had been
seen with "<ent type='PERSON'>Ferrie</ent>, if not Clay <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent>." (HSCAR 145) Similarly, <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> talks
about <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> being with <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent> and the man he believed was Clay <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent>. (Why
not "<ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> and the man he believed was Jack <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent>"?) (Pp. 363, 381)
If I had any reason to find Easterling's story credible in the first
place, I would do a thorough search of published sources to see where similar
elements appear. For example, <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> notes that Easterling's claim to have
driven <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> from <ent type='GPE'>New Orleans</ent> to <ent type='GPE'>Houston</ent> fills in a gap in the official
account of his travels. I would start by testing the hypothesis that <ent type='LOC'>East</ent>er-ling read about this problem. I certainly would not treat this as "perhaps the
most significant point of confirmation for Easterling's story." (P. 369)
Likewise, what about the coincidence between Easterling's claim that he
was to wait for <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Monterrey</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent>, and the allegation by <ent type='PERSON'>Don</ent>ald
Norton that he delivered $50000 to "<ent type='PERSON'>Harvey Lee</ent>" in that city? (RD, p. 367;
<ent type='PERSON'>Brener</ent>, "The <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> Case," p. 195) Or the similarity between Easterling's
firing test (with coconuts!) and a test-firing scene at the beginning of
"Executive Action" (the book, if not the movie)?
Not surprisingly, the points which <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> could even try to verify had
little direct connection to the assassination. Discovering (even with
difficulty) that there was a fire like one <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> described does nothing
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1 -8-</p>

<p>to support his claim that he was picking up <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> nearby. The story of Igor
Vaganov (Esquire, 8/67) is a useful reminder that there were many odd things
going on in <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> in November 1963 which had nothing to do with the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>
assassination.
<ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> may well have been up to something, perhaps criminal, perhaps
with some <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent>s. Even it if could be established that he knew <ent type='PERSON'>Ferrie</ent> or some
other person who has been named in the assassination controversy, which
in itself would not be unusual, the odds would still be high that his
"confession" was nothing but a delusion.</p>

<p><special>Reviews of "Reasonable Doubt":</special>
6. 22 Nov 85 (Pub Wkly) Brief and mostly favorable. "The prose is a
bit breathless at times," but "the components of [the] mystery are laid out
with notable clarity." The theory of a "<ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> conspiracy" involving an <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>
impostor "does not seem so outlandish after [<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>] produces a likely candidate
[<ent type='PERSON'>Thomas Eli Davis</ent>, I suppose] and a witness whose testimony, though 'terribly
sullied,' provides an abundance of plausible detail."
7. 23 Feb 86 (<ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent> Book Review) "<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> and others?" asks reviewer Adam
<ent type='ORG'>Clymer</ent>, a veteran reporter who is now an assistant to <ent type='PERSON'>Abe Rosenthal</ent>. A fairly
short and quite positive review of Hurt's "compelling yet fundamentally calm
analysis." <ent type='ORG'>Clymer</ent> likes Hurt's critical analysis but non-conspiratorial
evaluation of the old investigations. "Original research is not what commends
this book," and the reviewer mentions none, except for the "psychotic drifter"
<ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent>. He endorses the book's least credulous comments on that story:
"<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> does not take this source as a touchstone. Instead, he argues that Mr.
Easterling's story ought to be given official attention."</p>

<p><special>More details about <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent>:</special>
"The <ent type='PERSON'>Lobster</ent>" has reprinted almost all of the Afterword from the U.S.
paperback edition of <ent type='PERSON'>Tony Summers</ent>' "Conspiracy." <ent type='PERSON'>Summers</ent> reported significant
progress in his search for <ent type='PERSON'>Maurice</ent> Bishop, and prepared additional information
for articles in <ent type='ORG'>the London Observer</ent>. "Unfortunately," notes <ent type='PERSON'>Steve Dorril</ent>,
"owing to continuing legal difficulties with <ent type='PERSON'>David Phillips</ent>, they were never
officially published. Much of the material appears now in [the] Afterword and
the following notes (which are the responsibility of The <ent type='PERSON'>Lobster</ent>.)" [#1986.8,
4 pp., from issue #10; the Afterword alone was previously listed as #1981.314]
Dorril's notes include much information which seems to come from a good
HSCA source, if not from <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>'s <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent> City staff report (which, <ent type='PERSON'>Summers</ent>
revealed in 1983, he had "had sight of"; see 6 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1, p. 1). For example:
"We understand that the [HSCA] confirmed that [journalist <ent type='PERSON'>Hal</ent>] <ent type='PERSON'>Hendrix</ent> was a
<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> contract agent."
"A number of <ent type='PERSON'>Phillips</ent>' colleagues... have indicated that the <ent type='PERSON'>Phillips</ent>/
'Bishop' identity 'holds water.' They include the Naval Attache in <ent type='GPE'>Cuba</ent>."
Incidentally, <ent type='PERSON'>Gary Mack</ent> reports that <ent type='PERSON'>Phillips</ent> has threatened to sue <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>.
(<ent type='GPE'>Coverups</ent>, 12/85) So perhaps I should emphasize that, whether or not <ent type='PERSON'>Phillips</ent>
was Bishop, I am not inclined to believe <ent type='PERSON'>Antonio</ent> Veciana's story that he saw
him with <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>.
<ent type='PERSON'>Dorril</ent> gives the real names of "<ent type='PERSON'>Ron Cross</ent>," "B. H.," and "<ent type='PERSON'>Doug Gupton</ent>."
"<ent type='ORG'>Cross</ent>" allegedly helped set up the <ent type='ORG'>DRE</ent> (but not Bringuier's N.O. chapter).
The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> man in charge of surveillance of the <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> consulate in <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent>
City recently was the director of <ent type='ORG'>the Berlitz School</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Madrid</ent>. (On Oswald's
alleged contact with <ent type='ORG'>Berlitz</ent>, see "<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>New Orleans</ent>," pp. 344 and 348,
and "Conspiracy," p. 318.)
"In a long memorandum or manuscript [Winston] <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> refers to 'a photo of
<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>.' Three <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> officers claim to have seen it [the memo? the photo?]
whilst two others claim to have heard of it." <ent type='PERSON'>Phillip Agee</ent> is among the five,
all named. (I'll pass up the opportunity to list unfamiliar people here. Any
reporter who wants to make a test case out of those <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> names is welcome to do
so. I hear that "The <ent type='PERSON'>Lobster</ent>" is developing a reputation in the U.K. for
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1 -9-</p>

<p>naming sensitive names.)
A named <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> officer "is believed to have told an untruth to <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>"
about the 1 Oct 63 photo of the mystery man. The 10 Oct 63 teletype to <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>
headquarters about this "was, in fact, doctored, according to evidence devel-oped by <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> investigators." (This sounds like what Counsel <ent type='GPE'>Sprague</ent> was
going on about in 1977; I have still seen no evidence to support this claim.)
<ent type='PERSON'>Virginia Prewett</ent>, a journalist whom <ent type='PERSON'>Summers</ent> found from a clue provided by
Veciana, "was a <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> asset handled by <ent type='PERSON'>Phillips</ent>." The five <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> "disinformation
agents" in <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent> City (four run by <ent type='PERSON'>Phillips</ent>) and two other agents of <ent type='PERSON'>Phillips</ent>
are named by "The <ent type='PERSON'>Lobster</ent>."
This is clearly very important material, but I'm rating it only two stars
as a reminder to be careful: just the fact that <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> staff believed it
and it got locked up for fifty years doesn't make it all true.
In the case of <ent type='PERSON'>Phillips</ent>-as-Bishop, at least, there is evidence that some
<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> people were trying to mislead <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>. As with the <ent type='PERSON'>Nosenko</ent> case, the
HSCA may have bumped into issues of great sensitivity inside the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, where
selected facts were passed around for the purpose of making one faction or the
other look bad. (For example, one can be skeptical of the account of <ent type='PERSON'>Angleton</ent>
making off with a photo of <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>.)
Although I am inclined to trust <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> staffers who specialized in the
<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> investigation, I have many problems with what I know about the unpublished
and published investigation in other areas, and I know that some HSCA sources
doubt some conclusions of the <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent> City staff report.</p>

<p><special><ent type='PERSON'>Jim Garrison</ent> -- on the bench and off the wall:</special>
In October 1985, <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> told <ent type='PERSON'>Ted Gandolfo</ent> that he was working on a new
book, entitled "A Farewell to Justice." He said that "there is no question in
my mind that it is the absolute and ultimate truth down to the last detail
about the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> assassination," but that he can not get a publisher "because
they are controlled by the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>." (This is from the first issue of Gandolfo's
newsletter, "Assassination U.S.A." Write him at 1214 First Ave., NYC 10021,
or ask me for information.)
<ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> sent a long letter to <ent type='PERSON'>Louis Sproesser</ent>, a <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent> who inquired about
this book. [#9, 30 Dec 85, 3 pp.] The book is "completed" and being
considered by a publisher. <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> has been working on it for four years.
Garrison's rhetoric has not softened over the years, and I'll be very
surprised if his critical attention to the facts has improved.
Judge <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> asserts (on <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent> of Appeal stationery) that "Anyone who
wishes to understand the assassination, must appreciate at the outset that the
deep involvement of the <ent type='ORG'>Agency</ent> in the President's assassination requires that
it give the maximum reinforcement to the two major false sponsors which it has
created: <ent type='ORG'>Organized Crime</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Fidel</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent></ent>.... If the author [of a book] so
much as infers that <ent type='ORG'>Organized Crime</ent> or <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> were behind what so plainly was
an <special><ent type='ORG'>Agency</ent> project</special>.... then one has in his hand the typical product of one of
the Agency's stable of hungry scribes."
<ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> also disputes allegations that <ent type='ORG'>Organized Crime</ent> is behind him.
"While I lay no pretense to being the epitome of virtue, with regard to
connections with organized crime I think that you can safely place me as
having approximately the same such connections as <ent type='PERSON'>Mother Theresa</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>." Obviously the CIA's disinformation machinery is at work, he says.
(Is <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> dropping a hint about various popes? And this "<ent type='PERSON'>Mother Theresa</ent>,"
usually known as "<ent type='PERSON'>Teresa</ent>" -- is she related to Vinnie <ent type='PERSON'>Teresa</ent>?)
In particular, <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> complains that a recent book "by a dashing
Englishman (one of the Agency's more accommodating prostitutes) refers to 'a
secret meeting'" between <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>John Rosselli</ent>. "The 'author's'
complicity in this attempted discreditation is underscored by his having had
the book published without ever troubling to learn that I have never even seen
<ent type='PERSON'>John Rosselli</ent> in my life..."
The reference is to p. 498 of "Conspiracy," by <ent type='PERSON'>Tony Summers</ent> (who is,
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1 -10-</p>

<p>indeed, sort of dashing), which accurately asserts that the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> found such a
meeting "particularly disturbing." <ent type='PERSON'>Summers</ent> quotes (but does not cite) an HSCA
staff report by <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Flanagan</ent>, which in turn refers to an unpublished page of
the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> Inspector General's Report. The allegation of a <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent>-Rosselli
meeting also appears on page 118 of the IG Report, which is published. (See
10 HSCA 190-1 (note 55), 4 HSCA 146-7.)
As usual, there is a trace of validity in Garrison's complaint. The IG
Report is obviously not an unimpeachable source, even if endorsed by an HSCA
staffer. But Garrison's overall certitude doesn't seem to need much anchoring
to reality.
Hurt's book includes a rather good discussion of the <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> affair, and
of the subtleties of the interactions between <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent>, the real <ent type='GPE'>New Orleans</ent>
evidence about <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, and the vulnerability of Clay <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> due to his
apparently irrelevant <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> links and homosexuality.
If any of you want to spring to Garrison's defense, here is my $64
question: at the time he arrested Clay <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent>, what serious evidence did he
have that he had in fact conspired with anyone to kill <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>?</p>

<p> <special>Subscription information:</special> There were only 3 issues of <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> last year.
The mimimum rate for a paid subscription is $0.05 per page plus postage, or
$1.96 for 1985 in the U.S. and <ent type='GPE'>Canada</ent>. For postage to Europe, add $0.48 per
issue; to <ent type='GPE'>Australia</ent>, $0.60. Payment must be in U.S. currency; please make any
checks payable to me, not to <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>.</p>

<p> <special>Credits:</special> Thanks to S. <ent type='PERSON'>Dorril</ent> (#8), G. Hollingsworth (67), H. <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> (5),
R. Ranftel (7), and L. <ent type='ORG'>Sproesser</ent> (9).</p>

<p><special>More press coverage of Hurt's book:</special>
The following items arrived as this issue was being completed. They are
from <ent type='ORG'>the Chicago</ent> <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>-Times, 9 Feb 86. (Thanks to J. <ent type='PERSON'>Gordon</ent>.)
10. "Who killed <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>? Not <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, book claims" [2 pp., with a big
page-one headline] Apparently based on an interview of <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> by <ent type='PERSON'>William Hines</ent>.
<ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> "had ample reason to want <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> dead, <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> said.... Revenge was
clearly Castro's motive to mount a counter-assassination campaign, and
organized crime in the U.S. was his avenue of attack." A <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> quote is
singled out for emphasis in large type: "My feeling is that some combination
of <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> interests and organized crime in this country pulled off the
assassination. How they did it, I don't know."
Is that reasonable? I doubt it. The book doesn't allege that, much less
make a case for it. Even if <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> was in control of Cubela, <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> concluded,
"that does not yield a clear answer to the ultimate question of whether <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>,
as a desperate act of self-preservation, brought about the assassination.
Today, all that can be said is that whatever his connection, if any, <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> was
better served than any other leader in the world by [JFK's] death." (P. 345)
<ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent> involvement in a <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> plot has been advanced from time to time,
notably by <ent type='PERSON'>Roselli</ent> and by <ent type='PERSON'>George Crile</ent> (who focused on the <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>-Trafficante
relationship; 5 HSCA 308-11). In their book, <ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> &amp; <ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent> rejected this
theory, "because all the reasons that militated against Castro's striking at
<ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> by himself could be applied to his doing it in conjunction with
gangsters." (P. 156) They also made the first of many obvious counter-arguments: that <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, "a known leftist, pointed squarely at <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>."
11. "A Startling Confession" [3 pp.] A long article by Jim Quinlan.
"According to <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>, the center of this historical storm was <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Easter</ent>-ling...." Except for a reference to Easterling's mental state, this article
applies no critical judgment to his account.
12. A photo of <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>, and a sidebar on his secluded office in Redeye, Va.
13. Photos accompanying #11. [3 pp., routine]</p>

<p>*From Illumi-Net BBS - (404) 377-1141* [ Don's note: I doubt this BBS is
still up ].</p>

<p>---END-----------------------------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>--
-* <ent type='PERSON'>Don Allen</ent> *- InterNet: dona@bilver.<ent type='ORG'>UUCP</ent> // Amiga..for the best of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 <ent type='ORG'>\X</ent>/ Why use anything else? :-)
<ent type='ORG'>UUCP</ent>: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal <ent type='ORG'>PROMIS</ent>?
/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. <ent type='PERSON'>William Henry</ent> /\/\</p>

<p>From: dona@bilver.uucp (<ent type='PERSON'>Don Allen</ent>)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> Text: Echoes of Conspiracy - <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>2.TXT
<info type="Message-ID"> 1991Dec26.194933.19897@bilver.uucp</info>
Date: 26 Dec 91 19:49:33 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - <ent type='GPE'>Winter Park</ent>, FL
Lines: 617</p>

<p>*<ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>2.TXT*</p>

<p>-----BEGIN PART 2/4-----------------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY July 17, 1986
Vol. 8, #2 <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> L. <ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent></p>

<p><special>Quotation of the day:</special>
"An interesting theory can always outrun a set of facts," according to
psychologist A. <ent type='EVENT'>Holliday</ent>, at a 1959 conference on LSD therapy chaired by Dr.
<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> consultant and "opinion leader."
From "Acid Dreams: The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, LSD, and the Sixties Rebellion," a new book
by <ent type='PERSON'>Martin</ent> A. <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Bruce Shlain</ent> (Grove, $12.95). A fascinating social
history, particularly the chapters on the CIA's early interest in LSD.
("Funny and irreverent" - WP)
There are a few references to <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> and Robert <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>, but nothing new on
the <ent type='PERSON'>Mary Pinchot Meyer</ent> story. If people like Meyer's friend <ent type='PERSON'>Angleton</ent> knew of
her dabbling in drugs with <ent type='PERSON'>Leary</ent> and apparently with <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>, did it matter? I
wonder, but the book avoids speculation along such lines. There is no mention
of "Did <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> Harvey <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> Drop Acid?," the article co-authored by ex-AIB'er
<ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent>. (5 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1, p. 4) (#1986.14: Publisher's press release, consisting of
advance comments by <ent type='PERSON'>Ginsberg</ent>, Stockwell, Krassner, et al.)</p>

<p><special>Forthcoming TV coverage:</special>
In November, <ent type='ORG'>Showtime</ent> will present four hours of "<ent type='ORG'>The Trial</ent> of LHO," with
<ent type='PERSON'>Vincent Bugliosi</ent> for the prosecution and <ent type='PERSON'>Jerry Spence</ent> for the defense. (Ed
Bark, DMN, 21 Jun 86, reprinted in <ent type='GPE'>Coverups</ent>, 6/86 [#15].) An earlier report
by <ent type='PERSON'>Jerry Rose</ent> identifies the producers as <ent type='ORG'>London Weekend Television</ent>. (See
2 3D 3.21; that is, The Third Decade, Vol. 2, #3 [Mar 1986], p. 21) Although
there are risks in having lawyers present the case, this should a good show.</p>

<p><special>The 22nd anniversary:</special>
16. 22 Nov 85 (<ent type='GPE'>Fredericksburg</ent>, VA "Free Lance-Star") "<ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> questions
persist" A summary of what has and hasn't happened since <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> report, by
guest columnist (and <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent>) <ent type='PERSON'>Harry Nash</ent>. "The simple fact is that Justice, like
many agencies of government over the years, would like for the question to go
away. If you think the reason is just 'bureaucratic', think again. The
murders [of <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>MLK</ent>] did not occur in a vacuum. <ent type='PERSON'>William Faulkner</ent> (in
another context) said it best: 'The past isn't dead; it isn't even past.'"
This is the only anniversary article I recall which dealt with the
ongoing controversy over the assassination. Were there others? (I have the
original version of the widely publicized account of how the WC damaged the
<ent type='PERSON'>Hoover</ent>-<ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> relationship; it should be in the next <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>.)</p>

<p><special>The <ent type='PERSON'>RFK</ent> case:</special>
17. 5 Mar 86 (LA Herald-Examiner) "<ent type='PERSON'>RFK</ent> slaying report lacks all the
facts" [2 p.] Quotes <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Schrade</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Greg Stone</ent>, who said that "what is
important is the 97% of material which remains withheld." The commission
asked Mayor <ent type='PERSON'>Bradley</ent> to form a committee to develop standards and a schedule
for release of the remaining material. This advisory panel has been set up.
People interested in encouraging fuller disclosure should get in touch
with <ent type='ORG'>Stone</ent> or <ent type='PERSON'>Phil Melanson</ent>. There is much concern about the processing of
the remaining material. The summary report itself costs $150 ($0.10/page!)
plus postage, and is probably not worth it. For earlier coverage of the
release process, see 7 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3, p. 1.
18. 5 Mar (<ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent>) "Summary of Report Released...." "Critics said the
commission's report contained nothing that was not published in [Robert
Houghton's] 1970 book...." <ent type='ORG'>Stone</ent> tells me that it is worse than that;
published information has now been deleted.
19. 5 Mar 86 (<ent type='ORG'>LAT</ent>) "Summary of Police Probe Says <ent type='PERSON'>Sirhan</ent> Acted Alone"
[3 pp.] Page one, but hardly news. "Release of the 1500-page summary [on
March 4] did little to mollify critics...." <ent type='PERSON'>Schrade</ent> accused the police
commissioners of "arrogance" and challenged Chief <ent type='PERSON'>Gates</ent> to explain the
trajectory of the bullet which struck him.
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 2 -2-</p>

<p> 20. 5 Mar (SFX) "<ent type='PERSON'>RFK</ent> murder probe is 'a P.R. gesture,' victim
complains" [2 pp.] Also quotes Prof. <ent type='PERSON'>Melanson</ent>.
21. 4 Mar [25 pp.] Partial transcript of the board meeting, including
comments by critics.
Other March 5 reports, mostly from wire services: #22, <ent type='ORG'>USA Today</ent>
(incomplete copy); #23, AP; #24, Hartford Courant; #25, SFC (from <ent type='ORG'>LAT</ent>),
[2 pp.]; #26, Detroit News.
27. 6 Mar (LAHE) Editorial, "A call for public disclosure"
28. 9 Mar (Dubin, Phila. <ent type='ORG'>Inquirer</ent>) "<ent type='PERSON'>RFK</ent> summary sharpens demands for
all files" [2 pp.] A rather good summary, including comments from <ent type='ORG'>Stone</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Schrade</ent> (whose doctor called it "crazy to think that <ent type='PERSON'>Sirhan</ent> acted alone").
29. 16 Mar (Providence Journal) "Assassination and gun control: <ent type='PERSON'>RFK</ent>
report puts spotlight on protection of president" [3 pp.] Primarily an
interview of <ent type='PERSON'>Melanson</ent>.
30. 28 Mar (<ent type='ORG'>LAT</ent>) "<ent type='PERSON'>Sirhan</ent> Denied Parole; Crime's '<ent type='ORG'>Enormity</ent>' Cited"
A staff psychiatrist described him as "generally rehabilitated."</p>

<p><special>"Reasonable Doubt":</special>
31. 20 Apr 86 (<ent type='ORG'>Boston Herald</ent>) "JFK's death: Let's find the truth"
An op-ed piece by <ent type='PERSON'>Henry Hurt</ent>, directed at Boston <ent type='ORG'>Congressional</ent> candidate
<ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> P. <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>. "The bond of silence that began with Robert <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> has
remained inviolate. Indeed, the members of this illustrious family are among
a tiny minority of <ent type='NORP'>Americans</ent> who have not vigorously debated this important
issue.... In a recent profile of Joe <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> in <ent type='ORG'>Life Magazine</ent>, he is quoted
as saying that it is time for his campaign 'to take the initiative on
something.'... If Joe <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> fully accepts the simplistic official version
of JFK's death, then let him say so." (Reprinted in 2 3D 4.4.)
32. (Same paper, same date) "Joe <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> urged to reopen <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> probe:
Author cites conspiracy theory" (but not <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent>) A page-two news story
based on an interview of <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>. Joe <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> was not available for comment; his
campaign manager said he may make a statement. (As far as I know, he has made
none, and nothing has come of this.)
33. 16 Feb 86 (WP Book World) [2 pp.] Reviewer <ent type='PERSON'>Anthony Lukas</ent> notes
that <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> "is most convincing in his meticulous dissection of [the WC]
scenario," but "less persuasive when he seeks to assemble an alternative
scenario. Everyone in his story has a purpose.... There is little room for
chance.... And the only major piece of new evidence [Easterling's testimony]
is singularly unconvincing." <ent type='PERSON'>Lukas</ent> concludes that, until there is access to
the secrets <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> believes to be still locked up, "anything and everything is
possible." I don't think he is being sarcastic; perhaps Hougan's revisionist
analysis of <ent type='EVENT'>Watergate</ent>, which <ent type='PERSON'>Lukas</ent> took seriously (#1984.180), influenced his
perspective on the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> case.
34. March 86 (3D) A nine-page "review essay" by <ent type='PERSON'>Jerry Rose</ent>, positive
in general but with several points of disagreement. (You should have your
subscription copy, so I won't describe it further here.)
In response, <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> has written a letter to <ent type='ORG'>Rose</ent>, challenging readers to
name another "detailed, on-the-record account of personal involvement in a
successful conspiracy." Perhaps such a distinction can be drawn, but in my
opinion the similarities between Easterling's story and many others far
outweigh the differences.
35. Mar 86 (<ent type='GPE'>Coverups</ent>) "Significant Doubt about 'Reasonable Doubt'"
<ent type='PERSON'>Gary Mack</ent> considers the book "one of the most disappointing and misleading
'major' works" on the case. I disagree with some of the specific points <ent type='ORG'>Mack</ent>
disputes - e.g., the <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> phone call, and <ent type='PERSON'>Harrelson</ent> as the tall tramp -
and I have no problem with the book leaving out the backyard photos, the
umbrella man, and even the acoustics. In any case, Mack's specifics do not
establish his most serious criticism, that the book was "very carefully,
cleverly constructed" to build a case that <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> did it, and to give the
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 2 -3-</p>

<p>impression that it completely covers the major open questions. I didn't get
that impression from the book; if the Justice Department or many reviewers
were to respond that way, I would reconsider.
36. Jun 86 (<ent type='GPE'>Coverups</ent>) Reporter <ent type='PERSON'>Johann Rush</ent> recounts his own
impressions of <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent>, who was trying to sell his story for money when
<ent type='ORG'>Rush</ent> talked to him in 1981-83. The records of the alleged "diversionary fire"
show no damage to the building, just a little to some furniture; no hydrant
was used, alleges <ent type='ORG'>Rush</ent>. [2 pp.]
37. 26 Jan 86 (<ent type='GPE'>Cincinnati</ent> Enq.) A "must read," but the reviewer
complains (with some validity) that <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> ignored Dr. Lattimer's work on the
single-bullet theory and the head snap.
38. 9 Feb (St. Petersburg Times) "Another dubious conspiracy"
"The conspiracy theorists' main fault is that they, like <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>, deprive <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>
of personality."
39. 16 Feb (<ent type='ORG'>Baton Rouge</ent> <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>) A short review, mostly negative ("a
rehash"). "The <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> chapter is riveting, but not worth the $19.95...."
40. 23 Feb (<ent type='GPE'>Richmond</ent> T-D) A mixed review by a retired member of the
Foreign Service. "The endless reporting on <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> raises the question of
why a well-regarded journalist should have devoted so much time to 'Reasonable
Doubt.' The surest answer lies in the incredible divergence of the reports
from governmental investigations of the assassination."
41. Mar 86 (Village Voice Literary Supp.) A positive review - even
Easterling's story "compels attention" - consisting mostly of the reviewer's
favorite old anti-WC arguments. (<ent type='PERSON'>Carl Oglesby</ent> is singled out among those who
have previously made "extremely plausible guesses" about the culprits.)
42. 3 Mar 86 (Pub. Wkly) "Challenge, Inc. Continues Two Libel Actions"
Also, <ent type='PERSON'>David Phillips</ent> "is considering a suit" against <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> "for allegations...
that he was '<ent type='PERSON'>Maurice</ent> Bishop,' <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> case officer for <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> Harvey <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>."
43. 7 Mar 86 (SFC) "From Castro's Plot To the Botched Autopsy"
"Like the creature from the swamp in a C-grade movie, it [the case] won't be
put to rest." Tantalizing, but "conspiracy is not really explosive news at
this date unless you can name the conspirators," and Hurt's book, like the
HSCA report, "suffers from that deficiency."
44. 10 Mar 86 (Roanoke Times) "'Reasonable Doubt' a lesson for shuttle
investigation" (That is, "be thorough, get it right the first time," unlike
<ent type='ORG'>the <ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent></ent>.)
45. 12 Mar 86 My rough handwritten notes on Hurt's appearance on <ent type='ORG'>WWCN</ent>
radio, <ent type='PERSON'>Alba</ent>ny. Does he think that "Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Stone</ent>" killed <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>? Here, he says
that he has come up with the person "who probably did." <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> thinks that <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>
would have "gotten <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> out of this hemisphere"; that <ent type='PERSON'>LBJ</ent> thought <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>
killed <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>, and got the message, thus deciding to fight Communism in <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent>
instead of <ent type='GPE'>Cuba</ent>. Given the evidence on JFK's involvement in <ent type='GPE'>Vietnam</ent>, and the
ongoing pressure against <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> under <ent type='PERSON'>LBJ</ent>, this is too speculative for me.
46. 23 Mar 86 (<ent type='GPE'>Milwaukee</ent> Journal) "More doubt on <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>" Reviewer David
<ent type='ORG'>Wrone</ent> is critical of the <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> chapter ("No cub reporter would turn in a
story like this") and of much more. The anti-WC chapters are "solid" but <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>
"cannot evaluate witness testimony" and "is blinded by an anti-Communism"
which "enables him... to portray the murder as the work of <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Communists</ent>
[and] the <ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent>."
47. Apr 86 (<ent type='ORG'>Freedom</ent>) [2 pp.] A generally negative review, suggesting
that <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> deliberately played down the possibility of government involvement.
(This monthly magazine, linked to the <ent type='ORG'>Scientologists</ent>, publishes investigative
reports on various important topics, but unfortunately a substantial part of
what it prints ranges from a bit overdone to quite silly indeed.)
48. 6 Apr 86 (<ent type='ORG'>Oakland Tribune</ent>) "Volume opens forum to more <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>
assassination theories" [2 pp.] A favorable review by <ent type='PERSON'>Jonathan Marshall</ent>, now
the Trib's editorial page editor, focusing on <ent type='ORG'>Burkley</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>, and suppression
of evidence by federal agencies. "Worst of all, however, was the decision of
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 2 -4-</p>

<p>the [HSCA] to put a 50-year seal on most of the thousands of pages of
documents it assembled. 'The irony of the situation... is clear,' noted
<ent type='ORG'>Berkeley</ent>-based assassination scholar <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent>. 'The congressional
investigators who broke the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> case wide open and reversed the official
government verdict have left us with more material withheld than ever
before.'" (4 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 5.1)
"The assassination deserves whatever study it still receives. For even
if the conspirators are never identified, much less caught, careful analysis
of the crime and its aftermath will continue to shed light on the many
political pathologies that rippled outward from the center of the
assassination itself."
49. 13 Apr 86 (Phila. <ent type='ORG'>Inquirer</ent>) A review by <ent type='PERSON'>Jean Davison</ent>, author of
"Oswald's Game." (5 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4) On the whole, she is not overly negative:
"Anyone who has followed the controversy will probably want to read the latest
round in the debate. Whether one agrees with them or not, conspiracy books
like this one are seldom dull."
"It is not unusual... for conspiracy theorists to make their attacks on
<ent type='EVENT'>the Warren Report</ent> sound utterly convincing - until they try to explain what
<special>really</special> happened. Then some sticky questions inevitably arise. For instance,
why does all the physical evidence point to Oswald's rifle and to no other
weapon?... If a better rifle was used, where did its bullets go?... <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>
provides a novel explanation.... Readers who prefer complex solutions to
simple ones will find much to admire in <special>Reasonable Doubt</special>." (She might be
wrong about any given area of evidence, but she does have a point.)
Easterling's confession "has the dreamlike quality of a delusion....
[He] seems to have been working for everyone on the conspiracy theorists' list
of Top Ten Suspects.... It seems not to have occurred to <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> that <ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent>
could have gotten many of his ideas from reading earlier books about <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>."
(<ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> certainly did think about that explanation, but, indeed, you wouldn't
know that from the book itself.) "Sadly, Easterling's confession sounds like
an unconscious parody of the theories presented there."
50. 22 Apr 86 [3 pp.] A letter from <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> to the <ent type='ORG'>Inquirer</ent>, defending
his handling of the neutron activation analysis and noting that Davison's book
was not, as the <ent type='ORG'>Inquirer</ent> said, "a critical examination of conspiracy theories"
but, in Davison's publisher's words, "an anti-conspiracy book about Oswald's
assassination of President <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>." <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> also says "I accept Miss Davison's
attack on the credibility of <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Easterling</ent>."
51. 19 Apr 86 (<ent type='GPE'>Montreal</ent> Gazette) A positive review by Brian McKenna,
who directed two <ent type='ORG'>CBC</ent> documentaries on the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> case. He notes Hurt's work on a
report of <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> handing out <ent type='ORG'>FPCC</ent> literature in <ent type='GPE'>Montreal</ent>, and regrets that
<ent type='PERSON'>Easterling</ent> may have taken <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> away from "more fertile trails." "In his
graceful and diplomatic treatment of the lonely work of the critics, <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>
refrains from the poisonous backbiting that has so divided many of the best
ones over the years." (Reprinted in <ent type='GPE'>Coverups</ent>, June 1986)
52. (Same paper, date, and author) "How careers like <ent type='PERSON'>Dan</ent> Rather's were
built on [the] <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination" Rather told McKenna in 1978 that he
personally believed there was a conspiracy, but despite <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> he allegedly
continues to reflect the lone-nut view, and was among those who vetoed a
potential story by "60 Minutes" based on Lifton's evidence. Quite far out for
a sidebar (a far-out-bar?): "What this suggests is that like many high U.S.
officials in every branch of government, Rather's career and the official
story are welded together." McKenna's brings up Rather's erroneous
description of the <ent type='PERSON'>Zapruder</ent> film, and the WC's "printing error" resulting in
transposed frames (both of which I accept as non-sinister mistakes).
53. 25 May 85 (<ent type='PERSON'>Jackson</ent>, MS Clarion-Ledger &amp; News) "Book explores
confession in <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> assassination" [2 pp.] <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>, who used to work for the
<ent type='PERSON'>Jackson</ent> News, met with two <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> agents "who had examined Easterling's file.
'The whole tone was, one of, "Listen, you're a fairly sensible fellow, how can
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 2 -5-</p>

<p>you get taken in by this man?" And my position was I'm not being taken in by
him. I'm trying to find out the full story. I don't understand why you folks
haven't taken a more vigorous interest in the man,' <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> said.... Attempts to
contact the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> about Easterling's story were unsuccessful." (#53a: an
accompanying review, not noteworthy.)
There is some interesting information on <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> (rather than on the case)
in the following articles from <ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent> papers, which are mostly profiles
based in part on interviews:
54. 16 Feb 86 (<ent type='PERSON'>Dan</ent>ville Register) [3 pp.; photo: #54A]
55. 9 Mar (<ent type='GPE'>Richmond</ent> T-D) [2 pp.]
56. 10-12 Mar (Lynchburg News) [5 pp.] Also quotes Ed <ent type='GPE'>Tatro</ent>.
57. 16 Mar (Roanoke Times) [2 pp.]
A few more reviews, short and/or not particularly noteworthy: #58 (19
Jan), Fort Wayne Journal; #59 (23 Jan), <ent type='GPE'>Macon</ent>, MS Beacon; #60 (16 Feb),
<ent type='ORG'>Anniston</ent>, AL Star; #61, Detroit News; #62 (24 Apr), Daily Express (UK).</p>

<p><special>More thoughts the murder of Officer <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>:</special>
Several people have challenged me to explain how Tippit's affair might
have actually played a role in the events of November 22. Indeed, it would be
quite a coincidence if he happened to be the victim of a killer with a
personal grudge just when <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was in the vicinity. Such things do happen -
that's why they are called coincidences - and it is plausible that the <ent type='ORG'>DPD</ent>
would have used the dead <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> to clear up an unsolved crime. But a more
complex scenario may make more sense. <ent type='PERSON'>Joanne Braun</ent> speculates that Tippit's
problems may have caused him to go to some unsavory characters for help, for
example to get some money which his wife would not know about, and that he may
have gotten entangled with, and in debt to, some hypothetical conspirators,
who then set him up as they set <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> up. Also, <ent type='PERSON'>David Lifton</ent> reminded me of
the eyewitness evidence suggesting that <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> had been waiting for someone
coming from the same direction as <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>. (<ent type='ORG'>Ramparts</ent>, Nov 66) And of course
Tippit's affair might explain only why he was in <ent type='GPE'>Oak Cliff</ent>.</p>

<p><special>Judge <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> responds (and <ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent> dissents):</special>
<ent type='PERSON'>Ted Gandolfo</ent> sent <ent type='PERSON'>Jim Garrison</ent> part of 8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1, and sent me a copy of
Garrison's reply. (Letter of 14 Apr 86 to <ent type='PERSON'>Gandolfo</ent>, #1986.63; quoted almost
in full here.)
The Judge had "nothing to say concerning [Hoch's] comments about me.
<ent type='PERSON'>Frank</ent>ly, I found them to be incoherent."
"I cannot guess as to the origin of his emotional hang up [sic] about me.
In any case, I will not attempt to reply to him in a similar vein...." Some
of my earlier research on the assassination was "quite competent. Moreover --
in view of the solid front presented by the federal government in its cover-up
of the assassination -- it seems to me childlike for one assassination critic
to attempt to dis-credit another publicly." (I suppose calling <ent type='PERSON'>Tony Summers</ent>
"one of the [CIA's] more accomodating prostitutes" doesn't count.)
"One statement of Hoch's, however, does concern me enough to require a
comment. He refers to the 'vulnerability of Clay <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> due to his apparently
irrelevant C.I.A. links and homosexuality.' Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent> should go straight to
the bathroom and wash his mouth with soap."
"Throughout our trial, in everything I have ever written and in every
public statement I have ever made -- I never once have made any reference to
Clay Shaw's alleged homosexuality. What sort of human being is Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent> that
he is impelled to so gratuitously make such a reference in a newsletter which
he widely distributes to the public? For all his faults or virtues, <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> is
dead and unable to defend himself from that kind of off the wall canard. No
matter how virtuously <ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent> might couch it, a smear is still a smear."
I will let you decide if my reference (or Hurt's) was gratuitous. Out
here, referring to someone's homosexuality stopped being a canard years ago;
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 2 -6-</p>

<p>at least, it's not as serious as charging someone with conspiring to kill <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>.
Does <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> now think <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> was involved in the conspiracy which led to
JFK's death? If so, the reference to "all his faults or virtues" is
remarkably mild.
In 1969, J. <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Edgar</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Hoover</ent></ent> himself called me "a smear artist", for
suggesting that there may have been an undisclosed relationship between <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>
and the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>. [#64, 2 pp.] So <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> is in good company.
As for my question in 8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1 about Garrison's case, asking what evidence
he had when he arrested <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent>: The most enthusiastic answer came from
<ent type='PERSON'>Gandolfo</ent>, who said, "Did't you know that <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> was connected with <ent type='ORG'>Permindex</ent>,
which just happens to be one of the most efficient assassination organizations
around?? Didn't you know that <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> was <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>?" Also, Shaw's friend <ent type='PERSON'>Ferrie</ent> was
<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> and there is Russo's testimony. That is, of course, exactly the sort of
evidence which I did know about but which does not relate to my question.
<ent type='PERSON'>Gandolfo</ent> also promised to expose me as "just a <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> coverup bastard" in
his newsletter, to which I do not subscribe. Does anyone out there want to
send me a copy?
The best semi-serious answer came from <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Ranftel</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Jim Lesar</ent>, who
sent me an <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> letterhead memo dated March 2, 1967, the day after Shaw's
arrest. (#65, 2 pp.) The memo, discussed in Hurt's book (p. 281), notes that
one of Shaw's alleged homosexual contacts said on March 19, 1964, that <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent>
was into S&amp;M. On February 24, 1967, two sources reported that they thought
<ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> had "homosexual tendencies," and two sources (possibly the same ones)
indicated that <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> was <ent type='PERSON'>Clay Bertrand</ent>, who allegedly contacted <ent type='PERSON'>Dean Andrews</ent> on
Oswald's behalf. Unnamed <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> sources are not necessarily reliable, but in any
case none of this evidence even suggests that <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> conspired with anyone to
kill <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>. Sorry, but the prize for my $64 question remains unawarded.
Incidentally, Lou <ent type='ORG'>Sproesser</ent> pointed out a problem with the <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>-HSCA
hypothesis that Banister, not <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent>, was with <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Ferrie</ent> in <ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent>.
Marshall J. <ent type='PERSON'>Manchester</ent> testified at the <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> trial that he checked out the car
and that <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent> said he was from the Trade Mart. (<ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent>, 7 Feb 69, 2 pp., #66)
<ent type='PERSON'>Manchester</ent> is not necessarily credible, but this shows that untangling the
<ent type='PERSON'>Clinton</ent> story by believing just some of the testimony is not easy.
While I was in the mood to discredit my fellow critics, I came across a
letter from <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> to "<ent type='ORG'>Freedom</ent>" (May 1986, #67) which is worth some
attention. It offers a rare opportunity to scrutinize Garrison's analytical
work in an area where the evidence is accessible and not crucial.
I think the <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent>s should keep in mind that what got many of us into the
case in the first place was the demonstrable inadequacy of <ent type='EVENT'>the Warren Report</ent> -
for example, conclusions and summaries in the Report which did not even
adequately reflect the published evidence, much less what was not published.
In my own case, at least, the inference was that any investigation which was
so clearly unreliable on details could certainly not be trusted to get the
difficult and uncheckable answers right.
These days, assertions by <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> and his ilk tend to get accepted into
the mythology of the case if they sound plausible, without much detailed
scrutiny. It is not easy to deal with most such claims. For example, no
matter how exaggerated Garrison's (or Sprague's) comments about <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> staff
and investigation under <ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> seem, and how implausible their conclusions
about what was behind <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>, most of the rebuttal evidence is known only to
HSCA people, and everyone who dealt with <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> knows their investigation
was inadequate in many ways - at least in many small areas. So, it is hard to
argue against the conclusions of <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> or <ent type='GPE'>Sprague</ent> (either <ent type='GPE'>Sprague</ent>, in fact)
without seeming to defend certain indefensible aspects of <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>'s work.
Likewise, when implausible things are said about <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>New Orleans</ent>
(by <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>) or about <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> exiles, one may be reluctant to be properly
critical if one believes, as most of us do, that those areas probably are
central, and that someone might well have come up with new and important
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 2 -7-</p>

<p>(but unverifiable) evidence.
So I have no qualms about taking a close look at Garrison's charge that
<ent type='ORG'>the <ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent></ent> may have relied on a <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> asset to solve one evidentiary
problem. <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> wrote that an earlier "<ent type='ORG'>Freedom</ent>" article on <ent type='PERSON'>Hemingway</ent> "may
have contributed to the identification of a possible <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> 'asset.'" In about
1961, Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Howard Rome</ent>, a <ent type='ORG'>Mayo Clinic</ent> psychiatrist, gave <ent type='PERSON'>Hemingway</ent> shock
treatments. In September 1964, <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent> gave the WC an analysis of <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, which
"would appear to have been obtained and inserted just prior to the printing
deadline in order to mask one of the major holes still remaining in the
official fiction: Oswald's motivation. The thrust of Dr. Rome's evaluation
was that Oswald's spelling problem was not inconsistent with his having
murdered the president of <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States." In <ent type='ORG'>Wesley Liebeler</ent>'s words,
"the frustration which may have resulted [from Oswald's reading-spelling
difficulty] gave an added impetus to his need to prove to the world that he
was an unrecognized 'great man.'"
<ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> does qualify his factual conclusion (enough to make it
nonlibelous?): "One cannot ignore the fact that it is just possible that Dr.
<ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent> might have been functioning all along primarily as an agency 'asset.'"
Then he takes off again: "Those men who function clandestinely as <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> assets
will do anything and help destroy anyone for a share of the CIA's cornucopia.
To give but one example, consider how successful the media and 'journalistic
author' assets have been in giving life to the two remaining scapegoats in the
<ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination -- <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Fidel</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent></ent> and organized crime."
It is the jump to such a broad allegation which justifies attention to
Garrison's comments on the <ent type='GPE'>Rome</ent> matter. His analysis is, basically,
unsupported by the evidence <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> himself refers to, and to some degree
contradicted by it. Some terse one-word assessments spring to mind, but I
don't want to be told again to wash my mouth out with soap.
The details are not interesting enough to reproduce here, but I'll send
my analysis to anyone who wants it, at no charge. (#68, 3 pp.) If very few
people ask for it, I'll probably draw some inferences from that.
One question for the third decade (and for <ent type='PERSON'>Jerry Rose</ent>'s journal as well)
is how to deal with the survival of myths about the assassination other than
<ent type='ORG'>the <ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent></ent>'s. That is, what is the role of "scholarly research"
when many of the people still interested in the case are sure that the head
snap proves there was a shot from the front, that the single-bullet theory is
a joke, that <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>'s primary goal was to hide the truth, or that <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent>
solved the case with the arrest of Clay <ent type='PERSON'>Shaw</ent>?
The April and May 1986 issues of "<ent type='ORG'>Freedom</ent>" include a long article by
<ent type='PERSON'>Richard</ent> E. (critic) <ent type='GPE'>Sprague</ent> and two "<ent type='ORG'>Freedom</ent>" staffers, "The <ent type='ORG'>Ultimate</ent> Cover-up," focusing on the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent>, and mind control. (There are also
parts of a long series by Fletcher Prouty on the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, dealing with the
assassination in the May issue.) Each issue is $1.50 from 1301 N. Catalina
St., <ent type='GPE'>Los Angeles</ent>, CA 90027. Certainly many of the details are correct, and
maybe some of the big charges are, but I do not think these articles
consistently meet essential standards of exposition and logical argument.</p>

<p><special>The supporters and friends of <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>ino <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent>:</special>
What follows is essentially the complete text of a letter I sent to the
Justice Department on May 13, 1986. Once again, an assassination lead brings
us back to the hidden history of the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> administration's war against
<ent type='GPE'>Cuba</ent>.
In connection with the Justice Department review of the report of the
<ent type='ORG'>House</ent> Select <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent> on Assassinations, I would like to bring to your
attention one area in which the report was incomplete. I believe that the
published information may be unfair to one of the named individuals, <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>ino
<ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Martin</ent>ez.
Mr. <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> is mentioned on page 134 of <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> report, which states that
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 2 -8-</p>

<p>a certain "arms deal was being financed through one <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>ino <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Martin</ent>ez by
hoodlum elements in <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> and elsewhere." A staff report on the organi-zation he headed (<ent type='ORG'>JGCE</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>the Junta del Gobierno</ent> de <ent type='GPE'>Cuba</ent> en el Exilio) is
published in Vol. l0, pp. 95-103. This HSCA report appears to be based
entirely on a review of existing documents (mostly from <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> files).
The HSCA's information relating to <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> is summarized in a book by HSCA
staff members Robert <ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Richard</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent>, "The Plot to Kill the
President." The <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> material takes up a substantial part of the chapter
entitled "<ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> Exiles and <ent type='ORG'>the Motive</ent> of Revenge."
<ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent> said that a "background check [on <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent>] stimulated
our interest in a <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> exile - <ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent> connection that just might have had a
bearing on the assassination."
<ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> reportedly said that he had backers who would provide a large sum
of money - $30 million - to finance an invasion of <ent type='GPE'>Cuba</ent>. "<ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> was saying
publicly that it [the money] was being donated by U.S. corporations whose
assets in <ent type='GPE'>Cuba</ent> had been expropriated.... According to several sources, the
real benefactors were members of the underworld, whose gambling interests in
<ent type='GPE'>Cuba</ent> had indeed been expropriated by <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>.... There were other indications
that organized-crime figures were behind the <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> plan...." By June 1963,
the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> concluded that <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> was "a con artist."
<ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent> said that they "were able to document in detail
Sierra's activities and his apparent connection, or that of his backers, to
organized crime," but that "the relevance to the assassination remained
undetermined." (P. 174)
My colleague Peter Dale <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> and I studied <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>'s <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> material in
some detail when the report was published. At first, <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> (like <ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent>) was interested in the apparent connections between <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> and
various people whose names had become familiar in the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination
controversy. (For example, <ent type='PERSON'>Antonio</ent> Veciana, <ent type='PERSON'>Gerry Patrick Hemming</ent>, and Rich
Lauchli.) <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> found additional possibilities for links between Sierra's
associates and <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> Harvey <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>.
<ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> came to doubt Blakey's belief that organized crime was the dominant
force behind Sierra's <ent type='ORG'>Junta</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> interviewed a number of the principals,
including <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent>. (Sierra's employer, <ent type='PERSON'>William Browder</ent>, essentially supported
Sierra's account of the formation of the <ent type='ORG'>JGCE</ent>.) <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> was displeased that
<ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> had depicted him in such a sinister light, and that he had not been
interviewed by the <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent> or its staff.
<ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> specifically objected to the implication that he was working in
opposition to the policy of the Federal government. According to <ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent>, "<ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> told the exile leaders that he spoke for a group of <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
businessmen in <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> who wanted to join forces with them to overthrow
<ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>, with or without the approval of the U.S. government." (P. 174)
<ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> found a published reference to <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> which indicates that he was
indeed coordinating some of his actions with the U.S. government at a high
level.
In his biography of Robert <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Arthur Schlesinger</ent> discussed an anti-<ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> operation in <ent type='LOC'>Central America</ent> involving <ent type='PERSON'>Manuel Artime</ent>. "<ent type='PERSON'>Hal</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Hendrix</ent> of
the <special><ent type='GPE'>Miami</ent> News</special> supposed [this operation was] managed either by <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> or, 'on a
hip pocket basis,' by the Attorney General [Robert <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>] himself." Luis
<ent type='PERSON'>Somoza</ent>, "son of the thieving <ent type='NORP'>Nicaraguan</ent> dictator," tried to learn of the
attitude of the U.S. government toward that operation. <ent type='PERSON'>Somoza</ent> "was soon
telling <ent type='NORP'>Carribean</ent> notables that he had received a 'green light' from Robert
<ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>...."
<ent type='PERSON'>Schlesinger</ent> noted that a State Department official said that <ent type='PERSON'>Somoza</ent> had
not in fact gotten that approval, when Somoza's claims were repeated to him in
a meeting in August 1963.
<ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> was able to obtain a memorandum concerning that meeting under the
<ent type='ORG'>Freedom</ent> of Information Act.... (Memo by <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> H. <ent type='PERSON'>Crimmins</ent>, Coordinator of
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 2 -9-</p>

<p><ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> Affairs in the State Department, August 17, 1963)
The man who repeated Somoza's claims was <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>ino <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent>, who said that he
had been in touch with <ent type='PERSON'>Somoza</ent>, who had offered him a site for a base. "<ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent>
and <ent type='PERSON'>Rivero</ent> said they had to know what truth there was in Somoza's assertion
about U.S. support for him before deciding whether to accept his offer or to
go it alone." (<ent type='PERSON'>Crimmins</ent> memo, p. 2)
<ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> and his associate, Felipe <ent type='PERSON'>Rivero</ent>, described themselves as
"[d]evoted... to <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States and conscious of the need to do nothing
that would run counter to U.S. policy." (P. 4) <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> "emphasized again the
desire of his supporters not to operate contrary to U.S. policy." (P. 6)
Prior to the meeting, the Attorney General's office informed <ent type='PERSON'>Crimmins</ent>
that "the Attorney General had been talking to <ent type='PERSON'>Enrique Ruiz Williams</ent> and that,
as a result, Dr. <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> would be calling [<ent type='PERSON'>Crimmins</ent>] for an appointment."
<ent type='PERSON'>Williams</ent>, also known as Harry <ent type='PERSON'>Williams</ent>, is generally considered to have been
Robert Kennedy's principal liaison with the anti-<ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> community.
In his phone call, <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> apparently suggested that <ent type='PERSON'>Williams</ent> was a "mutual
friend" of himself and <ent type='PERSON'>Crimmins</ent>.
It is possible, of course, that this contact with the government was an
attempt by <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> to provide a cover for his true motives. However, <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent>
believes that the operations of the <ent type='ORG'>Junta</ent> may have been part of the policy of
"autonomous operations" against <ent type='GPE'>Cuba</ent>, which was formally approved in June
1963. While the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> administration was openly cracking down on the most
prominent anti-<ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> groups operating in the U.S., it was also encouraging
deniable operations abroad.
According to <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>, State Department counsel <ent type='PERSON'>Walt Rostow</ent> "proposed a
'track two' approach to <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> operations to parallel regular <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>-controlled
<ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> teams." The U.S. "would provide general advice, funds and material
support," but "would publicly deny any participation in the groups[']
activities." "All operations had to be mounted outside the territory of the
United States." (10 HSCA 77)
In contrast, <ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent> emphasized that when <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> came on the
scene in <ent type='GPE'>Miami</ent> just a month earlier, in May 1963, "the exile movement was in
disarray: <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States had just stopped funding the <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> Revolutionary
Council; U.S. law enforcement agencies were cracking down on guerrilla
activities; and factions within the exile community were politically
polarized...." (P. 171)
<ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent> noted that <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> was "virtually unknown (his only
mark of public prominence was that he had formed a <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> lawyers association
in <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent>)...." (P. l7l) After talking with <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> concluded (with
support from documents at the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> Library) that Robert Kennedy's office
was worried about the many <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> exile professionals who were doing menial
work in the U.S., and directly encouraged the formation of such organizations.
That is, Sierra's previous public activity may be not an exception to his
relative obscurity but a clue to his key sources of support.
As <ent type='PERSON'>Schlesinger</ent> noted, the record of the mid-1963 anti-<ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> efforts
based in <ent type='LOC'>Central America</ent> "is unusually murky." Someone in the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> got the
<ent type='PERSON'>Crimmins</ent> memo, although its existence is not reflected in the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> material
quoted by <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent> quoted a <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> memo dated two days
before the assassination of President <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>, whose author reportedly found
it "curious that <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> had for so long managed to hold a position in the
exile hierarchy: 'Perhaps his mysterious backers are providing him with
sufficient funds to keep the pot boiling....'" (Pp. 173-4)
To improve the historical record, I think that the Justice Department
should at least perform a more complete file review than reflected by the
published HSCA material.
In addition, any surviving principals should be allowed to respond to the
HSCA's charge that the <ent type='ORG'>JGCE</ent> may have been a tool of organized crime.</p>

<p>8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 2 -10-</p>

<p> 69. Excerpts from <ent type='PERSON'>Schlesinger</ent>, "Robert <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> and his Times."
70. <ent type='PERSON'>Crimmins</ent> memo, 17 Aug 63, 6 pp.
In an informal interview published in "<ent type='PERSON'>Lobster</ent>" (#1985.99), Peter <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent>
apparently gave <ent type='PERSON'>Robin Ramsay</ent> his "three-hurricane theory" of the
assassination. That expression, from <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Allen</ent>, derives from a powerful
alcoholic drink popular in <ent type='GPE'>New Orleans</ent>, after three of which any <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent> will
tell you what he <special>really</special> thinks happened in <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>.
"I think that the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>s really had started a new type of <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> exile
movement against <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>, the chief element of which was that there would be
money to go anywhere else they liked, in the <ent type='LOC'>Caribbean</ent>, to find their bases.
They would get money for training and they would get a green light, but it
meant the <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent>s got out of the U.S.... And I think this operation was
penetrated from the very beginning. This may be the key to the assassination,
in fact. [Ramsay: Penetrated by whom?] First of all by the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> because they
wanted to know what was going on, for a minimum. But this was another slap at
them: the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>s doing what they were supposed to do. And they, that is
the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, were being accused by <ent type='PERSON'>Bobby</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> of having dealt with organized
crime people. And I think the first thing the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> did was to get <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent>s into
the operation who quickly turned round and started dealing with organized
crime figures. This was the so-called <ent type='ORG'>Junta</ent>.... The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> files on this
operation, the <ent type='ORG'>Junta</ent>, make it look more and more like an organized crime
operation from beginning to end. The <ent type='ORG'>House</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent>, rather foolishly,
without interviewing anybody, put the contents of this file into Vol. 10 of
its report as if it were all fact. Now, what a perfectly invulnerable vantage
point to have shot <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> from, if you used the assets of that operation to
kill him. That would explain Bobby's sense of paralysis, because it was his
operation."
Based on what I know at the moment (i.e., not counting all the material
from <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> which I have forgotten), the possibility of relevance to <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> or
the assassination is intriguing, but it seems so tentative, indirect, and
speculative that I don't want to offer a further opinion at the moment.
In any event, the <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> story says something interesting about <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>
investigation. Putting it as generously as possible, it suggests that
Blakey's expertise in finding organized crime links had the effect of a filter
in a case where obscure links also pointed in other directions. This problem
differed from those <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> faced with <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent>, where most of the
alternative interpretations were well known in advance. I am not saying that
the organized-crime angle was definitely absent, but the actual situation
regarding <ent type='ORG'>Sierra</ent> was both more complicated and more interesting than the
<ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> &amp; <ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent> version indicates.
Peter Scott's half of the unpublished 1980 book "Beyond Conspiracy" dealt
in part with the milieu of <ent type='ORG'>the Chicago</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Junta</ent>, and related matters. Although
the manuscript was set aside after <ent type='ORG'>Pocket Books</ent> decided not to publish it, we
have not forgotten about it and still hope to get the information out in due
course.</p>

<p><special>Credits:</special>
This issue of <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Dr. Cornelia
<ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent>-Ligeti, who died in May at age 79, after a long career in medical
research. (WP, 31 May, p. B6)
Thanks to T. Cwiek (#49), T. <ent type='PERSON'>Gandolfo</ent> (63), G. Hollingsworth (30),
H. <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> (37-42, 44, 49-50, 53-60), F. Krstulja (19, 22), P. Lambert (19),
M. <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> (14), H. Livingstone (51-2), B. McKenna (51-2), G. <ent type='ORG'>Mack</ent> (15, 35-6),
J. Marshall (18, 20), P. <ent type='PERSON'>Melanson</ent> (27, 29), J. Mierzejewski (26, 61), H. Nash
(16), R. Ranftel (33, 41, 65), M. <ent type='PERSON'>Reynolds</ent> (41), J. <ent type='ORG'>Rose</ent> (34), M. Royden (62),
P. <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> (69-70), G. <ent type='ORG'>Stone</ent> (17-8, 21, 28), E. <ent type='GPE'>Tatro</ent> (31-2), and D. <ent type='ORG'>Wrone</ent> (46).
And thanks to L. Iacocca and <ent type='ORG'>Cheerios</ent> for the address labels.</p>

<p>*From Illumi-Net BBS - (404) 377-1141* [ Don's note: I doubt this BBS is
still up ]</p>

<p>---END-----------------------------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>--
-* <ent type='PERSON'>Don Allen</ent> *- InterNet: dona@bilver.<ent type='ORG'>UUCP</ent> // Amiga..for the best of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 <ent type='ORG'>\X</ent>/ Why use anything else? :-)
<ent type='ORG'>UUCP</ent>: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal <ent type='ORG'>PROMIS</ent>?
/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. <ent type='PERSON'>William Henry</ent> /\/\</p>

<p>From: dona@bilver.uucp (<ent type='PERSON'>Don Allen</ent>)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> Text: Echoes of Conspiracy - <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>3.TXT
<info type="Message-ID"> 1991Dec26.195034.19962@bilver.uucp</info>
Date: 26 Dec 91 19:50:34 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - <ent type='GPE'>Winter Park</ent>, FL
Lines: 613</p>

<p>*<ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>3.TXT*</p>

<p>---BEGIN PART 3/4-------------------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY October 31, 1986
Vol. 8, #3 <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> L. <ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent></p>

<p><special>The acoustical evidence:</special>
One reason for questioning the authenticity of the <ent type='ORG'>DPD</ent> Dictabelt is the
presence of certain messages relating to Officer <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>. Basically, the
following exchanges are suspect because of their content, the formal tone of
transmissions 590 and 592, and the apparent absence of the expected reaction.
(See 3 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 7.2. The message numbers and the transcriptions are from the
<ent type='PERSON'>Kimbrough</ent> transcript.)
389. [Disp.] 87, 78, move into central <ent type='GPE'>Oak Cliff</ent> Area.
390. [78 (<ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>)] 78, I'm about <ent type='PERSON'>Kiest</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Bonnie</ent> View.
391. [87 (<ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent>)] 87's going north on <ent type='LOC'>Marsalis</ent> on R. L. Thornton.
392. [Disp.] 10-4....
588-589 [Disp.] 78. [78] 78.
590. [Disp.] You are in the <ent type='GPE'>Oak Cliff</ent> area, are you not?
591. [78] <ent type='PERSON'>Lancaster</ent> and Eighth.
592. [Disp.] You will be at large for any emergency that comes in.
583. [78] 10-4.
I sent my analysis to Prof. <ent type='PERSON'>Murray Miron</ent>, a psycholinguist whose work on
another case was described in 8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 1.2. The following is from a letter I
sent to the Justice Department on September 16, 1986, describing his
independent analysis, which provided some support for my own work:
"Prof. <ent type='PERSON'>Miron</ent>... has not yet prepared a formal report, but he has provided
me with the following conclusions: 'Our preliminary findings... suggest that
the communications directed to Officer <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> are anomalously at variance with
the other transmissions of the tape record.... The transmissions to <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent>
are quite stilted. They have the appearance of transmissions made more for an
audience's benefit than those for which the intent is to convey instructions.
The query regarding Tippit's current position is rhetorical rather than
questioning.'"
"Prof. <ent type='PERSON'>Miron</ent> emphasized to me that his analysis does not preclude a quite
innocent explanation for the anomaly. The messages could have been added to
the recording after the fact, or they might have been made in 'real time' but
sound anomalous because the persons involved knew that something unusual was
going on."
"For example, if <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> was taking time to attend to personal business
(as suggested by Mr. Hurt's book), a dispatcher might have covered for him by
assigning him to the <ent type='GPE'>Oak Cliff</ent> area, with his voice betraying his knowledge
that the assignment was not routine but somehow designed to keep <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> out of
trouble. (This is clearly speculation, of course.)"
"Even alteration of the recording after Tippit's death could have been
motivated by nothing worse than a desire to protect his reputation."
"On the other hand, the rebuttal of <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>'s acoustical analysis by the
Ramsey Panel rested in part on the belief that the police would not tamper
with important evidence."
The rest of this letter [#71; 4 pp., including my 1981 letter to <ent type='PERSON'>Barger</ent>
on these messages] mostly repeats information from <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> (e.g., 7 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 2.2), with
one other new point:
"Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Todd Vaughan</ent> sent me a copy of a letter from <ent type='ORG'>the National Archives</ent>
to him, dated March 2, 1982. [#1986.72] In response to an inquiry about the
disposition of the <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> Police Dictabelts, Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>George Perros</ent> told <ent type='PERSON'>Vaughan</ent>
that the Justice Department, since receiving that evidence from <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>, has
'returned it to the <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent> Police Department, according to an official of the
Justice Department.' I hope that you did keep copies; in any event I think
you really should get the originals back."
Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that anyone will do anything with
this; my letters to Justice are not even routinely acknowledged these days.
As far as I know, the JD has neither finished nor abandoned its long-overdue
review of <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> report.
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3 -2-</p>

<p><special><ent type='ORG'>London Weekend Television</ent> program:</special>
73. 31 Jul 86 (NY Post) "23 year[s] later, <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> goes on trial"
Twenty-five witnesses recently appeared before TV cameras (and a judge and
jury from <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>) in <ent type='GPE'>London</ent>. They included medical, forensic, and ballistics
experts, and some eyewitnesses; several were not called by the <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent>. The verdict is being kept secret. Edited highlights will be
shown on two nights, around November 22.
<ent type='PERSON'>Harry Chandler</ent>, director of program development at <ent type='ORG'>Showtime</ent>, said that
some of the witnesses "had a real tough time on the stand. It was
fascinating. There were matters brought up which were not considered by the
<ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent>, matters relating to the body of the President and his
wounds. The jury saw a version of the <ent type='PERSON'>Zapruder</ent> film... which was enhanced...
and there was information in the stills I was unaware of."
"Said prosecutor [Vincent] <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent>: 'In the future, this is the
document that researchers into the assassination will want to get their hands
on.' <ent type='ORG'>Defense</ent> attorney [<ent type='PERSON'>Gerry</ent>] <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent>: 'It doesn't matter who won the case.
The <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> people are the winners here.'" <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> is good at dramatically
presenting the innocence and virtue of his clients - probably not the best way
to get at the historical truth about <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, but we'll see.
I hope that <ent type='ORG'>LWT</ent> will be able to make available any information which was
too complicated for TV but of potential value to researchers. Letters to
<ent type='ORG'>Showtime</ent> can't hurt.
74. 16 Jul 86 (AP) General comments by a <ent type='ORG'>LWT</ent> spokesman. The program
"would be 'a documentary exercise, not a dramatized reconstruction.'" It
"would be modeled on the company's recent mock trial of... King <ent type='PERSON'>Richard</ent> III."
75. 16 Jul 86 (AP) Comments by U.S. District Judge <ent type='PERSON'>Lucius Bunton</ent> (a
cousin of <ent type='PERSON'>LBJ</ent>), who was to play the judge (trying the case under present
federal law, not 1963 <ent type='GPE'>Texas</ent> law).</p>

<p><special>Also on TV:</special>
I missed "Yuri <ent type='PERSON'>Nosenko</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>KGB</ent>" on <ent type='ORG'>HBO</ent> in September. Would someone like to
give us more information than these clippings?
76. 31 Aug 86 (<ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent>) The story is told "from the perspective of the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>
agent [in the <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Bloc Division</ent>, under <ent type='PERSON'>Angleton</ent>] who virtually scuttled his
own career by insisting that Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Nosenko</ent> was a <ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> double-agent sent to
spread disinformation." <ent type='NORP'>British</ent> playwright <ent type='PERSON'>Stephen Davis</ent> said he "spent six
months trailing around after people from the intelligence community who were
centrally involved."
77. 5 Sep (<ent type='ORG'>LAT</ent>) A very favorable review. <ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent>' best guess: <ent type='PERSON'>Nosenko</ent>
was a disinformation agent whose "job was to be dangled in front of the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> in
Europe, but... he was not supposed to defect.... The central mystery is why
the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> went to such extraordinary lengths to rehabilitate <ent type='PERSON'>Nosenko</ent>, as if he
had been trustworthy. I think the case is unresolvable."
78. 5 Sep (<ent type='GPE'>UPI</ent>) The 90-minute program is "fascinating... history."
79. Sep 86 (Cable Guide) [2 pp.] "<ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent> spent a year researching the
script with the help of Edward Jay <ent type='PERSON'>Epstein</ent>." The <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> emigre actor who
played <ent type='PERSON'>Nosenko</ent> thinks he was a real defector. <ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent> concluded that "every way
you turn it around you find it's like a Rubik's Cube that won't ever quite
work out." Not a bad analogy for the whole <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> case.</p>

<p><special><ent type='PERSON'>Worthy</ent> organizations:</special>
If you did not get a letter from AARC in mid-August, please ask me for a
copy. (#80, 2 pp., no charge) This includes a "special plea for permanent
members" from <ent type='PERSON'>Bud Fensterwald</ent>. The primary goal is not to get the membership
fees, but to demonstrate a substantial degree of public support when
approaching private foundations - the few which are willing to become involved
with such a controversial topic. Institutional memberships would be
particularly appreciated.
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3 -3-</p>

<p> Item #80 also includes a progress report, dated August 1. Among other
things, <ent type='PERSON'>Jeff Meek</ent>'s massive index of (mostly) published <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> material has been
computerized. I am now on <ent type='ORG'>the Board</ent> of Advisors, not <ent type='ORG'>the Board</ent> of Directors.
"The Third Decade" (see 6 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4.4) needs (and deserves) more subscribers.
I have a descriptive form letter from <ent type='ORG'>FAIR</ent>, "Fairness &amp; Accuracy in
Reporting." [#81, Sep 86, 2 pp.] The director of this new progressive
counterpart to <ent type='ORG'>AIM</ent> is <ent type='PERSON'>Jeff Cohen</ent>; fellow <ent type='ORG'>AIB</ent> veterans Marty <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Bob Katz</ent>
are also involved. <ent type='ORG'>FAIR</ent> has been involved "in the effort to expose and
counteract ABC's pending 12-hour miniseries, '<ent type='NORP'>Amerika</ent>.'"</p>

<p><special>The saga of <ent type='PERSON'>Earl</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Edgar</ent>:</special>
A story on <ent type='ORG'>the <ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent></ent> got a lot of newspaper play on the day
after Thanksgiving last year - remarkable, even though that was, as usual, a
slow news day. As noted in the NYT's news summary (#82, 29 Nov 85), the WCR
"apparently ended a long political alliance between [<ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Hoover</ent>],
according to Government documents just released. The commission criticized
the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> for what it called its 'unduly restrictive view of its role in
preventive intelligence.' Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Hoover</ent> said the criticism was unjust."
The story itself appeared on page 32, with a <ent type='GPE'>Durham</ent> (NC) dateline, as a
"special to the <ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent>" with no authorship indicated. (#83, with photos) The
article seems rather unfocused. (It does not even specify what 1300-page file
had been released under <ent type='ORG'>FOIA</ent>; it was the FBI's file on <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent>.)
Among other things, the dispute got <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> dropped from Hoover's list of
favored correspondents, although he had been there on a first-name basis.
The <ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent> story derived from an article in the <ent type='GPE'>Durham</ent> Morning Herald by
<ent type='GPE'>Durham</ent> lawyer <ent type='PERSON'>Alexander Charnes</ent> (aided by a grant from the Fund for
Investigative Journalism). [#84, 24 Nov 85, 3 pp.] Experts quoted include
<ent type='PERSON'>Harold Weisberg</ent>, who "believes that <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> knew that the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> was withholding"
but "felt that it was his 'national duty to preserve tranquility,'... and
therefore... did not press the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>." (<ent type='ORG'>Charnes</ent> noted that some of his
information came from previously released documents which <ent type='PERSON'>Weisberg</ent> had.)
<ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> biographer <ent type='PERSON'>Edward White</ent> said that "the chief justice really believed,
given what they were investigating, that the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> would cooperate with
the commission."
The rift is not news to us; it was mentioned in some of the press
coverage of the 1977 <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> release. <ent type='ORG'>Charnes</ent>' account emphasizes how closely
<ent type='PERSON'>Hoover</ent> cooperated with <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> in previous years.
The topic of the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>-WC interaction (expecially on the question of what
the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> knew about <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>) has long been a special interest of mine. It was
the subject of a draft manuscript which I put together in 1972, in those pre-<ent type='EVENT'>Watergate</ent> days when I thought what we had to do was persuade some people, with
detailed arguments based on WC documents, that just maybe the <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent> (without being part of a conspiracy) had blown it. That manuscript
is quite out of date, of course. Now I often find myself trying to convince
people that the original investigation was not simply a complete and
deliberate coverup. The released <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> documents tend to support my original
analysis - although the FBI's hostility was far worse than I could infer from
the WC files. The manuscript did serve some purposes; among other things, I
think it led <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> to uncover much of the story of the deletion of the
Hosty entry from the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> listing of Oswald's notebook. (HSCAR 186) If you
did not see that 1972 manuscript long ago, please let me know if you are
interested. (98 pages, each two reduced pages of double-spaced clean
typescript; index included; cost (including postage): $6 or less, depending
on the number of requests received by January 1, 1987.)</p>

<p><special>A break from clippings (for the rest of this issue, at least):</special>
Current clippings are generally less interesting than, e.g., old
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3 -4-</p>

<p>clippings and <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> volumes. What are people interested in reading about
in <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>, or getting copies of? (My <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> analysis [#1986.68] generated just
one request for a copy.) What about new <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> documents, or my old
files of WC documents?
I would particularly like to hear from the people who have been helpful
by sending me clippings, especially if you feel I have incurred an obligation
to list them in <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>, or to otherwise preserve or disseminate them.
I just drifted into doing a newsletter; should I drift back to reading
documents, or to some other projects? Do we collectively have the computer
power, the time, and the interest to divide up work on indexes, lists of
clippings and documents, and chronologies? I would appreciate help with these
difficult questions. In the meantime, some documents, more or less from the
top of the pile on my desk.</p>

<p><special>From the <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> papers:</special>
As noted in 7 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3.10, some of Warren's files at <ent type='ORG'>the Library</ent> of <ent type='ORG'>Congress</ent>
have been released.
In March 1974, <ent type='PERSON'>Alfred Goldberg</ent> (the WC's staff historian) interviewed
<ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> about the Commission's work. The transcript [11 pp.] is #85;
correspondence about it is #86 [2 pp.] <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> took <ent type='PERSON'>Goldberg</ent> up on his offer
to make changes; according to his secretary's letter, he "expressed
reservations to me about the wisdom of including the material concerning the
personal and political views of certain members of the <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent>.... He has
never made any comment about the difficulties he may have encountered with the
other members, and after reading what he had told you he felt it would be
better if those portions were not included."
Of course, the passages marked for deletion are the most interesting.
"<ent type='ORG'>The Department</ent> of Justice sent a young man over to the <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent> to act as
liaison with them. He was very critical of me from the time he came over to
us. <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rankin</ent> as Chief Counsel was in a very delicate position." This
reference is probably to <ent type='PERSON'>Howard Willens</ent> (age 32), who was listed as liaison
with the Justice Department, and who can be rather difficult, I am told.
<ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> may also have been thinking of <ent type='PERSON'>Charles Shaffer</ent> (age 31), who (according
to <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent>' book) was detailed to the WC by <ent type='PERSON'>RFK</ent> to keep an eye on <ent type='PERSON'>Hoffa</ent>-related leads.
There are other deletable tidbits on personnel matters, and other fairly
interesting comments. For example, <ent type='PERSON'>Sam Stern</ent>'s report on the SS and <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> was
not thought to be "objective or logical" (his work was actually quite good);
the story of <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Alice</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Texas</ent>, held up the Report (news to me, if true);
there were "no special problems from <ent type='PERSON'>Hoover</ent> and the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>"; and the testimony of
the autopsy doctors was the "best evidence" on the wounds.
Warren's files include a nonsubstantive response to <ent type='ORG'>Wesley Liebeler</ent>'s
memo of November 1966, in which he recorded <ent type='PERSON'>David Lifton</ent>'s observation of the
"surgery of the head" remark in the <ent type='PERSON'>Sibert</ent>-O'<ent type='PERSON'>Neill</ent> report. (See "Best
Evidence," Ch. 10.) In a short note to <ent type='PERSON'>Rankin</ent>, dated 12 Dec 66, <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> said
that what <ent type='PERSON'>Rankin</ent> told "<ent type='PERSON'>Liebler</ent>" in his letter of 1 Dec "was correct and in the
right tone. I believe that many people who were somewhat enamored by <ent type='PERSON'>Lane</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Epstein</ent> are finally becoming disillusioned." (#87)
Speaking of <ent type='ORG'>the <ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent></ent> staff, "Professional men who wear bow
ties to the office are distrusted by almost everyone, says image consultant
<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> Molloy. Attorneys traditionally avoid putting a bow tie wearer on a jury
because they believe the wearer is not likely to be moved by sound argument."
(#88, <ent type='GPE'>UPI</ent>, 28 Dec 85)
Also from the <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> papers: a letter from the publisher of "Six Seconds
in <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>" to <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> McCloy, urging him to do the right thing [#89, 5 pp.];
McCloy's draft response, saying that he was not impressed [#90, 16 Jul 69,
3 pp.], and an exchange of letters between McCloy and <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> [#91, 3 pp.], in
which <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> agreed with McCloy but suggested that he not send the letter.
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3 -5-</p>

<p><special><ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> interest in identifying the <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent> Mystery Man:</special>
Last November, the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> released eleven documents to <ent type='PERSON'>Bud Fensterwald</ent> in
connection with his <ent type='ORG'>FOIA</ent> request for records relating to efforts to identify
the <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent> Mystery Man (MMM), the man whose description (taken from <ent type='ORG'>Embassy</ent>
surveillance photos) was attached to <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> in October 1963.
The new documents are among 54 which "relate to a theory explored in 1977
that a particular foreign national might be the 'unidentified man.' That
individual had been a target of <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> intelligence interest for many years for
reasons unconnected with the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> assassination." (From #92, <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> to
<ent type='PERSON'>Fensterwald</ent>, 29 Nov 85, 2 pp.)
The substance of this material interests me less than the fact of the
CIA's interest. The suspect's nationality is withheld, but I would guess he
is <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> or <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent>. I see no reason to assume that he was thought to be a
<ent type='ORG'>KGB</ent> or <ent type='ORG'>DGI</ent> covert operative, rather than (say) someone involved in "innocent"
diplomatic or technical activities of interest to the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>.
The basic <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> analysis is a "memorandum for the record," dated April
1977. (#93, 12 pp., with much deleted) Oddly, the author seems to take
seriously the "<ent type='PERSON'>Saul</ent>" story in Hugh Mc<ent type='PERSON'>Don</ent>ald's book, "Appointment in <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>."
(Although I found little credible in that book, Mc<ent type='PERSON'>Don</ent>ald and his purported
friend, <ent type='PERSON'>Herman Kimsey</ent>, were interesting people.) Over half of this memo
tallies "striking parallels between the backgrounds of '<ent type='PERSON'>Saul</ent>' as given in
Mc<ent type='PERSON'>Don</ent>ald's book and [deletion]." (Only the published half of these parallels
is not deleted.) After noting that "Mc<ent type='PERSON'>Don</ent>ald said he believes '<ent type='PERSON'>Saul</ent>' was
telling true story," the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> author wrote "I do too."
This memo seems to have been prompted by the fact that "On 17 March 1977,
[deletion] recognized photographs of the unidentified man as [deletion]."
(#94 records a request of March 11 to show an MMM photo to an unnamed
subject.) Mc<ent type='PERSON'>Don</ent>ald's Indenti-Kit composite of <ent type='PERSON'>Saul</ent> is said to "bear a
striking resemblance to the photos of [deletion]." (Speaking of striking
resemblances, anyone who is not convinced that they sometimes occur by
coincidence, not conspiracy, should have a copy of my #95, including a photo
of <ent type='PERSON'>Zbigniew Brzezinski</ent> looking rather like the MMM. I will not entertain
conspiracy theories involving Brzezinski.)
Items #96 (25 &amp; 29 May 77, 3 pp. in all) relate to a photographic
comparison which concluded that, within the limitations of poor photo quality,
the two subjects "could very likely be the same person."
Another memo, also dated only April 1977, seems to be a summary of the
theory. (#97, 3 pp.) Practically everything of substance is deleted.
This information may have been made available to <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent>
Breckinridge was instructed to review this material and make it available to
<ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Gary Cornwell</ent> "if appropriate." (13 Jul 78, #98) The author of
this memo tried to maintain some distance from the theory. "Although the
material contained in the attached folder is entirely theoretical and does not
constitute an official file or position of this <ent type='ORG'>Division</ent> or <ent type='ORG'>Agency</ent>, it may be
of interest to... <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>." If made available, it would be "with the
understanding that it is a theoretical unofficial research undertaking." The
folder contains "informal and preliminary research based on a <special>theory</special> that
[deletion] might be identifiable with" the MMM.
What do we know about the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> researcher who pursued this hypothesis?
Only that she "undertook to research the theory that [deletion] might be the
unidentified man as a result of the indepth study she conducted as the
[deletion] of this Division's efforts to determine if there could have been
<ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> complicity in the <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> F. <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> assassination." (From #98)
What an interesting effort for the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> to undertake during <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>
probe. I assume it was not done to absolve <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>. Why was it done, at least
in part, "unofficially," and by someone who took the <ent type='PERSON'>Saul</ent> story seriously?
What else did she and her colleagues believe? Can anyone tell us more about
this in-depth <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> study? I guess it was related to the Task Force Report
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3 -6-</p>

<p>prepared in response to the Schweiker Report. (HSCAR 108, 10 HSCA 156)
The memos, as released, do not say much about possible <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> involvement.
The second April 1977 memo asks three questions, including "Could [deletion]
be '<ent type='PERSON'>Saul</ent>'?" and "Could [deletion], therefore, be mystery man who boarded plane
in <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent> City for <ent type='GPE'>Havana</ent> on 22 November 1963?" (Cf. HSCAR 117) (The third
question is deleted.)
Related released documents: #99, 4 pp. The <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> list of 40 documents on
this subject (dated 12/62 through 7/78, mostly withheld) is #100, 3 pp.</p>

<p><special><ent type='NORP'>Nazis</ent> and other anti-<ent type='NORP'>Communists</ent>:</special>
Former Justice Department official <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Loftus</ent> made some noteworthy
comments in his <ent type='ORG'>House</ent> testimony on a <ent type='ORG'>GAO</ent> report on <ent type='NORP'>Nazi</ent> war criminals in the
U.S. (For more on <ent type='ORG'>Loftus</ent>, see 6 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4.10.) In a list of 29 areas which he
could talk about only in executive session, he included "17. <ent type='NORP'>Nazi</ent> connection
with covert assassination programs" and "19. <ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent> files
involving <ent type='NORP'>Nazi</ent> recruitment programs."
Does anyone know what this might be about? <ent type='PERSON'>Larry Haapanen</ent> suggested that
CD's 597, 8l7, 1096, and 1544 might be related. CD 1096 (6 pp.) appears to be
a routine review of a <ent type='NORP'>French</ent> book entitled "<ent type='NORP'>Fascists</ent> and <ent type='NORP'>Nazis</ent> Today," which
speculated that right-wing Hungarian refugees were under close <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>
surveillance; this book came to the Commission's attention because it was
mentioned in the <ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent>. CD 597, described as a <ent type='ORG'>BND</ent> [<ent type='NORP'>West German</ent> Intelligence]
file, came to the WC from the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>. According to CE 3107 (to which CD 1544
relates), CD 597 is a routine-sounding unsupported allegation of a pre-assassination reference to <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>. CD 597 could be the material forwarded by
the WC to the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, whose reply, CD 817 (<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> #660-833), was described (in the
uncensored CD list) as relating to allegations concerning <ent type='PERSON'>Anton</ent> Erdinger. The
<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> indicated that the subject matter was so peripheral to the WC's work as to
call for no further investigation.
<ent type='ORG'>Loftus</ent>' testimony is #1986.101 [17 Oct 85, <ent type='ORG'>House</ent> Judiciary <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent>
Serial 39, 8 pp.] Among other interesting points, he noted that several of
the most famous <ent type='ORG'>KGB</ent> moles in <ent type='GPE'>England</ent> were involved with <ent type='NORP'>Nazi</ent> immigration into
the U.S., and he said that "the <ent type='NORP'>Nazi</ent> groups which we imported from the <ent type='NORP'>British</ent>
[were] riddled with communist double agents." (P. 90)
<ent type='ORG'>Loftus</ent> also alleged that "in 1944, the <ent type='LOC'>East</ent>ern European fascist leaders
began to defect back to the <ent type='NORP'>British</ent> and were reorganized into a new front
group called <ent type='ORG'>ABN</ent> (the Anti-Bolshevic Bloc of Nations)." (P. 89)
In 1959, the secretary-general of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> Friends of the <ent type='ORG'>ABN</ent> was
Spas T. <ent type='ORG'>Raikin</ent>. He is now a history professor at <ent type='ORG'>East Stroudsburg University</ent>,
in <ent type='GPE'>Pennsylvania</ent>; his letter on the history of the oppression of his fellow
<ent type='NORP'>Bulgarians</ent> recently appeared in the <ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent>. (#102, 10 May 86)
As a volunteer for Traveler's Aid, <ent type='ORG'>Raikin</ent> talked with the <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>s on
their return from the <ent type='GPE'>USSR</ent>. (Peter <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> discovered Raikin's interesting past
connection to <ent type='ORG'>ABN</ent>; see "The Assassinations," p. 366, or "The <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>
Conspiracy, p. II-23.) I know of no actual evidence that his contact with
<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was other than routine.
<ent type='ORG'>Raikin</ent> apparently was the conduit for a claim by <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> that he went to
<ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent> with the State Department's approval, either to work as a radar
specialist or to serve with <ent type='ORG'>the Marine Corps</ent> at the <ent type='ORG'>Embassy</ent>. (CD 1230, p. 3;
26 WCH 12; Oswald's claim is erroneously reported as a fact known to <ent type='ORG'>HEW</ent> in CD
75, p. 461, and <ent type='PERSON'>Summers</ent>, p. 217.)
Most probably <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> himself was trying to mislead people about his stay
in <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>. I wonder, however, if <ent type='ORG'>Raikin</ent> might have had an interest in
portraying <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> as an agent of the State Department, rather than (say) as a
loner, or as an agent of another intelligence agency? (Just speculating.)
.CP 6
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3 -7-</p>

<p><special>Book news:</special>
<ent type='PERSON'>Kitty Kelley</ent>'s new book on <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Frank</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Sinatra</ent></ent> ("His Way," Bantam, $21.95) is
rather political, with quite a bit on the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>-Exner-<ent type='PERSON'>Giancana</ent>-<ent type='PERSON'>Sinatra</ent>
nexus. I think there is some new information, much of it apparently based on
allegations by Peter Lawford (who would not talk about JFK's "broads").
For example, Lawford "formally approached his brother-in-law by making an
appointment to see the attorney general in his office at the Justice
Department. There Lawford begged <ent type='PERSON'>Bobby</ent> to listen to Sinatra's pleas for
<ent type='PERSON'>Giancana</ent>. Robert <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> intended to make Frank's mobster friend the Justice
Department's top priority in <ent type='GPE'>Chicago</ent> and curtly told Lawford to mind his own
business." (P. 293)
<ent type='ORG'>Notre Dame</ent> professor "<ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent>" (then a JD lawyer) told <ent type='PERSON'>Kelley</ent> about
an opposing attorney who indicated an acquaintance with the then-Attorney
General, <ent type='PERSON'>RFK</ent>; <ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> was told that, from electronic surveillance, it was known
that the attorney "had Sinatra's money in West <ent type='GPE'>Virginia</ent> and that it was mob
money." (P. 530(n))
"<ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> records indicate that when in 1961 Carlos <ent type='PERSON'>Marcello</ent>... had become one
of <ent type='PERSON'>Bobby</ent> Kennedy's targets for deportation, the <ent type='GPE'>New Orleans</ent> don contacted
Santo Trafficante... who in turn called <ent type='PERSON'>Frank</ent> to use his influence with 'the
President's father' on Marcello's behalf." (P. 295) This story has appeared
(with little emphasis) in the <ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent>-<ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent> book (which does not specify
that a contact with <ent type='PERSON'>Sinatra</ent> was made; p. 242) and at 9 HSCA 70 (which does not
specifically refer to JFK's father).
Years after the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination, "when [<ent type='PERSON'>Sinatra</ent>] learned that <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent>
Harvey <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> had watched <special>Suddenly</special> a few days [sic] before shooting the
President, he withdrew the 1954 movie in which he played a deranged assassin
paid to kill the president. He also forbid the re-release of <special><ent type='ORG'>The Manchurian</ent>
Candidate</special>." (P. 328; cf. 1 3D 6.13, noted at 7 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3.9)
In a column prompted by the book, W. Safire called Reagan's award of the
Medal of <ent type='ORG'>Freedom</ent> to <ent type='PERSON'>Sinatra</ent> "obscene." [30 Sep, #103] In 1975, Safire had
strong words about the <ent type='PERSON'>Sinatra</ent>-Exner-<ent type='PERSON'>Giancana</ent> story (<ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent>, pp. 740-1); I
don't know if the Church <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent> took up his challenge to question <ent type='PERSON'>Sinatra</ent>.
There is a provocative sentence in <ent type='PERSON'>Dan</ent> Moldea's new book on Reagan, <ent type='ORG'>MCA</ent>,
and the <ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent>, "Dark Victory." In a discussion of <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Hauser</ent>, "a convicted
insurance swindler who... allowed himself to be used as the hub of several <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>
sting operations... that yielded a pending indictment against [Trafficante]
and the bribery conviction of Carlos <ent type='PERSON'>Marcello</ent>...," <ent type='ORG'>Moldea</ent> asserts that "<ent type='ORG'>Hauser</ent>
had also received thinly veiled admissions on tape from <ent type='PERSON'>Marcello</ent> during...
<ent type='ORG'>BRILAB</ent>... that he had been directly involved in the assassination of <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> twenty years earlier." This unfootnoted claim is contrary to what I
recall from earlier reports, which were along the lines of Blakey's assertion
that even though <ent type='PERSON'>Marcello</ent> admitted his <ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent> membership, he "pointedly refused
to discuss" the assassination. (<ent type='PERSON'>Blakey</ent> &amp; <ent type='PERSON'>Billings</ent>, p. 242)
Can anyone clarify this issue for us? One reason for my skepticism is
apparent overstatement in some other references to the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> case. <ent type='ORG'>Moldea</ent> says
that <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> "had close ties with the Carlos <ent type='PERSON'>Marcello</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent> family in New
Orleans, particularly with <ent type='PERSON'>Charles Murret</ent>, a top man in Marcello's <ent type='GPE'>Louisiana</ent>
gambling network. <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> had also been seen by numerous witnesses meeting
with Marcello's personal pilot just days before he murdered the president."
While Murret's importance to <ent type='PERSON'>Marcello</ent> and his closeness to <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> are
debatable, the claim in the subsequent sentence is news to me. Also news to
me in part, and disputable in part: that "many of those on the panel [i.e.,
<ent type='ORG'>the <ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent></ent>] had been directly involved with the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> in the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>-<ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent> plots to murder <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Fidel</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent></ent> - which the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> brothers had no
knowledge of until May 1962, at which time they ordered them stopped." Who on
the WC besides <ent type='GPE'>Dulles</ent>? (See <ent type='ORG'>Moldea</ent>, pp. 234-5, 338-9; #104 [2 pp.])
I have also read "Alias <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>," by W. R. Morris and R. B. <ent type='PERSON'>Cutler</ent>, and
"<ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>: The Mystery Unraveled," from the Liberty Lobby's "Spotlight."
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3 -8-</p>

<p>(#105: ad from "Spotlight" for the book [107 pages for $6.95]; see #1985.102
for one chapter.) I would prefer not to have to say more about these books,
so I won't, at least in this issue.
I have some relatively routine reviews of the <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent> book, and a few of the
<ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent> book (which is now out in <ent type='GPE'>England</ent>, and will appear next March in a
<ent type='NORP'>German</ent> edition with new material on <ent type='PERSON'>Marcello</ent>). The first part of "Best
Evidence" has been out in <ent type='GPE'>Japan</ent> for some time now, and you can have a sample
page to impress your friends. (#106, with drawings of the head wound)
If you are interested in the problems facing authors of serious
nonfiction, I recommend "Publishers wary of lawsuits: Libel Lawyers Wield
Blue Pencils on Books." (#107, <ent type='ORG'>LAT</ent>, 26 Jun 86, 3 pp.)</p>

<p><special><ent type='ORG'>KAL</ent> 007:</special>
Three months after the <ent type='ORG'>KAL</ent> disaster, while the press was noting the
twentieth anniversary of the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> assassination, the government was seemingly
commemorating it with a major coverup, arguably the biggest in twenty years.
On the occasion of the publication of <ent type='PERSON'>Seymour Hersh</ent>'s new book, "The
<ent type='ORG'>Target</ent> is Destroyed," Time magazine drew a different parallel: "Like the
<ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> assassination, the <ent type='ORG'>KAL</ent> incident has created a cottage industry of
conspiracy theorists.... Hersh's explanations [excerpted] in the <special><ent type='LOC'>Atlantic</ent></special>
seem far more convincing. They involve no conspiracies or even any evil
intent on either side. Yet that is hardly reassuring. It is in some ways
more frightening to be reminded just how fragile sophisticated military
systems are and how frail their human operators can be." (#108, 1 Sep)
A valid enough conclusion, but I think it is a misreading of Hersh's book, and
even more so of his evidence, to call his account nonconspiratorial.
# 109 is a favorable review and good summary by J. Nance. (28 Sep, SFC)
Hersh's main point is "the mishandling of intercepted electronic intelligence
by the Reagan administration.... He paints a fascinating picture of how an
outraged government seized on the worst possible interpretation of the
earliest intelligence reports and jumped to the conclusion (without adequate
evidence) that the <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent>s had indeed indentified the target as a civilian
airliner," although <ent type='ORG'>Air Force Intelligence</ent> knew promptly that they had not.
There are indeed parallels to the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> controversy. <ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent>' appearance on
TV in SF was very deja vu, reminiscent of the <ent type='PERSON'>Lane</ent> - <ent type='PERSON'>Belli</ent> encounters of 1964.
<ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent> was cast into the <ent type='PERSON'>Belli</ent> role, arguing against allegations that <ent type='ORG'>KAL</ent> 007
was on a spy mission, partly with facts and partly by asking if people could
really believe that our <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> would send 269 people to certain death. The role
of <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Lane</ent> was taken by Melvin <ent type='PERSON'>Belli</ent>, of all people, who is representing the
families of some victims. <ent type='PERSON'>Belli</ent> acted old and lawyerly. The direct
involvement and intensity supplied by Marguerite <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> in 1964 was provided
by the mother of one of the victims. To my surprise, the studio audience was
very conspiratorial, and I found myself sympathizing with <ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent>.
There is, of course, very little hard evidence available. The argument
about whether 007 could have been off course by accident is reminiscent of the
acoustical analysis. It is even more technical, and looks to me like an
argument among experts, unresolvable by laymen. For its flavor (with somewhat
out-of-date information), see the rather nasty exchange between M. Sayle and
D. Pearson (#110, NYRev, 25 Apr and 26 Sep 85, 27 pp.)
Hersh's <ent type='PERSON'>Arlen Specter</ent> is airline pilot <ent type='PERSON'>Harold Ewing</ent>, whose "single-bullet
theory" is a detailed reconstruction of the chain of errors and omissions
which could have put 007 on the course it took. Remember, I'm inclined to
believe the <ent type='ORG'>SBT</ent>, so that is not a putdown - but if you believe Ewing's account
you may never want to fly again.
Hersh's <ent type='PERSON'>Angleton</ent> is General <ent type='PERSON'>James Pfautz</ent>, the head of <ent type='ORG'>Air Force</ent>
Intelligence. He is not as peculiar as <ent type='PERSON'>Angleton</ent>, but almost as heavy. The
book, however, does not speculate on the possible importance of the split
represented by someone of his rank going public with his dissent.
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3 -9-</p>

<p> One parallel drawn by "Time" and others is basically misleading - the
allegedly nonconspiratorial nature of Hersh's "innocent" explanation. Indeed,
<ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent> seems to treat the ideology of Reagan and his crew as an external,
almost extenuating, factor. (They rushed to judgment "in what amounted to
good faith...." [P. 249]) The story of how the <ent type='ORG'>Air Force</ent> version was
discounted emphasizes normal inter-service bureaucratic infighting and
personal conflicts.
With the same facts, someone could make what happened sound like a very
substantial conspiracy. <ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent> does tell us that a general requested a phony
report justifying provocative action against <ent type='GPE'>Russia</ent>, but was turned down
(p. 74), and that a hardline deputy to <ent type='PERSON'>William Clark</ent> discussed military action
against <ent type='GPE'>Cuba</ent> (p. 122-3). The government's insistence on "look[ing] the other
way when better information became available" (p. 249) is arguably at least as
bad as planning a covert action which unpredictably failed. I don't find that
alternative as implausible as <ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent> tried to make it sound when arguing with
the conspiracy <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent>s. The government's anti-<ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> campaign based on false
intelligence undeniably did endanger many innocent people, albeit obviously to
a lesser degree than using an airliner on an intelligence mission.
For a moderately conspiratorial view, see the book "<ent type='PERSON'>Shootdown</ent>," by <ent type='ORG'>Oxford</ent>
professor R. W. <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>son. (#111 [2 pp.] is his own summary, from the <ent type='GPE'>London</ent>
Telegraph (18 May 86), as reprinted in Intelligence/Parapolitics.) Before
reading the <ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent> book, I found "<ent type='PERSON'>Shootdown</ent>" quite plausible in concluding that
<ent type='ORG'>KAL</ent> 007 was probably being used as a passive probe, in the reasonable
expectation that the worst that could happen was that it would be forced to
land. <ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent> did not completely convince me that <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>son was wrong.
<ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>son, in contrast to <ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent>, is emphatic about how extreme - and how
besotted with covert operations and dubious information - the Reaganites are.
After all, they have given us the <ent type='ORG'>Contras</ent>, the plot against the <ent type='PERSON'>Pope</ent>, <ent type='GPE'>Grenada</ent>,
<ent type='NORP'>Libyan</ent> hit squads, and Star Wars. <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>son's distance from an <ent type='NORP'>American</ent>
perspective is occasionally off-putting, but more often helpful.
Hersh's debunking of more conspiratorial accounts is often persuasive,
but not always. For example, his suggestion that the <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent>s planted a phony
black box, and that the crash site can be located in <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> waters from the
testimony of <ent type='GPE'>Japan</ent>ese fishermen who turned up with gasoline-soaked notes more
than 30 days later, may be true, but the book doesn't deal with <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>son's
detailed arguments about the search for the black box.
<ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent> has no indexed reference to the K<ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> (whose alleged connections to
<ent type='ORG'>KAL</ent> get much attention from <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>son). More relevant to his own story, <ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent>
does not (I think) refer at all to <ent type='NORP'>Korean</ent> COMINT capabilities, or to the
presence or absence of US COMINT facilities in <ent type='GPE'>Korea</ent>. In my mind, this leaves
a gap in his assertion that he came across no indication of any prior or real-time knowledge of a mission involving <ent type='ORG'>KAL</ent> 007, and that he would have done so.
The book certainly doesn't give the impression that the story was in any
sense handed to <ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent>, or that he is a friend of the intelligence community.
For example, he throws in an apparently gratuitous disclosure of the location
of some <ent type='ORG'>NSA</ent> facilities. (P. 47n) There are many other juicy details. But
one has to wonder if what he learned represents a major ongoing split within
the government. People talked to him, and he got things using <ent type='ORG'>FOIA</ent>. Was that
just because he is a good reporter?
The existence of dissenting positions in the intelligence community is
not a completely new story; some newspapers reported on it in 1983 (pp. 177,
265), and there was a bit of a flap when a witting <ent type='PERSON'>Pierre Trudeau</ent> revealed
some of what he knew in October 1983.
I wonder about the timing of a decision by "a senior military
intelligence officer" to give <ent type='PERSON'>Hersh</ent> his "first account" of the abuse of COMINT
in this case "late in 1984." [P. xi] Did the people in the intelligence
community who knew the story wait until the 1984 elections were out of the way
before spilling the beans? As with <ent type='EVENT'>Watergate</ent> and Epstein's "Legend", the
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3 -10-</p>

<p>disclosure of important information may itself be a bigger part of the real
story than the casual reader (of "Time," and even of this book) would think.
This is in <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> because we all should be interested, not just because of
the parallels with the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> case. The case is in the courts and will not just
go away. There seems to be a network of 007 <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent>s - are any <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> readers in
touch with them?
Readers of the Grassy Knoll Gazette are familiar with <ent type='PERSON'>Bob Cutler</ent>'s
analysis, according to which <ent type='ORG'>KAL</ent> 007 was not shot down by the <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent>s, but
destroyed by an on-board explosion at the same time the <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent>s shot down a
U.S. military plane. <ent type='PERSON'>Cutler</ent> has published a book, titled "<ent type='ORG'>Explo</ent> 007." If you
are willing to keep Occam's Razor sheathed, and if you trust <ent type='PERSON'>Cutler</ent> to have
convincingly eliminated all simpler explanations, you should read that book;
I haven't.</p>

<p><special>Queries from readers:</special>
Q77. According to P. <ent type='PERSON'>Maas</ent>' book on Ed <ent type='ORG'>Wilson</ent>, in 1964 the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> helped get
<ent type='ORG'>Wilson</ent> a job as an advance man in Humphrey's VP campaign, in connection with
his assignment to "Special Operations." (P. 24, #112) On the assumption that
the capitalization is not a typo, can anyone tell us about such a <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> unit?
Q78. Can anyone provide a copy (or photocopy) of "Lucky Luciano," by
<ent type='PERSON'>Ovid Demaris</ent> (<ent type='ORG'>Monarch Books</ent> paperback, 1960, 148 pp.)?
Q79. Does anyone have an <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> document describing a test, prior to
November 29, 1963, of the firing speed of Oswald's rifle?</p>

<p><special><ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> again:</special>
Speaking of theories of <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> involvement (as we were on page 5): in his
March 16 speech on <ent type='NORP'>Contra</ent> aid, president R. Reagan closed with an anecdote
from <ent type='PERSON'>Clare Booth Luce</ent>, who recently spoke of an encounter with <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>. She said
that history has time to give any great man no more than one sentence.
<ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> asked what she thought his would be. "'Mr. President,' she answered,
'your sentence will be that you stopped the <ent type='NORP'>Communists</ent> - or that you did not.'
Tragically, <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> never had the chance to decide which that would be."
(#113, <ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent>, 17 Mar 86)
It sounds like Reagan was just one word away from blaming the <ent type='NORP'>Communists</ent>
for JFK's death. ("Tragically" could have been "ironically" or "of course" or
"it is no coincidence that.") (See 6 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3.6 for Reagan's 1979 suspicions.)
The case may not be quite as dead as it seems.
For a different perspective, see "One Thousand Fearful Words for <ent type='PERSON'>Fidel</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>," a pre-invasion 1961 poem by S. F.'s Lawrence Ferlinghetti. "It looks
like Curtains for <ent type='PERSON'>Fidel</ent>/ They're going to fix his wagon/ in the course of
human events.... History may absolve you, <ent type='PERSON'>Fidel</ent>/ but we'll dissolve you
first, <ent type='PERSON'>Fidel</ent>." This copy [#114, 4 pp.] bears the rubber stamp of the S. F.
chapter of the Fair Play for <ent type='GPE'>Cuba</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent>, with genuine phone and P.O. box
numbers.</p>

<p><special>Late news:</special>
<ent type='PERSON'>David Phillips</ent> is to receive "substantial" damages in a settlement of a
libel suit against <ent type='ORG'>the London Observer</ent>, over excepts from <ent type='PERSON'>Summers</ent>' book
"Conspiracy." ("Challenge" press release and clips, #115, 2 pp.)</p>

<p><special>Credits:</special> Thanks to M. <ent type='PERSON'>Ewing</ent> (#115), B. <ent type='PERSON'>Fensterwald</ent> (80), J. <ent type='PERSON'>Goldberg</ent> (73),
L. Haapanen (101), G. Hollingsworth (77-8, 105), M. <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> (81), D. <ent type='ORG'>Lifton</ent> (106),
P. <ent type='PERSON'>McCarthy</ent> (83), J. Marshall (102), S. Meagher (84), J. Mierzejewski (79),
G. <ent type='PERSON'>Owens</ent> (76), R. Ranftel (85-7, 89-94, 96-100, 107, 110), P. <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> (104,
112), E. <ent type='GPE'>Tatro</ent> (74-5), and T. <ent type='PERSON'>Vaughan</ent> (72).</p>

<p>*From Illumi-Net BBS -- (404) 377-1141* [ Don's note: I doubt this BBS is
still up ]</p>

<p>---END------------------------------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>--
-* <ent type='PERSON'>Don Allen</ent> *- InterNet: dona@bilver.<ent type='ORG'>UUCP</ent> // Amiga..for the best of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 <ent type='ORG'>\X</ent>/ Why use anything else? :-)
<ent type='ORG'>UUCP</ent>: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal <ent type='ORG'>PROMIS</ent>?
/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. <ent type='PERSON'>William Henry</ent> /\/\</p>

<p>From: dona@bilver.uucp (<ent type='PERSON'>Don Allen</ent>)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> Text: Echoes of Conspiracy - <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>4.TXT (end)
<info type="Message-ID"> 1991Dec26.195226.20027@bilver.uucp</info>
Date: 26 Dec 91 19:52:26 GMT
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - <ent type='GPE'>Winter Park</ent>, FL
Lines: 618</p>

<p>*<ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent>4.TXT*</p>

<p>-----BEGIN PART 4/4-----------------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY December 8, 1986
Vol. 8, #4 <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> L. <ent type='PERSON'>Hoch</ent></p>

<p><special><ent type='ORG'>Showtime</ent> show trial:</special>
Among <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> readers, access to <ent type='ORG'>Showtime</ent> cable TV seems scarcer than
interest in the <ent type='ORG'>LWT</ent> production, "On Trial: <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> Harvey <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>." I was able to
see the program, so it seemed like a good idea to get this issue out as soon
as possible. It is less edited than usual; my allocation of space probably
does not accurately reflect the relative importance of the various witnesses,
or of the program as a whole.
The mock trial used real lawyers, real witnesses, and no script. Five
and a half hours were broadcast on November 21 and 22. (An additional 18
hours will reportedly be shown next January, or maybe it will be just 12 and a
half hours.) There were 21 witnesses in all - 14 called by prosecutor Vincent
<ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent>, seven by defense lawyer <ent type='PERSON'>Gerry</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent>. There were nine "November 22"
witnesses (six who were in Dealey Plaza, two on the <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> case, and one from
<ent type='GPE'>Bethesda</ent>); four people who knew or investigated <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> and one who knew <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent>,
and seven people who testified to or participated in <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent>
<ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent> investigations. Not much documentary material was used in the
trial, other than the <ent type='PERSON'>Zapruder</ent> film and some 1963-64 film clips.
High points, in my opinion, for viewers already familiar with the case:
<ent type='PERSON'>Ruth Paine</ent> talking about <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, Ed Lopez on his HSCA investigation of <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>
in <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent> O'Connor on the circumstances of the autopsy.
Low points: the cross-examination of <ent type='PERSON'>Ruth Paine</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Jack Anderson</ent> as a
commentator, conspiracy witness <ent type='PERSON'>Tom Tilson</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Cyril Wecht</ent>'s testimony on the
single-bullet theory, the trial as a fact-finding vehicle, and <ent type='PERSON'>Gerry</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent>
(who came across like <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Lane</ent> imitating <ent type='PERSON'>Sam Ervin</ent>).
Prior to the filming, I talked with (and consulted for) some of the <ent type='ORG'>LWT</ent>
people, primarily producer <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Redhead</ent> and researcher <ent type='PERSON'>Richard</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Tomlinson</ent>.
They had a good understanding of the subtleties of the case, and of the
limitations imposed by the trial format. Unfortunately, those limitations
were more apparent in the final program than the new insights and information
they developed. In real life, I am told, there is more of a fact-finding
process in the work of trial lawyers than the jury ever knows. The <ent type='ORG'>LWT</ent> effort
might look much more productive after we see the outtakes (or if there is a
book or long article - I have heard nothing about one.) <ent type='ORG'>LWT</ent> definitely got
some interesting comments from potential witnesses who were not even mentioned
in the final version.</p>

<p><special>Summary and commentary:</special>
The first evening's segment (three hours) comprised the prosecution case.
It was the basic WC-HSCA evidence against <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, presented in a rather
straightforward way by <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent>.
Bugliosi's presentation included relatively little that offended me,
except for a few things like some comments in his opening statement about
<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> as a Commie (which <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> pounced on). <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> was much worse on
"<ent type='ORG'>People are Talking</ent>" in S.F. in mid-November, where he dredged up <ent type='PERSON'>Joseph</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Goebbels</ent> and the "big lie" to bash the critics with. Bugliosi's trial
presentation did tend to refer more to what "the critics" had said than to "my
opponent," and he tried to discredit <ent type='PERSON'>Wecht</ent> by calling him "the darling of the
conspiracy <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent>s."
Opening statements followed a brief introduction by <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Edwin</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Newman</ent></ent>,
including some stock footage. The stated aim of the show was to restore the
rights of <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> to a trial, and of the <ent type='NORP'>American</ent> people to see justice done.
The <ent type='GPE'>London</ent> set looked like a courtroom, with a jury brought over from <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>,
an apparently working court reporter, and an audience of actors.
Bugliosi's real record was one acquittal in 106 felony prosecutions, and
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> had not lost a jury trial in 17 years; at some level these guys were
clearly playing for keeps. This may have led to strategies aimed at winning,
rather than at, say, coming up with newsworthy new evidence or good TV.
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4 -2-</p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> began his opening statement with negative comments about
conspiracy <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent>s. A <ent type='ORG'>frameup</ent> is a "preposterous" idea; <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was a "deeply
disturbed and maladjusted man" and a "fanatical <ent type='NORP'>Marxist</ent>."
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> said that when he started work on this trial, he thought <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>
(generally referred to as "<ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent>") was guilty, but he was now convinced that we
have been carrying a "national lie" with us. At the end of the trial, the
jury would still want to know why <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent>, representing "this huge polithera
[sic] of power in this country" had still not come forward with the whole
truth, and would therefore have to return a "not guilty" verdict.
By and large, the prosecution witnesses repeated their earlier
statements, often by saying "yes" to Bugliosi's leading questions. I suppose
that was like a real trial, and it certainly kept the proceedings from
dragging, but in many cases this limited the opportunity to judge the demeanor
of the witness. I'm not sure anything came out in direct testimony which we
didn't already know, but if it did, we would have trouble judging whether it
was a real subtlety or one introduced by Bugliosi's paraphrasing.
First witness: <special><ent type='PERSON'>Buell Frazier</ent></special>, slightly graying. He lives "here in
<ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>." He said that <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was the only employee missing at a roll call.
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> opened with a little joke, and bugged <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> by mispronouncing his
name. He led <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent> to say that <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was nice, liked kids, was not a
madman, and had not previously lied to him.
The real issues involving <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent>, particularly his interrogations by the
police, did not surface. (<ent type='ORG'>LWT</ent> had been referred to Chapters 10 and 11 of
George O'Toole's book "The Assassination Tapes.") Of course, all my comments
about what was not done are subject to revision when we see the rest of the
testimony next year.
<special><ent type='PERSON'>Charles Brehm</ent></special> described what he saw of the shooting. To <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent>, he
conceded that he had called himself an expert on those few seconds. The
<ent type='PERSON'>Zapruder</ent> film was shown, to make the jury experts too. <ent type='PERSON'>Brehm</ent> argued a bit
when <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> described the head snap in exaggerated terms. <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> carried on
about the direction tin cans move in when hit by rocks, and he was reprimanded
for his theatrics. There's a mind-bender. If a witness misbehaved, would he
be cited for contempt of television? (And sentenced to watch "<ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>"?)
<special><ent type='PERSON'>Harold Norman</ent></special> was led through his description of hearing the shots and
falling cartridge cases on the next floor up. <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> aptly noted that <ent type='PERSON'>Norman</ent>
did not try to escape from the armed man in the building, and <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent>
inscrutably suggested that what he heard could have been other metal objects
dropping. <ent type='PERSON'>Norman</ent> seemed a bit evasive, or perhaps just understandably puzzled
by the whole exercise. Oddly, he indicated that he had resisted the efforts
of the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> to put words in his mouth, on the question of whether what he heard
was "above" or "right above" him. <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> tried (inadequately) to clarify the
issue of when employees were freed to leave the building.
Sheriff <special><ent type='PERSON'>Eugene Boone</ent></special> described the sniper's nest, and his discovery of
the rifle, saying that "<ent type='ORG'>Mauser</ent>" was used as a generic term. Typically, <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent>
did not really cross-examine <ent type='ORG'>Boone</ent> about what he had said, but used his
testimony as a way of presenting his own speculation. <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> suggested that
the gun was meant to be found, and that the cartridge cases were found in
positions inconsistent with ejection to the right from the rifle.
As in a real trial, I guess, <ent type='ORG'>Boone</ent> didn't get to point out that
cartridges can bounce, and he played along with Spence's resurrection of the
old <ent type='ORG'>Mannlicher</ent> - <ent type='ORG'>Mauser</ent> identification problem. <ent type='ORG'>Boone</ent> conceded that he was
not able to identify the rifle as the one he found, just in the sense that it
did not have his marks on it. Having testified that he found no powder burns
on the foliage on the knoll, he conceded that there were none on the sixth
floor either.
Officer <special><ent type='PERSON'>Marrion Baker</ent></special> described his encounter with <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> on the second
floor. <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> emphasized that <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> did not seem excited.
<special><ent type='PERSON'>Ted Callaway</ent></special> told of seeing <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> run past his used-car lot with his
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4 -3-</p>

<p>pistol, and of checking Tippit's pulse and calling in on his radio. On cross,
<ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> objected to <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> cutting off Callaway's responses, but was
overruled. I wonder if anyone got to sit down with these witnesses and have a
decent session of questioning without playing by legal rules, and if a record
of such conversations will ever become available. If not, that would be a
real loss.
About an hour into the show, there was the first exchange I found
potentially valuable. <ent type='PERSON'>Callaway</ent> conceded that Capt. <ent type='PERSON'>Fritz</ent> said before the
lineup that they wanted to wrap up the case on <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, and linked him to JFK's
murder, but <ent type='PERSON'>Callaway</ent> said he had asked first. He continued to defend the
handling of the lineup (e.g., the clothing worn) and the validity of his
identification: "I could have made it, sir, if they had been 'nekkid.'"
<ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> called <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent> back, to identify <ent type='PERSON'>Billy Lovelady</ent> standing in the
doorway a few steps in front of <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent>. <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> had gotten <ent type='PERSON'>Callaway</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Baker</ent>
to say that the man in the <ent type='PERSON'>Altgens</ent> photo resembled <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>. <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> tried to
make an issue of <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent> not having identified <ent type='PERSON'>Lovelady</ent> before. This is a
good example of muddying up the facts on what really is a non-issue.
<special><ent type='PERSON'>Jack Brewer</ent></special> (known to us as <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>ny Calvin <ent type='ORG'>Brewer</ent>) told of seeing <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>
outside his shoe store, and of his role in the capture of <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>. Did we know
that the police briefly held a gun on him? Good testimony from a human-interest viewpoint, but we did not learn how <ent type='ORG'>Brewer</ent> felt about jumping into
that dangerous situation. To <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent>, he conceded that Oswald's odd behavior
was consistent with being a patsy, that a policeman struck <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, and that he
did testify that he heard someone say "Kill the President, will you" - but he
does not know who, or even if it was a policeman. (It did not come out that
he told <ent type='PERSON'>David Belin</ent> that it was "some of the police," and that he thought he
"had seen him [<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>] some place before. I think he had been in my store
before." [7 WCH 6, 4])
After a "break," during which Ed <ent type='PERSON'>Newman</ent> retraced Oswald's route, <special>Cecil
<ent type='PERSON'>Kirk</ent></special> testified about his HSCA photo analysis, primarily of the <ent type='PERSON'>Zapruder</ent> film
and the backyard photos. <ent type='PERSON'>Kirk</ent> had better graphics capabilities this time -
stop action video, and a light pen (as used for play analysis in football
games). This production reportedly cost about $1 million; <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> spent only
about $5.5 million investigating the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>MLK</ent> cases.
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> suggested, in a patronizing and artificial way, that the sudden
stop of the running girl (<ent type='ORG'>Rose</ent>mary Willis) may have been caused by her mother
- she presumably did have one, right? - calling her name. <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> tried to get
<ent type='PERSON'>Kirk</ent> to admit that he could not detect a <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> or <ent type='ORG'>KGB</ent> fraud; he stood his
ground. I remain impressed by <ent type='PERSON'>Kirk</ent>. I really believe that many of <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>
panelists would have been delighted to come up with evidence of conspiracy.
(That has been said about the WC staff too, but there I have strong doubts.)
An odd bit of role-playing: <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> objected to the playing of a 1964
clip of Connally talking about the shots, when he must have realized that it
was good television and would not be passed up.
Dr. <special><ent type='PERSON'>Charles Petty</ent></special> testified about <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> pathology panel, attributing
the head snap to a neuromuscular reaction. <ent type='ORG'>Cross</ent>-examination was dreadful -
did you ask the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> or the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> "to produce the brain of the President?" Even
expert witnesses don't get to talk. The HSCA public hearings were usually a
lot better than a real trial, imperfect as they were. (Remember "I just have
one more question, Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?" [2 HSCA
344]) Petty looked authentically and appropriately amused by the antics of
the lawyers.
<ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> seemed genuinely puzzled by the panel's observation
that the photos and X-rays contradicted the autopsy surgeons on the location
of the head entry wound. (7 HSCA 129) <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> erroneously introduced this as
a conflict between the photos and the X-rays, and the real issue here (which
<ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> was unable to resolve) was totally obfuscated.
HSCA firearms expert <special><ent type='PERSON'>Monty Lutz</ent></special> described a re-enactment he did for
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4 -4-</p>

<p><ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> this May, getting three hits in 3.6 seconds once, and two hits the
other four times. <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> noted that this was not an exact duplication. He
made this point in such an obnoxious way that his success with juries both
surprises and disturbs me.
<special><ent type='PERSON'>Vincent Guinn</ent></special> testified about his neutron activation analysis. The
cross-examination (reproduced on p. 9) was in some ways typically awful.
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> emphasized that <ent type='PERSON'>Guinn</ent> had not examined 28 additional bullet fragments
which were "found" in the head. (In fact, they were "found" in X-rays.) The
erroneous implication that 28 other fragments were removed and then ignored
just slipped by. (Or was that my inference, not Spence's implication, as Mark
<ent type='PERSON'>Lane</ent> used to say?) <ent type='PERSON'>Guinn</ent> wasn't allowed to say what he knew on that point.
Insofar as there is a real inauthenticity issue, i.e. in the context of
Lifton's evidence, it was not pursued in any meaningful way on the air.
The next witness was a surprise to me, and a new face: former <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent>
documents expert <special><ent type='PERSON'>Lyndal Shaneyfelt</ent></special>. He gave straightforward testimony about
the Klein's order form for the rifle and Oswald's diary and letters, with a
reading of the sections indicating the most hostility to the U.S. <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent>
played the innocent: "Well. Do you realize what you've been used for here,
doctor?... to smear my client, isn't that right?" Presumably used to this
sort of thing in real life, <ent type='ORG'>Shaneyfelt</ent> did little but answer the questions.
Reading from 8 HSCA 236, <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> noted the expert testimony that the diary was
written in only a few sittings. <ent type='ORG'>Shaneyfelt</ent> stood up to him on his use of
microfilm copies for analysis.
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> suggested, hypothetically, that assuming <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was working for
"the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> or for <ent type='ORG'>the Army Intelligence</ent> or for the <ent type='ORG'>Navy</ent> Intelligence," he might
establish his loyalty by sending anti-<ent type='NORP'>American</ent> letters through the censored
mail. A confused double hypothesis: an agent wouldn't ordinarily keep a
diary, but he wanted his to be read. <ent type='ORG'>Shaneyfelt</ent> conceded that it was a "fair
assumption" that the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> can create good forgeries.
A bit of real-life drama emerged in the testimony of <special><ent type='PERSON'>Nelson</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Delgado</ent></special>, now
a chef in <ent type='GPE'>Arkansas</ent>. He and <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> were both "130%" pro-<ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> in the <ent type='NORP'>Marines</ent>.
He agreed with Spence's description of his (previously reported) fears that
the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> would get him, and <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> wondered - without probing the reasons for
his fears - if <ent type='PERSON'>Delgado</ent> didn't think that the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> would have gotten him if they
really wanted to. <ent type='PERSON'>Delgado</ent> said he was "just old news" now, and revealed that
he had indeed been shot in the shoulder.
The last government witness - on the stand for about 25 minutes - was
<special><ent type='PERSON'>Ruth Paine</ent></special>. Wasn't this her first extended public appearance? It was
interesting to see her in person, but the constraints of the format were
overwhelming. She was trying to be precise, thoughtful, and fair, and
apparently found talking about <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> a difficult experience; the lawyers were
busy acting like lawyers. For example, <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> asked if she were a <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> or <ent type='ORG'>KGB</ent>
agent, ridiculing her (as she noted) for laughing at the first question. He
badgered her about the coincidences involved in her studying <ent type='NORP'>Russian</ent> (to work
for US-<ent type='GPE'>USSR</ent> friendship), befriending <ent type='ORG'>Marina</ent>, having the gun in her garage, and
getting <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> the <ent type='ORG'>TSBD</ent> job - all, it seems, to make the point that she now knows
how <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> would have felt about being (falsely) accused. Dreadful. Why she sat
still for this, I don't know. She did say that she hoped to show "for the
historical record" that a "very ordinary person" like <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> "can kill the
President without that being something that shows on them in advance."
A discussion with <ent type='PERSON'>Ruth Paine</ent> on her own terms could have been very
illuminating. There are many questions she has apparently not been asked -
about her previous interrogations, for example. I'm sure that even the <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent>s
with suspicions about her relationship with the <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>s could come up with a
list of questions which could be asked in a productive and non-hostile manner.
I hope she doesn't think <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> is a typical critic; I think some of us should
write to her and apologize.
If Spence's whole case really were typical of what the critics have to
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4 -5-</p>

<p>offer, it would be time to retire. My reaction to <ent type='PERSON'>Mark Lane</ent> in 1964 was that
all those little points must add up to something; my reaction to <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> is
quite the opposite. His ability and inclination to suggest doubts about
whatever a prosecution witness said told me less about what happened in <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>
than about how lawyers work.
The first defense witness was <special><ent type='PERSON'>Bill Newman</ent></special>, who described seeing <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>
and Connally hit. It was established that there was room for doubt in his
opinion of the direction of the shots, since (when he was excited and upset)
he signed a statement saying the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> had stood up in the car.
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> called <special><ent type='PERSON'>Tom Tilson</ent></special> of the <ent type='ORG'>DPD</ent> to tell his story about someone who
looked just like <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent> (whom he knew) throwing something into a car just past
the knoll, right after the shooting. <ent type='ORG'>Tilson</ent> then followed him but the license
number he called in was apparently not pursued, and Tilson's copy was lost.
Sure. <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> didn't get <ent type='ORG'>Tilson</ent> to recant on the stand, but his story
certainly didn't look plausible when he was done.
<ent type='PERSON'>Earl</ent> Golz's article on <ent type='ORG'>Tilson</ent> does not suggest that he thought the man he
chased was <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent>. (#116, 2 pp., DMN, 20 Aug 78, just six days before <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>
interviewed <ent type='ORG'>Tilson</ent>; see also 12 HSCA 15-16, or "Conspiracy," p. 82.) Golz's
most provocative statement (given Hurt's account of funny business in the
<ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> case) is that <ent type='ORG'>Tilson</ent> was close enough to <ent type='PERSON'>Tippit</ent> to be a pallbearer.
Of all the conspiracy witnesses around, why would <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> want this one?
I fear he really chose to suggest that <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent> was running around <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>, on the
knoll with a gun and planting a bullet at <ent type='ORG'>Parkland</ent>. That is hardly a leading
hypothesis for a conspiracy involving <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent>; the only advantage seems to be
that one can exploit it, in a very naive way, to incorporate some of Seth
Kantor's testimony and at the same time cast doubt on Guinn's.
The testimony of Dr. <special><ent type='PERSON'>Cyril Wecht</ent></special> generally resembled his HSCA appearance,
in tone as well as content. <ent type='PERSON'>Wecht</ent> still takes a hard line on the question of
how he could be right and the rest of <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> panel wrong, suggesting the
"subconscious" influence of their government grants and appointments. In the
program's second gratuitous reference to nudity, <ent type='PERSON'>Wecht</ent> asserted that he was
the only panelist with "the courage to say that the king was nude and had no
clothes on."
In response to Wecht's best point - the condition of CE 399 - <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent>
did not bring up the test firings by Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> Nichols (and later by Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Lattimer</ent>), where shooting this ammunition into a block of wood left the bullet
in good condition. (<ent type='PERSON'>Lattimer</ent>, p. 271-2) That's not the same as a comparable
bullet from a real shooting, but it should be noted.
I cannot defend Wecht's use, in attacking the single-bullet theory, of
the same schematic diagram he presented to <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> (1 HSCA 341). It is an
unfair representation of what the government now claims CE 399 did. One can
debate the <ent type='ORG'>SBT</ent> trajectory, but one must now start with the results of the
HSCA's trajectory analysis. There may be minor errors on that work, but the
<ent type='ORG'>SBT</ent> path is clearly not as implausible as <ent type='PERSON'>Wecht</ent> presented it. <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> scored
a point by asking where the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> bullet went if it did not end up in
Connally, but he did not bring up <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>'s trajectory work.
Perhaps the most impressive defense witness was hospital corpsman <special><ent type='PERSON'>Paul</ent>
O'Connor</special>, one of the important <ent type='GPE'>Bethesda</ent> witnesses in Lifton's "<ent type='ORG'>Best Evidence</ent>."
He described the removal of JFK's body from a body bag, the "constant"
interference by Dr. <ent type='ORG'>Burkley</ent> (apparently on behalf of the family), and the
condition of the head, which left no need for the procedure he usually
performed to cut the skull and very little of the brain to be removed.
Bugliosi's cross-examination produced one dramatic moment. First he
established that the surgeons did "most of the mundane jobs" usually done by
the technicians, but O'Connor insisted there was no brain to remove. If this
was so shocking, <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> wondered, why didn't he tell <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>? He seemed
genuinely surprised when O'Connor said he had been "under orders not to talk
until that time."
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4 -6-</p>

<p> Unfortunately, issues relating to these orders were not pursued on the
air. O'Connor, who was nervous, referred to getting permission from <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>
to talk to <ent type='ORG'>Navy</ent> brass, and also indicated that <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> had not asked the
right questions. The sequence of events is unclear: <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> referred to an
hour-and-a-half interview with <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>; I think the volumes cite only an
"outside contact report" (which was often based on a phone call) dated June
28, 1978, but that does not preclude an earlier interview. The 1963 orders
not to talk were not modified until March 1978, when permission to talk with
<ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> was reluctantly given. (<ent type='ORG'>Best Evidence</ent>, p. 608)
The broadcast did not mention the <ent type='PERSON'>Sibert</ent>-O'<ent type='PERSON'>Neill</ent> report or the other
indications of head surgery. <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> seems to have used O'Connor's evidence
only to establish the absence of the brain, without much of a scenario to
explain it. O'Connor's interpretation was not brought out; Lifton's book said
he basically believed <ent type='EVENT'>the Warren Report</ent>.
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> also brought up the missing brain with <ent type='PERSON'>Wecht</ent> and Petty, and in
connection with the <ent type='PERSON'>Zapruder</ent> film. As with his version of a <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent> conspiracy,
the missing brain is representative of but not really central to the mysteries
of the medical evidence. Bugliosi's presentation of <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> investigation of
RFK's probable role in the post-autopsy destruction of a brain may have unduly
lessened the impact of O'Connor's testimony.
Former <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> SA <special><ent type='PERSON'>James Hosty</ent></special> was called as an adverse witness. It was
valuable to see him, but I don't recall much new information in his testimony
on Oswald's note, the information "withheld" from him about Oswald's <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent>
trip, and other matters. (Spence's grasp of the evidence seemed imperfect; he
indicated at first that a page had been removed from Oswald's notebook
itself.) It was <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> who got Hosty to say that he was not suggesting
<ent type='NORP'>Soviet</ent> consul <ent type='PERSON'>Kostikov</ent> was involved in the assassination.
Hosty thinks the <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent> mystery man was assumed to be <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> because
prior wiretap information suggested - at the time - that <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was going to
come over to pick up his visa. Where has this explanation been dealt with?
The next witness was HSCA researcher <ent type='PERSON'>Edwin</ent> J. Lopez, barely recognizable
as a short-haired and properly attired lawyer, talking about <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent>.
(His style during <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> investigation was informal; see p. 211 of Gaeton
Fonzi's article on <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>, 2 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 10.2.) Like O'Connor, Lopez did not
provide many facts the <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent>s did not already know, but he probably made quite
an impression on the viewing audience. His personal conclusions were that
<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was in some way associated with the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>, and was a patsy.
Lopez concluded that there had been an <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> impostor for all the
<ent type='ORG'>Embassy</ent> visits - partly on the basis of his review of <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> photos taken from
three sites. He specified that the surveillance was around-the-clock,
contrary to <ent type='PERSON'>David Phillips</ent>. [The Night Watch, p. 124; cf. <ent type='PERSON'>Summers</ent>, p. 384]
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> noted that, in a real trial, <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> could have demanded production of the
still-classified 280-page HSCA report on <ent type='GPE'>Mexico</ent>. On cross-examination,
<ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> let Lopez talk a bit, and managed to effectively touch on some of the
evidentiary difficulties with his conspiratorial conclusions.
The final defense witness was <special><ent type='PERSON'>Seth Kantor</ent></special>, whose testimony provided a
pretty good summary of the basic issues relating to <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent>, whom he knew.
<ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> raised some of the standard non-conspiratorial rebuttals. I don't
recall any facts which are not in Kantor's book on <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent> or <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent> volumes.
In terms of factual information alluded to, <ent type='ORG'>Kantor</ent>, Lopez, and O'Connor
certainly deserve more space in <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> than all the prosecution witnesses put
together. However, we have not heard Lopez' evidence - he said he was still
bound by his secrecy oath. The fact that Lopez went public with his personal
conclusions is significant, in any case. On the whole, the evidence involved
in the defense case was better than Spence's presentation of it.
I am told that the taped testimony included three additional witnesses,
and that three more were flown to <ent type='GPE'>London</ent> but not used. (I do not know the
names of those witnesses.)
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4 -7-</p>

<p> Bugliosi's closing arguments were effectively delivered and generally
straightforward. He did not push a "no conspiracy" argument, but alleged that
<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> was "guilty as sin." He could have been much worse; he cited Oswald's
defection to the <ent type='GPE'>USSR</ent> not as evidence of his serious political beliefs, but as
one indication that he was "utterly and completely nuts" and "bonkers," as one
must be to shoot the President. He noted that <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> kept his cowboy hat on
the table and didn't put it on anyone as a conspirator.
There were certainly holes in Bugliosi's argument - when he asked, for
example, if there was such a sophisticated conspiracy, why frame a poor
marksman who had a $19 rifle? That one can be answered. In general, I don't
think an uninformed viewer got a good sense of the political context of the
assassination. <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> said <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> was too smart to say the <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> or <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>
killed <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent>, which would sound "downright silly," and he asserted that neither
the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> nor the <ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent> had "any productive motive whatsoever" to do so.
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> propped a photo of <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> in a chair, and said that <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> would
probably say he was scared and could not explain a lot of the evidence.
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> would tell him to just trust the jury. Of course, he emphasized that
each juror had to dispel all his reasonable doubts. (Neither lawyer was about
to abandon successful techniques for this very special case, which is why
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> had to argue with <ent type='PERSON'>Kirk</ent> about the running girl, for example.) <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent>
dragged up all the "coincidences" involving <ent type='PERSON'>Ruth Paine</ent>, and various other
alleged coincidences. He said that the only firm truth in this case is that
the "closet" of hidden evidence is still locked.
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> closed with a melodramatic metaphor in which a bird in a child's
hand represented Lee's fate in the jury's hands. The speech's distance from
the hard facts reminded me of <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent>. At this point, if I had been a juror,
Spence's style would have led to me decide that some of the doubts he had
planted were not really "reasonable" and could be ignored. One small
consolation is that the lawyers did not get a lot of money for appearing on
the program - just a lot of publicity.
While waiting for the verdict, we heard a discussion involving defense
lawyer <ent type='PERSON'>Alan Dershowitz</ent> and two men who could well have been witnesses, former
AG <ent type='PERSON'>Ramsey Clark</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Jack Anderson</ent>.
Anderson's self-promoting remarks argued for a verdict of guilty as part
of a conspiracy. Among other things, he claimed that he began digging into
the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> after the assassination, and that he found that the <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> had recruited
<ent type='ORG'>Mafia</ent> killers to get <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> killed <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> "little over three [sic]
months" after Castro's "warning" interview with <ent type='PERSON'>Dan</ent>iel Harker of the AP, "and
we've had plenty of testimony showing [Oswald's] links to the <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>
movement." <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Roselli</ent> was killed by Trafficante's people because he gave
<ent type='PERSON'>Anderson</ent> details of Castro's involvement. <ent type='PERSON'>Anderson</ent> also talked about an
immediate briefing of <ent type='PERSON'>RFK</ent> by <ent type='PERSON'>McCone</ent>. He also said that <ent type='PERSON'>Hoover</ent> "made a public
statement" to the effect that he was "under pressure to finger" <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>. As a
guide to Anderson's reliability, note that he referred to the acoustical
evidence as if <ent type='ORG'>the HSCA</ent>'s results had not been seriously challenged.
Does <ent type='PERSON'>Anderson</ent> have some sort of first-amendment immunity against being
properly questioned? His 1967 column suggesting that <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent> had retaliated
against plots pushed by the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>s was certainly an event in the
controversy, not just a description of it. (Ed <ent type='PERSON'>Newman</ent>, at least, did
challenge his <ent type='PERSON'>Roselli</ent> story.)
If anyone wants to transcribe Anderson's comments, or other parts of the
program, I can provide an audio tape.
Among other things, <ent type='PERSON'>Ramsey Clark</ent> suggested that the <ent type='PERSON'>Castro</ent>-did-it theory
is <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent> disinformation. He praised <ent type='ORG'>the <ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent></ent> for doing a
"marvelous job," and alleged that <ent type='PERSON'>RFK</ent> had no doubts about <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> or <ent type='ORG'>CIA</ent>
involvement. The issue, he thinks, is how we can keep our idealism without
succumbing to "irrationality and to violence."
<ent type='PERSON'>Dershowitz</ent> emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4 -8-</p>

<p>fact-finding process. Even more than <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent>, he would have emphasized that
the process had been tampered with. <ent type='ORG'>Clark</ent> said that sort of thing happens all
the time. <ent type='PERSON'>Dershowitz</ent> thought <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> got some new facts out, and showed the
advantages of the adversary process. <ent type='ORG'>Clark</ent>, correctly, disputed that.
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> made a few general remarks to the TV audience, mostly
on the value of the mock trial.
The jury's verdict: guilty. On the question of conspiracy: seven no,
three yes, two undecided.
There was also a telephone-poll verdict, provided by an unspecified
number of viewers who saw at least part of the defense case and thought giving
their opinion was worth fifty cents: 14% guilty, 86% not guilty in the West,
15% and 85% in the <ent type='LOC'>East</ent>. That is generally consistent with the 1983 Gallup
poll often referred to by <ent type='ORG'>Hurt</ent>, and with Fensterwald's poll of "experts."
(#1984.36, #1984.166-7) <ent type='PERSON'>Newman</ent> thought the variance of the two verdicts was a
"remarkable" state of affairs. (For my sentiments about polls of the general
public, note item #126 below.) <ent type='PERSON'>Newman</ent> said that the unavailable evidence, if
relevant, should be made public, in light of the "continuing disquiet."
How I would have voted? In a real trial, not guilty (unless the rest of
the jury was unanimously not guilty, in which case I might have taken the
opportunity to hang the jury and get some more facts out the next time
around); in a mock trial, based just on what was aired, guilty and conspiracy.
But, as with my limited real-life trial experience, my strongest opinion was
that at least one of the lawyers should be locked up. Despite my bias against
<ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> for his prior comparison of some <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent>s to Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Goebbels</ent>, I think he
did an acceptable and often persuasive job on the air.
The credits included special thanks to <ent type='PERSON'>Tony Summers</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Mary Ferrell</ent>.
The copyright is held by <ent type='ORG'>LWT</ent>.</p>

<p><special>Clippings:</special>
117. For 15-16 Nov 86 (<ent type='PERSON'>Seth Kantor</ent>, Cox papers and <ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent> service)
[3 pp.] "Despite the impact of the testimony, the realistic trial is
dominated by the hand-to-hand courtroom combat" of <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent>, who
"do not like each other, on and off camera." A good pre-broadcast overview,
with a few quotes from the witnesses.
118. 9 Nov 86 (<ent type='ORG'>LAT</ent>) "<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> goes on trial" [4 pp.] An amusing account
by <ent type='PERSON'>Bill Bancroft</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>Dallas</ent>, who worked as a researcher for the program.
<ent type='PERSON'>Norman</ent> was hard to locate; <ent type='PERSON'>Amos Euins</ent> was afraid to participate; a judge who
looked like one was not easy to find; some "jurors" (deliberately chosen to be
under 35) were (understandably) suspicious of the <ent type='ORG'>LWT</ent> offer. (One checked
Bancroft's credit rating.) There was much tension during the filming. "All
18 hours are scheduled to be shown on <ent type='ORG'>Showtime</ent> in 1987."
119. Nov 86 (Cabletime) This <ent type='ORG'>Showtime</ent> ad does not mention <ent type='ORG'>LWT</ent>, but
does use the dreaded "d" word: "Innocent or guilty? You decide after
watching this docu-drama of the controversy behind the <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> assassination."
120. 21 Nov 86 (SF Examiner) "<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> inherits his day in court at
last; a goose teaches a boy to be a man" (Two separate items.) "In a curious
way, this massive program elevates the 'People's <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>' genre while degrading
both the reality and the mythos behind legendary 'Inherit the Wind' court
battles." TV critic <ent type='PERSON'>Michael Dougan</ent> is more generous to <ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> than I can be:
he "transfixes the jurors (and, I suspect, many viewers) with his intense
magnetism, his down-home demeanor, his unflappability and confidence." But
<ent type='PERSON'>Dougan</ent> sees the basic problem: "Where 'On Trial' disappoints is in the
implied promise that this may be a ground-breaking investigation, bringing
fresh evidence - or, at least, perspective - to the fore.... Alas, most of
the time is devoted to rehashing old arguments...."
121. 16 Nov (Schneider, <ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent>) "Bringing <ent type='PERSON'>Lee</ent> Harvey <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> to 'Trial'"
The "main weakness", <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> said, was the time limitation on cross-examination and closing statements.
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4 -9-</p>

<p> 122. 19 Nov (AP) "<ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> case put to a jury" [2 pp.] Researcher
<ent type='PERSON'>Tomlinson</ent> said the program "produces no new evidence" and is not "the final
word on who killed <ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent>." O'Connor's "dramatic" testimony is noted.
123. 4 Nov (LA News in NY News) "TV gives <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> his day in court"
<ent type='ORG'>Spence</ent> is "best known as the flamboyant lawyer who won a multi-million-dollar
verdict in the <ent type='PERSON'>Karen Silkwood</ent> case." (I am told that the Law Enforcement
Intelligence Unit played a role in that case; to get some idea of why I am
interested in the <ent type='ORG'>LEIU</ent>, and the possibility that it knew about <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent>, see the
documents listed in <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> for 16 Jun 79.) "The lawyers were chosen not only
because of their visibility but also because... 'We wanted people who would
take this seriously.'" <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> "combed through" the WC and HSCA volumes,
"and 'all the books by the conspiracy <ent type='ORG'>buff</ent>s.'" (Did he talk to any of us?
Not that I know of.)
124. 22 Nov (<ent type='ORG'>LAT</ent>) "<ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> Skeptics' Night in <ent type='ORG'>Court</ent>" "If the emotions
aren't genuine, then these witnesses are among the world's best amateur
actors. The posturing is by lawyers, not witnesses, proving that real people
telling real stories are far more compelling and believable than characters
speaking dialogue."
Speaking of flamboyant lawyers whose style didn't cut it in this case:
125. 23 Nov (Wice, Hartford Courant, in SFC) "The Botched Trial of
Jack <ent type='PERSON'>Ruby</ent>" [3 pp.] "A lawyer less concerned [than Melvin <ent type='PERSON'>Belli</ent>] with his
public image probably would not have gambled his client's life on an
implausible [epilepsy] defense." The press, prosecutor, and judge didn't do
so well either, making "a mockery out of due process of law."
126. 3 Nov (SFC) In a poll at four named colleges, 30% of the 1000
responding students said they believed that "aliens from outer space visited
<ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> in ancient times." About the same fraction believe in <ent type='PERSON'>Bigfoot</ent> and
Atlantis. More than half "said they are creationists." So let's not take our
85% in the <ent type='PERSON'>JFK</ent> case too seriously.
127. 20 Nov 86 (Corry, <ent type='ORG'>NYT</ent>) A good critique of the lawyers' styles and
the witnesses' demeanor; quotable, but I'm short on space and time.</p>

<p><special>An excerpt:</special>
The entire broadcast cross-examination of Prof. <ent type='PERSON'>Vincent Guinn</ent>:
GS: Well, I'd rather cross-examine Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent> than the doctor, since
he's the one that's given all the testimony. [Judge: But the doctor's on the
stand.] Doctor, will you answer my questions, nice and simple, yes and no,
like you did for Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Bugliosi</ent>?
VG: Wherever that's possible, yes, sir.
GS: Here's a picture of the skull, X-ray of the skull, of the President.
And what we see are an artist's drawing of the fragments that were seen in the
X-ray. I understand that you examined only two of the 30 fragments that were
found in the skull; is that correct?
VG: There were only two that were delivered to me, I'm not sure...
GS: (Interrupting) Please, is that correct? [VG: That is correct.]
You did two. [Yeah.] Only two. And do you know which two? [No.] And so do
you know what the composition is of the other 28 fragments found in his brain?
VG: Yes.
GS: Have you checked them?
VG: No, but I know what they are.
GS: Well, have you examined them, put them through the neutron
activation analysis?
VG: They were not available, the other pieces.
GS: Thank you. Now, doctor, did you analyze the large copper fragment
that was found in the limousine?
VG: No, this was only an analysis of bullet lead.
GS: I'm gonna ask you once more, Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Guinn</ent>, did you analyze the large
copper fragment that was found in the limousine? [VG: No.]
8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 4 -10-</p>

<p> GS: Are you aware of the fact, doctor, that dishonest evidence can be
honestly examined? [VG: Of course.]
GS: That means that an honest examination can be made of evidence that's
been manufactured or planted. [VG: It's always possible, yes.]
GS: Your testimony isn't to be interpreted by the jury that you find
that this is honest evidence, is it?
VG: I cannot say; I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the
evidence; [VG ignored GS's interruption: No, but you can't say one way or the
other, can you?] it came to me in the original <ent type='ORG'>FBI</ent> containers with their
designations on them, and in all appearances the specimens matched what was in
<ent type='ORG'>the <ent type='ORG'><ent type='PERSON'>Warren</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Commission</ent></ent></ent> report description of them. I have no reason to doubt
that they are completely authentic; they were brought to me from the National
Archives by a man of <ent type='ORG'>the National Archives</ent>.
GS: I'm understanding that, sir, but you're not testifying to this jury
that you can vouch for their authenticity, are you?
VG: No, you never can do that, in any criminal case.
GS: Your testimony isn't to be interpreted to mean that you know that
the bullet parts that you examined actually came from the body of the
President? [VG: No way, unless I were the surgeon.]
GS: And you just examined what they gave you, isn't that true, doctor?
VG: Correct. [GS: Thank you, doctor.]</p>

<p><special>Postscripts relating to <ent type='PERSON'>Tony Summers</ent>:</special>
The "settlement" referred to at 8 <ent type='ORG'>EOC</ent> 3.10 did not involve any admission
or court ruling that <ent type='PERSON'>Phillips</ent> had been libeled. It seems safe to assume the
the potential cost of going to trial resulted in a settlement. <ent type='ORG'>The Observer</ent>
conceded that the <ent type='PERSON'>Summers</ent> extracts "could have been read to suggest that Mr.
<ent type='PERSON'>Phillips</ent> was himself involved in a conspiracy relating to the assassination
and in the suppression of evidence about it," and "accepted that there was
never any evidence to support such a suggestion." The case involved not only
excerpts from "Conspiracy" but subsequent articles in the South China Morning
Post based on <ent type='PERSON'>Summers</ent>' research, as distributed by the Observer.
"Goddess" is out in paperback (<ent type='ORG'>Onyx</ent>, $4.95), with a substantial new
chapter (45 pages) on various aspects of the Monroe-<ent type='PERSON'>Kennedy</ent> story.</p>

<p><special>Queries and comments:</special>
Q80. WBAI's anniversary program featured <ent type='PERSON'>John</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Davis</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>David Lifton</ent>, and
<ent type='PERSON'>Phil Melanson</ent>. Can someone provide a tape?
Q81. Investigations of Oswald's activities in <ent type='GPE'>New Orleans</ent> turned up
several references to <ent type='ORG'>Tulane</ent> (where some <ent type='ORG'>FPCC</ent> handbills were found, for
example) and (I think) one or two to <ent type='GPE'>Loyola</ent>. Does anyone know of any
references to <ent type='ORG'>LSU</ent> at <ent type='GPE'>New Orleans</ent> (now <ent type='ORG'>the University</ent> of <ent type='GPE'>New Orleans</ent>)? That
was the downtown public college, and at least as likely a place for <ent type='PERSON'>Oswald</ent> to
do his work as the two major private colleges. (I know of only 10 HSCA 127,
which says that <ent type='PERSON'>Guy Banister</ent> checked out <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> students at <ent type='ORG'>LSU</ent>NO for the <ent type='ORG'>CRC</ent>.)
I have again gotten far behind in my correspondence, and I expect to
catch up now that the case is quiet again - unless someone comes up with a
photo of Col. <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent> on the grassy knoll. (I'm being sarcastic only about the
tendency of a few <ent type='ORG'>conspiratorialists</ent> to link some of the mysterious old
evidence to whoever emerges in the newest scandal. Some aspects of the latest
disclosures certainly have roots in the <ent type='NORP'>Cuban</ent> issues of 1963, and we should
not be surprised if some of the newly prominent names can be linked to people
who have been mentioned in the assassination controversy. Peter <ent type='PERSON'>Scott</ent> has
already come up with some interesting ideas along these lines.)</p>

<p><special>Credits</special>: Thanks to B. <ent type='PERSON'>Fensterwald</ent> (#116), J. <ent type='PERSON'>Goldberg</ent> (127), G. Hollingsworth
(122, 124), S. <ent type='ORG'>Kantor</ent> (117), P. <ent type='PERSON'>Melanson</ent> (118, 123), G. <ent type='PERSON'>Owens</ent> (121),
R. <ent type='PERSON'>Stetler</ent>, and G. <ent type='ORG'>Stone</ent> (118).</p>

<p>*From Illumi-Net BBS - (404) 377-1141* [ Don's note: I doubt this BBS is still
up ]</p>

<p>---END OF ARTICLE---------------------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>--
-* <ent type='PERSON'>Don Allen</ent> *- InterNet: dona@bilver.<ent type='ORG'>UUCP</ent> // Amiga..for the best of us.
USnail: 1818G Landing Dr, Sanford Fl 32771 <ent type='ORG'>\X</ent>/ Why use anything else? :-)
<ent type='ORG'>UUCP</ent>: ..uunet!tarpit!bilver!dona - Why did the JUSTICE DEPT steal <ent type='ORG'>PROMIS</ent>?
/\/\ What is research but a blind date with knowledge. <ent type='PERSON'>William Henry</ent> /\/\
</p></xml>