Monday, November 16, 2009

Saint John Hunt's Father, CIA Killer, Knew Oswald Was Innocent


LEE HARVEY OSWALD
DID NOT KILL JOHN F. KENNEDY.

Anyone who thinks LBJ was not involved in Kennedy's murder is badly mistaken. The CIA Contract killer and Watergate Burglar E. H. Hunt told his son the truth.


"It is the meloncholy law of human societies
to be compelled sometimes to choose a great evil
in order to ward off a greater evil."
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

“This is Probably the Last Interview I’ll Do:” An Interview with Saint John
Hunt on His Father & The JFK Assassination
August 21,
2007 by cadeveo
-----------this fine interview is available elsewhere on the Internet, as well-------

"It is the meloncholy law of human societies
to be compelled sometimes to choose a great evil
in order to ward off a greater evil."-Lyndon Baines Johnson



Saint John Hunt found me. He found my Stranger Than Holy Wood(y) article and left a brief comment several months back. I decided to e-mail him back, since his father’s deathbed revelations about the JFK assassination were still quite fresh in the media-sphere. Saint John and I struck up a correspondence that culminated in the following interview, which he says might be his last.

He’s done all he can to publicize his father E. Howard Hunt’s information regarding government involvement in the JFK murder. In the process, he’s had to deal with accusations about his motives and character. Nevertheless, there are no regrets. The weight is now off his shoulders. He’s done what he needed to do in the service of truth. Here’s hoping that the truth wins in the end.
THE INTERVIEW YOU MUST READ!

It’s been an interesting few months for you. First, Rolling Stone published the article about your father’s JFK confessions. You’ve been on Coast to Coast where you played an excerpt of your father’s inside knowledge about Cord Meyer and LBJ’s involvement, plus you’ve been interviewed on CNN, by Alex Jones and both Inside Edition and 60 Minutes have taken an interest in you. How much has all this attention changed your life and what do you find interesting about the different angles of approach these different researchers, journalists and media groups have taken toward you and your story?
This whole process of telling the media what my father told me in some ways affected my life to a greater degree before he passed away. When he decided to tell me some of what he knew( he said there was more to this, and he would be sharing that with me as time went on) I carried this around with me for three years. Due to the pressures which were placed upon him, he never went public with this when he was alive, yet he asked me to tell his story after his death.

So after he died it was with a great feeling of relief that I was finally able to tell the tale of the conspiracy to kill JFK. Now what I think is that there was more than one plot to kill Kennedy. It is quite plausible that there were at least several plots running independently of each other…this is why there is credible evidence to support a Cuban plot, a Mafia plot, a CIA plot etc… it’s well known that almost everyone within the military and industrial intel. community was anxious to get rid of Kennedy regardless of the risk. My greatest regret is that in bringing this information out, I have lost my family. They want nothing to do with me. Now that my job is done, my life is normal. I work a 40 hour week, play in my band Saint John and the Sinners on weekends and will be starting school again this August. I have also proposed to my girlfriend Mona of two years and am making plans for our wedding.

As far as the media, I can say that they have treated me very well. I knew that they would attack me on the credibility issue…because of my outlaw past, so I elected to disclose my checkered past right away. It’s funny that Vincent Bugliosi said that I wasn’t a credible person. During one of the Coast to Coast radio shows I did, I said to Mr. Bulgliosi that I wasn’t surprised that he would use such an obvious “lawyer” tactic against me. I offered that since he had never met me or spoken to me, and had never examined the evidence that I had, how could such an intelligent man be so stupid as to make a character judgment about someone he didn’t know. (Note from Judyth Vary Baker: Bugliosi also dismissed me in his book as "deluded" and "a poor puppy"--yet never interviewed me, relying instead on secondhand accounts from persons known to have lied about me. Small world!)
Rolling Stone treated me very well and so did Inside Edition. 60 Minutes, on the other hand, bowed to pressure not to run with the story (until Fall, they say). (Note from Judyth Vary Baker: I had a similar experience: Sixty Minutes made three different appointments to film, backed down three times, over a period of 14 months.)

Why do you believe your father chose, after years of either denying his involvement or remaining silent, to reveal the CIA and other connections to the JFK assassination to you and you alone? There’s certainly something poetic in him revealing these things to you. As I mentioned in an essay on my site about JFK, it was another Saint John who wrote the Book of Revelation, after all. You were a primary caregiver for him through his last illnesses and it seems obvious this would have played a role.

You have to understand that my father and I had already established a strong unbreakable bond of trust and secrecy. As you know, I did many illegal things for my father after Watergate which I never spoke of. I also lied to the congress for him during the Watergate inquest. I was always my father’s strongest and most devoted ally in our family, I took great care of him on and off I could during the last years of his life…so it was natural that I was in the right place to prompt him to tell the truth after all these years of denying. He and I had a very special relationship. We didn’t always see eye to eye, and we had disappointed each other throughout our lives but our bond was deep and intact till the day he died.

Your father’s second wife has accused you and your brother David of coaching your father into saying the things you have on tape and on paper regarding the JFK assassination. How do you feel about being accused of manipulating your father like that?

Although my father was very sick he was always in control of his words and thoughts. I couldn’t even make him eat a bowl of soup if he didn’t want to. What Laura and my sisters say about my forcing an old man to make up stories is just ridiculous. He was still E. Howard Hunt till the very end. Also I have ten hours of unseen video tape of him and it is clear that he is of sound mind and strong will. Also the audio tape which he sent to me in Jan. of ‘04, was unsolicited and made by him without my being present. As a professional caregiver, I find their statement to be slanderous and libelous. Laura never knew that part of my father’s life, and to this day, [she] doesn’t even believe that he was involved in assassination plots against foreign leaders or in illegal government coups that have led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Your father isn’t the only person that has linked LBJ to the JFK assassination. His former mistress, Madeline Duncan Brown, also mentioned that before her death that the night before the assassination he told her that those ” S.O.B.’s,” meaning the Kennedy’s, would never bother him again. She also fingered H.L. Hunt in this. Since doing the Alex Jones interview, have you had a chance to become familiar with Brown’s revelations? If so, in what ways does this dovetail or diverge from information your father gave you?

You know, I don’t really follow that stuff. I’m not a JFK assassination buff but I have come to realize that what my father told me fits in with what other people have said in the past. A lawyer for Billy Sol Estes wrote me and said that Billy told him that LBJ was involved. So this angle is not a new one. I might add that this interview is probably the last one I’ll do. It is sometimes painful to dredge up all these memories and talk about things that can never be resolved like my mother’s death (murder). So I’m glad to put all this behind me. The media doesn’t seem interested in breaking this story on mainstream news or in publishing a book about it. So I’ve just moved on with my life and I’m a very happy person.

In the aftermath of your father’s involvement in Watergate, your family’s life spun out of control. Your mother died in a plane explosion, your father went to jail. Your brother David was taken to live with a family friend with Cuban-exile community ties, where he ended up being taken on gun-running operations. It’s been reported that you and your sister were furious with your father at the time. What helped to mellow your anger, given all the tragic fallout?


My sisters never forgave my father for his sins. I have spent years in an effort to convince them that forgiveness is the best way to start the healing process. They never visited him (only once in 15 years) and left him to die without their support at his bedside.





They didn’t even come to his memorial service in January when he passed. It is with utter disbelief that they are thought of as part of the family and I who stood by him and gave unconditional love have been banished from their lives. I wasn’t allowed to see the will, nothing of my father's memory was left to me and I am hated and vilified.

In an article in Crime Magazine, reporter Don Fulsom states his case for, among other things, your father’s revelations to you having been a limited hang out. And indeed, given the line of work your father did, his training, oaths, etc., I’ve suspected the same thing myself. Do you consider this possibility yourself and what your father may have been leaving out or “spinning,” particularly regarding his involvement in the JFK assassination? (It’s certainly not an easy thing to think about and I don’t envy you having to consider this, along with everything else you’ve experienced.)

I don’t know what you mean by a limited hang out. Do you mean disinformation? If you mean did my father minimalize his role in the JFK hit…yes I think it’s quite possible. I know for a fact that he had much more he wanted to share with me. If I had only been able to stay with him longer and if we were able to keep our project a secret from the rest of the family I would have been able to get the whole story. It is tragic to me that the selfish and self serving actions of others coupled with the threat of litigation that his lawyer kept pounding into him, along with his total dependency on these same people resulted in him withdrawing his efforts to bring the truth out. This was to be the last act of a charismatic and heroic warrior that had been used and manipulated by his government. I think that one of the key elements that my father left out was the (this is only my theory) involvement of Dick Helms in the plot. Helms was my father’s boss, was the logical link between Cord Myer and LBJ. It is dubious that LBJ went to Cord. It is quite plausible that LBJ was referred to Cord through Helms. My father’s undying loyalty to Helms is well known, and of course we all know that Helms was a master at getting the dirty work done while keeping his own involvement above suspicion. As far as my father’s real involvement, there has been testimony given under oath that he was in Dallas the day before the murder and handed an envelope of cash to Sturgis in the presence of Marita Lorenz. Of course her “credibility” was attacked as has mine but her testimony could not be shaken by my father’s attorney. This man is a snake and quite possibly a “handler” for the agency. His name is Snyder and was recommended to “babysit” my father by William F. Buckley Jr. Snyder played a crucial role in suppressing the truth about the plot and forcing my father to withdraw from the project. He has continued to be a thorn in my side and continues to act as the “Hunt estate” attorney. If anyone has manipulated my father it was Snyder.

Has anyone in government or the legal profession approached you since you came forward with your father’s tapes about possible new investigations or prosecutions of the JFK case? If not, what do you make of that? And if so, could you discuss it?

The only person in the legal profession that approached me was Douglas Caddy. Caddy was my father’s first attorney during Watergate and also represented Billy Sol Estes. Estes as you might know was one of LBJ’s henchmen…involved in a lot of shady deals down in Texas and it was Estes who confided in Caddy that LBJ had revealed to him (Estes) that he, LBJ had conspired to kill JFK. Caddy produced or at least participated in a DVD documentary about the assassination of Kennedy in which much evidence was given regarding LBJ’s involvement.

Since your revelations came out, the CIA, with much media fanfare and PR, announced that they would be revealing their “family jewels,” information about past actions, including the agency’s involvement with the 1954 coup in Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs, etc., many of these being operations your father cut his teeth on. That’s certainly a curious coincidence. The other thing about this information is that, as discussed awhile back when RFK, Jr. appeared on news-actor Chris Matthew’s show, some of the information seems to be aimed at further smearing the Kennedy’s after their death. What do you make of these revelations in light of what you learned from your father?

It is curious that the Agency should reveal the “family jewels” at the very moment that I came forward with my revelations. You have to wonder about that. I haven’t read what has come out but it’s true, a lot of the ops they talk about were ones that involved my father deeply. I remember when he was asked to testify before the Church Committee and the House Intel. Committee back in the 70’s. I think it will only be a matter of time before more people with pieces of the puzzle come forward.

9. What, if anything, did your father tell you about Oswald? Don Fulsom in his article for Crime Magazine mentions that your father operated out of the same building at 544 Camp Street as Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in the early 60’s. He goes on to mention that your father had set up a CIA front called “The Cuban Revolutionary Council” there at the same time Oswald printed pro-Cuban pamphlets there.

I have read that my fathers office in New Orleans was the same bldg. as 544 Camp street. It’s true my father did set up the Cuban Rev. Council and was deeply involved in propaganda so it’s more than likely that if he had ever met Oswald it may have been there. Certainly their paths crossed very closely and my father was training Cubans for the invasion in Guatemala and around New Orleans.

The Rolling Stone article, among others, mentions you had a struggle with meth addiction and dealt meth for a number years, leading to some felony convictions. I assume (correct me if I’m off the mark) you experienced some rather shady situations and characters during those lost years. Perhaps that’s not so different than the world of intelligence operatives. Did those experiences help you in any way to understand your father and the world he had once been involved with?

That’s a very interesting question. We are both ex-felons and had to learn to operate on the fringes of law and society. One could make a comparison with being a drug dealer and a spy. They are both secretive and dangerous. I would never compare my outlaw life with his…although his was sanctioned by the government, he still was jailed for his crimes. I had many dark and dangerous “friends”, associates and clients, carried a gun as well as kept a small arsenal, had drop places for cash and drugs but I could never bring myself to get violent with someone…I had others take care of my problems for me…it was a fast and furious life, sometimes glamorous, lots of girls and such but I have regrets that I spent too much time living like an outlaw, always looking over your shoulder, cops, DEA, drug squad, DA’s office, locals, other drug dealers, rip-offs; I’m lucky to have come out of it alive and clean, sober and healthy. 6 years now!!

In the chain of command your father drew for you, he has LBJ at the top, then CIA disinfo agent Cord Meyer, underneath whom were CIA agents Bill Harvey and David Morales, who was also involved in Bay of Pigs and has been recently linked to the site of RFK’s assassination; the last link in the diagram is the shooter, who is listed as “french gunman, grassy knoll.” Could you give us some more detail about these players and how they fit together, from what your father revealed?

There has been a recent book on the life of Bill Harvey which gives dramatic evidence that there was a very real connection between Harvey and the Corsican underworld. The evidence is in the form of several memos signed off by Harvey for the use of assassins. He states that it would not be advisable to use Italian Mafia types which could be traced easily…rather his connections in the Corsican/French underworld would be much cleaner and less traceable. So there you have why a Corsican was used and who recruited him. “Him” being Sartre. Through sworn testimony we have Sturgis and Lorenz bringing the guns up from Miami to Dallas. My father paying the money for the teams, and through the testimony of Billy Sol Estes, backed by the fingerprint found at the depository which has been verified as that of Malcolm Wallace ( who worked for LBJ and Estes as a killer) we can start to see how the ground teams worked. Up through the chain of command we have Morales and Veciana who attended the meetings with Sturgis and my father in Miami and threshed out ideas for the hit. Veciana may have had more to do with Oswald’s recruitment with regards to the mysterious Maurice Bishop who everyone knows is David Atlee Phillips. Above them we have Cord Myer who had two motives to kill Kennedy. I’m not sure what Cords’ role may have been although I suspect that he may have been the one that was approached by LBJ through (speculation here) Helms. I truly feel that Helms is the one to bring the right people together in a very subtle way. Most of these men had worked closely together before, and were quite familiar with this type of assignment.

Aside of the French gunman your father fingered, there have been other suspects for the role of the shooter, including the Warren Commission and CIA’s favorite suspect, Oswald. Besides him, there was a man in a Chicago prison with Mafia ties by the name of James Files that a European researcher, Wim Dankbaar, believed pulled the trigger. (This theory has been called into question for a number of reasons.). People have also suspected Frank Sturgis and Woody Harrelson’s father, Charles, who was a contract hit-man in Texas at the time and who may also have “auditioned” as a participant in the Bay of Pigs operation. Of course, some have theorized on multiple gunmen in Dallas on the day JFK died. Have you found further corroboration regarding the man your father identified?

There was some solid information by researcher Stephen Rivelle some years ago which was included in the documentary “The Men who Killed the President” in which Rivelle followed some leads which were given to him by unnamed sources in the DEA and led to a drug trafficker named Christian David. David divulged the name Lucien Sarte as being the man who fired from the grassy knoll. I don’t know if there has been other evidence to have come out, but those are interesting facts which seem to substantiate each other.

For over forty years there have been suspicions about what happened in Dallas in 1963 and much, much evidence to “debunk” the establishment mythology surrounding that event and its meaning. Yet, lots of those same power structures remain in place, and the corruption continues. The people ask that the government come clean, that justice be done, that things change and yet, it continues. Certainly, very little seems to change for the better in terms of citizen relationship with so-called government. Through inaction, we continue to confer de-facto legitimacy on that which is not legitimate. If none of the other revelations has been successful in changing people’s relationship to the kind of powers that led your father to undertake some of the unfortunate actions he did, or the kind of power behind the JFK tragedy, what can you hope will come of the information your father gave you?

I feel sad to say that I think the whole JFK mystery will never be a cause for the reorganization of government. We still have the main stream media to fight…My story has been buried, and yet people like Vincent Bugliosi’s book have gotten much media time. My job, my purpose is complete. I have tried everything I could think of to bring this information to the public and the media, and so I must at this point back away from pursuing this only because my life and my family demand that I give my attentions to them. If someone were to want to publish my story I would welcome that. If someone such as Larry King would have me on his show I would welcome that as well. I hope I have added some piece of the puzzle and that someone will take the ball and do something with it. It takes money, agents, publishers, people with media connections and if all that should happen, I would surely stand up and take my place in pushing this forward. I still hold unseen memos from my father as well as tapes and videos that broaden this subject.

Thanks, Saint John. I’m very happy to have had the opportunity to correspond with you and read your responses. Before we finish, do you have any final thoughts or comments you’d like to add?

Thanks for the opportunity to vent…my final thoughts are that maybe one day we can put this whole thing in order and have a government made up of people carrying out the will of the people. Thanks.


Posted in CIA, JFK assassination, conspiracy poetics, history, interviews, media, politics | 10 Comments

10 Responses
on August 21, 2007 at 11:28 pm jeremiasx
Wow…great article…a little more light is always helpful in this situation. Thanks for your efforts here.



on August 22, 2007 at 4:42 am cadeveo
You’re welcome. I truly am lucky to have had the opportunity to correspond with Saint John.

Feel free to link to this and tell others about it. Word of mouth is one way to get out the truth that isn’t beholden to the agendas of the controlled media.

Peace, Jeremias.



on August 22, 2007 at 11:12 am Wim Dankbaar
Although the late Howard Hunt’s revelations are extremely interesting, the reader should separate what Howard Hunt said from what his son says. See my email to him below.

And if Saint John claims his father wrote “French Gunman” on the grassy knoll, on a piece of paper depicting Dealey Plaza, I would like to see that piece of paper! The next question that arises : Why did he not put a name to it? And what would have been his source for the information?

Howard Hunt has always denied he was the tramp in the hat, and he certainly did not admit it to his son. Howard Hunt was still lying to his son on deathbed, denying his own role in the assassination. For Howard Hunt, as well as Frank Sturgis were in Dallas that day, except not dressed up as tramps.

One might wanna look up the testimony of Marita Lorenz and the libel suit of Hunt against magazine “The Spotlight”.

I guess the acclaimed “patriot” could not bear to be remembered as a participant in high treason. But think again, in his deathbed “confession” he acknowledges being aware of the plans. What is the difference anyway?

By the way, James Files remembers Hunt well. Specifically how he enjoyed taking part in torture sessions.

Wim

—– Original Message —–
From: Wim Dankbaar
To: saint@saintjohnhunt.com
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 10:31 AM
Subject: Stop speculating please

John,

Although I value your information a lot, it corroborates the facts to a good extent. I think you are paying yourself and the truth a disservice if you keep saying that you believe Sturgis and your father were two of the three tramps.

First, it is your own subjective opinion, your father didn’t tell you this. It’s just lip-service to a popular myth from the JFK research community.

Second, it is in direct contradiction with your father’s story. He claimed no direct involvement, only advance knowledge. So how could he end up in Dealey Plaza dressed up as a tramp? Are you then saying he was lying to you ?

Third, you offer no candidate for the third tramp.

Finally, the tramps were Chauncey Marvin Holt, Charles Rogers, and Charles Harrelson.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/spooks.htm

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm

The name of Cord Meyer is very interesting. Chauncey Holt mentioned him too. See attached document from the Who was who, compiled by Chauncey Holt.

Best regards,

Wim Dankbaar

Here’s my answer to someone seeking my opinion on “Badgeman” and the French/Corsican connection:

No need to reconcile, as Badgeman is complete hogwash thanks to Gary Mack and Jack White.

If you outline the so called figures in the complete Moorman picture, you will see that they are much to small to be human beings, unless they were toddlers.

No matter how much you “enhance” or colorize them. That’s why they always show the blowup.

Also a normal height person only has his head sticking above the picket fence.

Jack White explains this away by saying they were standing on a car bumper, but that doesn’t explain their size.

Sure I have heard the name of Sarti, and also his alleged accomplices Bocognani and Pironti, who proved they were not there, which was eventually admitted by Nigel Turner and Steve Rivele.

Nevertheless, the myth is very persistent.

French speaking foreign assassins in Dallas? Think again.

Wim

The only thing that can be verified is that french OAS assassin Jean Soutre was in Dallas and extradited within 48 hours.

* A CIA document released in 1977 states that Jean Soutre, a French assassin and member of the violent anti-Kennedy group called the OAS, was in Dallas on the day of the assassination. The document also says Soutre was picked up by U.S. authorities in Texas and deported within forty-eight hours of the shooting. (It is likely that the person was actually Michel Mertz using Soutre’s name, as explained in Brad O’Leary and Ed Lee, THE DEATHS OF THE COLD WAR KINGS, Baltimore: Cemetery Dance Publications, 2000, pp. 93-171. Mertz, too, was an assassin and was a ranking figure in the French Mafia.)

So I am not saying that there was no French/Corsican whatsoever. What I believe is this: The Corsican mafia was informed of the hit on Kennedy through the Trafficante connection. Maybe they were even asked to supply gunmen, but none of this materialized. How do I know they had advance knowledge? Because of this recently declassified letter that was sent to James Files in prison, asking if he was the author. The mafia figure that is described is Dominique Venturi, who took over the Corsican crime family in Marseille with Marcel Francisco from the Guerini brothers when they were killed in 1967. The “certain branch of organized crime” is the Corsican mob, and the number 4 at the time (now number 2) is Venturi.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/NSA.htm



on August 28, 2007 at 9:18 pm Avid Researcher
Ater having chewed through many, many JFK variations, I personally chose the following three (Franko-Corsican) gunmen as the most likely men who did the job:

Lucien Sarti, Francois “Big Lips” Chiappe and Jean Paul Angeletti.

And also seems to be one of the less popular variants, which is oh-so typical for the truth.



on January 26, 2008 at 6:22 am Hail Eris! Hail Crockpots!: An Interview with Adam Gorightly « Waking the Midnight Sun
[...] remembering all sorts of strange personal encounters and came to believe he had been involved in the assassination conspiracy. It’s easy to think he simply snapped after being hounded and accused for so long, but [...]



on January 27, 2008 at 12:43 am Robert Jones
People of this generation seem to not know how well and how accurate the early assassination studies were done. I lived in Hollywood, Florida in l963. The Anti Castro Cubans were as vocal as a football game. An assassination blip had already taken place in Miami, changing JFK’s plans. The air was charged with right wing hate. My friends and I were appalled when we learned of the Texas trips. None of us believed he would come back. On Nov 22nd, we gathered around a radio
anticipating the worse. Sorry, folks, its true. Later, I unknowingly destroyed my wife’s innocence( she was unaware of the evil around us) when I called her into the living room to watch Oswald’s transfer from the Dallas jail. Watch this, I said, without the slightest hesitation. You are about to see the first live murder on television. (I have only one witness still alive)
But, although I did not then know of or the names of the Cuban Bay of Pigs CIA organization, we knew JFK was hated
for its failure. The assassination ultimately was a thoroughly simple matter. Use Bobby Kennedy’s CIA/ Mafia hit squad(to get Castro) already in tact, and change the
target to JFK. An LBJ on the edge of disgrace and prison, an angry, bitter Richard Nixon, and an atmosphere of racial tension, it was so easy to predict. We were stunned, not that it happened, but by how easily they got away with it.
They now had the power and Bobby Kennedy knew it. Hoover and Johnson had him by the balls. Only as president would he regain any power. The sick part was that, in my own opinion, Congress, including the Kennedy boys, the Press, and even though a doubting one, the American public
decided the truth was too ugly to face and show the world.
To destroy Johnson would destroy the democratic party, and the surviving Kennedies needed it as their own power base. A tragic error! Today we make too big a deal of the nuts and bolts. They matter only in a purely legal setting and that will never happen. We have not one, but several names to place on the grassy knoll Thousands still don’t believe the shot from the front. But it is they who have the hangups, not the conspiracy nuts. They are the people LBJ and his planners knew they could rely on. Nothing complicated or odd in this whole thing. I know numerous young college graduate liberals who simply can’t see their own lives and professions as having meaning and value in a country where the author of the ultimately successful civil rights bill is also a psycho murderer , liar, and thief. And yet, they all read Hamlet and Julius Caesar with relish.What E Howard Hunt did or did not write down is not needed. Even I knew all that, and that there was always a problem as to whether he was the tramp in the hat. Who cares. I”m only sorry the bastard and those on his sheet were not hanged.
In a just society, we, like Charles the II, may someday have Lyndon, Tricky Dick, and all those right wing homicidal CIA comic book characters, dug up like Oliver Cromwell and hanged for treason along with God knows how many murders. Now, if you are an Oswald, Gods in his heaven alls right with the world nice sane GOOD person, you can shake your head, sigh, and be assured kooks like me are ignored by the powers they trust. And, they are right. After all, who was JFK that we should reveal the evils in our midst for the sake of justice. There are plenty little bastards(the kind who like to read about Confederate victories) who justify it by saying the bastard deserved it. As if a few sexual affairs are the same as all those dead bodies in a place we have already forgotten why we were there.



on April 27, 2008 at 6:59 am Ron Dahlke
I believe that Lucien Sarte’ was likely one of two shooters who stood behind the white stockade (picket) fence on the short hill on the north side of Elm street in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963. I also believe that James E. (Sutton) Files stood behind the same fence, but stood behind the fence about 10 feet or so from where it abruptly turns toward the triple overpass bridge.

I believe Files’ story, for several reasons:
a. He told his story to Joe West, a private investigator in Texas, who was given his name by an FBI Special Agent (Zechariah Shelton). West had been researching the JFK assassination for several years by that time. f

Shelton had previously investigated Files on charges of hijacking commercial big-rig trucks, selling the merchandise in Chicago. Also Files had been running stolen cars to Dallas, where one of Shelton’s FBI informants, who knew and often drove Files as part of Files’ illegal auto sales operations. Once they went through Dealey Plaza. Files, who liked and trusted the man, whom he did not know was an informant with the FBI, told the informant: “If the American people knew what really happened here, they would not be able to handle it.”

West found Files, where he is still serving a 50 year term for attemting to shoot a Chicago cop. Over a two year period of time, they developed a friendship. Files started telling West about aspects of the assassination, including the fact that a shooter he knew fired a mercury bullet when JFk was hit in the right temple of his head. Files told West that if JFK’s body were exhumed, it would contain mercury in the area of the head because mercury never changes of dissipates.

West was in a hospital recouperating from heart surgery after several weeks. A new doctor was brought into his case, who changed his post-op medications, and West suddently died.
Jimmy got word from his many contacts “on the street” that West was in fact murdered. West had filed a law suit to have JFK’s body exhumed in order to discover whether mercury was (is) present. The suit died with West.

Jimmy then told West’s successor that he was the actual shooter on the knoll. He told the new investigator, who had worked with West’s investigative firm, that he had used a weapon that was “given to him by David Atlee Phillips. Files’ CIA handler, who also was the Agency’s handler for Lee Harvey Oswald. Files had run guns to Oswald, delivering them to Oswald at Clinton, Louisiana.

Oswald, who had worked with Dr. Alton Ochsner, Mary Sherman, Judyth Vary Baker, Guy Banister and David Ferrie, was also FBI Informant S-2-179. He had, just as his warning note that ended up on the telexes of 100 FBI offices all over America, infiltrated the kill-Kennedy “violent revolutionary group” and reported it to FBI Special Agent, James Hosty.

This was after he left Judyth, his New Orleans lady friend, and, after a failure to enter Cuba from Mexico City, was called back and sent to work at the Texas School Book Depository by George H. W. Bush’s long time friend, George DeMohrenschildt
with help from Ruth Paine, and D. H. Byrd, the at that time owner of the Texas School Book Depository building.

Hunt mentioned not only David Phillips, but also David Morales, and William King Harvey as well as General Ed Lansdale, who sent Man-X (in immediate charge of Operation Mongoose in Miami. Florida) out of the country on a 2 week flying vacation. Col. Fletcher Prouty was a faithful, honest Army officer.

Phillips knew Morales, knew Oswald though presenting himself to Oswald as Maurice Bishop, knew Alpha 66 leader, Antonio Veciana who was a friend of James Files.

2. A bullet casing was found under several inches of soil several feet away from the picket fence on the knoll, several feet from where the concrete steps go down to Elm street in Dealey Plaza in 1987. John Rademacher who found it, put it into safe keeping when the media paid little attention when the find was announced.

There were markings on one end of the shell, but no one knew what they were. Thus, no one paid further attention to the shell. After West’s death, and Files’ admission to the new investigator about his role in the shooting, they told Files that a bullet shell casing had been found several years earlier.
Files told them, “If you find the shell from the bullet I fired, you’ll find my teethmarks in it around the shell near the orifice (the open end of any shell casing is called it’s “orifice.”

The new investigator went back to Dallas, recovered the bullet that had been kept by Rademacher, had it studied by five odontological forensics scientists, and were told that the indentations on the shell were “from human dentition.”

I think that, given the fact that there is good evidence to show that there were indeed two shooters behind the fence on the knoll, including Files’ statement that he was aware that there were “others behind the fence in back, about 15 yards away, would put Lucien and his spotter, in just about the right place in terms of where “badge-man” is seen in the Mary Moorman Polaroid photo, and a figure peering over the fence near some shrubs in the same photograph.

Why should all this be investigated by a Texas Grand Jury? Because Congress can no longer be trusted to investigate anything. They are too much in the hip pockets of the corporate side of what is called, the Industrial-Intelligence-Industrial Complex.

And, because two high-level individuals who were up to their noses in the assassination plot, George H. W. Bush and Senator Arlen Specter are still alive and lying their way though life even now.

The hiararchy that Hunt neglected to mention was the connection between David Sanchez Morales, Ted Shackley, and near the top of everything that is CIA, George H. W. Bush, are the reason why such an investigation NEEDs to take place.

After all, look what they are planning right now, agaiost Iran!
We all know what allowed Vietnam to happen, and Watergate and Iran-Contra, and the first Gulf War and now, the second Gulf War. There is a name common to all of these horrendous events. Guess who. Peek-aboo. He’s still running things.



on January 13, 2009 at 5:06 am Don Fulsom
Nice interview! Makes sense to me, except for the LBJ part.
I’ll update my piece in Crime Magazine.
If St. John wants to contact me with any of his documents and further thoughts, I’d love to hear from him.
I wonder if he suspects any Nixon role in the JFK murder.
And whether he thinks his dad was just the CIA payoff man.
Sorry to hear what his search for the truth has done to his family.
All best,
-df



on January 26, 2009 at 1:19 am Don Fulsom
Thanks again for the fine interview–on which I based an update to my CrimeMagazine.com piece.
I repeat my interest in communicating with St. John. I can even tell him about a book agent who asked how he could get in touch with him.



on January 27, 2009 at 5:31 am cadeveo
He seemed pretty serious about getting on with his life. Perhaps you should try e-mailing him directly. He has one listed at his website:

saint@saintjohnhunt.com

Good luck.
--------
visit http://www.judythbakerblogspot.com, http://www.doctormarysmonkey.com, http://www.jimmarrs.com, http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com and http://www.lee-harvey-oswald.com

Some links in this article lead to Youtube videos that show the relationships of certain individuals named in this article to others named.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Lee Harvey Oswald Was Not Allowed to Contact a Lawyer!


"WAS OSWALD DENIED COUNSEL BY THE DALLAS AUTHORITIES ? " The short answer is YES!READ THIS BLACK OP RADIO TRANSCRIPT AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!
#84275, "WAS OSWALD DENIED COUNSEL BY THE DALLAS AUTHORITIES ? "


Text from Last Night's BlackOp Radio Program


WAS OSWALD DENIED COUNSEL BY THE DALLAS AUTHORITIES ?

By Gil Jesus ( 2009 )


Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever discuss your father with Lee Oswald?

Mr. PAINE. On a phone call shortly after the assassination he called
and thought it was outrageous to be pinning Lee Oswald who was a
scapegoat, an ideal person to hang the blame on. ( 2 H 392 )


Lee Harvey Oswald claimed that the Dallas Police would not let him
have a lawyer. He repeatedly asked for "someone to come forward and
give me legal assistance". Nearly every single time he appeared before reporters, he lamented about not having counsel on his behalf.

At the same time, the Dallas authorities were telling different
stories to those who came forward in response to Oswald's pleas. One
version was that Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. A second version
was that Oswald had declined any and all legal assistance, save for
one attorney named John Abt from New York.

While Oswald did express a preference for Abt, he also requested a
second choice --- any lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU did attempt to make contact with Oswald, but its
representatives were discouraged from doing so.


OSWALD REQUESTS A LAWYER DURING THE FIRST INTERROGATION SESSION

According to the testimony of detectives Sims and Boyd, the first
interrogation session of Oswald was from 2:20 pm to 4:05 pm on Friday, November 22nd. ( 1 )

Captain Will Fritz, testifying before the Warren Commission, said that during this first session, Oswald requested John Abt to represent him and as his second choice, the American Civil Liberties Union. ( 2 )


THE ACLU TO THE RESCUE....OR MAYBE NOT

Gregory Lee Olds was the President of the Dallas Civil Liberites
Union. He had been contacted by one of his board members at 10:30pm On Friday, the 22nd, regarding Oswald's being denied counsel.

According to his testimony in volume 7 page 323:

He called the police station and spoke with Capt. Fritz, who told him
that Oswald had been given the opportunity
to request counsel and had not made any requests.

This of course was a lie, because as I just mentioned, Fritz told the
Commission that Oswald made known his "second choice" of the ACLU to represent him in the very first interrogation session, some 6-8 hours previously. ( 3 )

After deliberation, Olds and three others headed for Dallas Police
Headquarters.

Olds and his party arrived on the fourth floor, where they met Charles Webster, a lawyer and professor of law at SMU, who took them in to see Capt. Glen King.

Olds testified that "Captain King ......assured us that Oswald had not made any requests for counsel."

Two of the party went downstairs and confronted Judge David Johnston:

"Two of the others, I believe, went downstairs to the basement where
Justice of the Peace David Johnston was...... he also assured us that there had been an opportunity of--Oswald's rights had been explained, and he had declined counsel. Said nothing beyond that. I think that was the extent of our inquiry." ( 4 )

So here we have two different stories:

On the one hand the police say that Oswald was given the opportunity
to request counsel and he didn't, and the judge saying that he
declined counsel.

And of course, we know that both of these accounts are lies because in his testimony before the WC, Sgt. Gerald Hill said that Oswald had
requested counsel at the time of his arrest inside the Texas Theater.
( 5 )

Later in his testimony, Hill reiterates:

Mr. HILL .........he had previously in the theatre said he wanted his
attorney.

Mr. BELIN. He had said this in the theatre?

Mr. HILL. Yes; when we arrested him, he wanted his lawyer. He knew his rights. ( 6 )


Olds attended the Midnight Press Conference", where Oswald AGAIN
publicly requested that "someone come forward to give me legal
assistance".

Having been discouraged by the police, the law professor and the judge from contacting Oswald, Olds was left to choose whom to believe....them or Oswald. It was a choice he'd later regret.

He testified that...

"......I have always been sorry that we didn't talk with Oswald,
because it was not clear whether we would be permitted to see him that night or not."

Mr. STERN. But, you did not ask to see him?

Mr. OLDS. No; we did not, which I think was a mistake on my part.

( 7 )


We now know today that many of Wade's convictions in criminal court
have been overturned. ( 8 )

Olds then told the Commission that the visit of Dallas Bar Association President H. Louis Nichols to speak with Oswald on Saturday went a long way in reasurring Olds' questions about
suspected denial of counsel to Oswald:


Mr. OLDS. Mr. Nichols went down late this afternoon, I think around
5:30, and he reported after that that he had seen Oswald in respect to the same reasons that we had for going down there Saturday night, to see if he wanted some sort of legal representation, and to make sure whether or not he was denied---being denied it, and he said that he was satisfied that--in essence, Oswald told Nichols he was satisfied with the situation. ( 9 )


BEFORE THE JUDGE

At the midnight press conference, Oswald told reporters that he had
appeared before a judge and had protested that
he was not allowed a lawyer:

" I was questioned by a judge. I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing." ---Lee Harvey Oswald


In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Mr. Nichols stated that indigent defendants in criminal felony cases were appointed counsel by judges at their request.

Mr. STERN. What is the practice in this jurisdiction regarding the
appointment of counsel for indigents accused in criminal cases?

Mr. NICHOLS. Basically, I think that would follow the statutes which
provide that where it comes to the attention of the court, that a man charged with a felony is not represented by an attorney that the court will appoint an attorney to represent him. ..............The usual procedure is, I believe, when it comes to the attention of the judge that an accused in jail is not represented by an attorney--I am talking about a felony case now---or a man, whether he is in jail or not, if he makes requests of the court to appoint him a lawyer, the judges of the criminal district court will, and do appoint lawyers to represent those people. ( 10 )

None of the authorities who were present at Oswald's arraignment for
the murder of JD Tippit, and who testified under oath before the Warren Commission, could recall what Oswald said during that hearing.

The judge ( David Johnston ) recalled that Oswald had made a comment,
but could not remember what that comment was. ( 11 )

Homicide Detective Elmer Boyd likewise could not remember what Oswald
said (12 )

The same kind of amnesia seems to have struck Will Fritz ( 13 )

and Detective Richard Sims couldn't remember what either the judge or
Oswald said. ( 14 )

What are the chances that every official who was called to give
testimony on what Oswald said during the Tippit arraignment is going to have a total loss of memory ?


OSWALD & THE DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION


District Attorney Henry Wade had been under pressure from lawyers
regarding the treatment of Oswald. One of the issues was Oswald's
repeated public claims that he was not being allowed legal
representation.

In Dallas, there were two bar associations: The Dallas Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association.

On saturday, the 23rd, one of the attorneys who were pressuring Wade
contacted H. Louis Nichols, President of the Dallas Bar Association to request that he look into whether or not Oswald had legal
representation, wanted legal representation,or wanted it but had been
denied of it.

Nichols response was to call Henry Wade on the phone and make an
inquiry. ( 15 )

Nichols testified before the Warren Commission that Wade told him that as far as he knew Oswald had not asked for any lawyer,so Nichols asked Wade to give Oswald a message that the Dallas Bar Association would provide him with a lawyer if he needed one. According to Nichols, Wade said he'd pass the message onto his assistants and if Oswald ASKED for a lawyer, Nichols offer would be given to him.
(16 )

Of course, the reason why Wade's response was a lie is that Oswald HAD been requesting a lawyer from the time of his arrest, including the evening before during the "Midnight Press Conference".

After thinking it over, Nichols decided that he and a member of the
criminal bar association should visit and talk with Oswald.

But according to Nichols, he couldn't get a member of the criminal bar to go with him.

When he contacted Henry Wade, Wade told him to go visit Oswald alone
and to "tell him you will get him a lawyer". ( 17 )

To have a civil lawyer go in to question Oswald alone was a joke.

A civil lawyer would never ask the right questions:

Was he being beaten ?
was he being starved ?
Was he being deprived of sleep ?
Was he being isolated from his friends and family ?
Was he being denied counsel ?

In addition, according to his own testimony, Nichols was "connected"
to the Dallas Police and the City of Dallas.

Nichols used to work for the city attorney's office, and at the time
of Oswald's incarceration, still represented the city
credit union and had a brother on the police force, so, he had known
many of these city authorities for years. ( 18 )

Nichols then called one of those people, Capt. Glen King of the DPD to ask if Oswald had a lawyer:

"Captain King said that as far as he knew there had been no one
representing him, and as far as he knew, Oswald had not asked for a lawyer. He had not asked for the right to call a lawyer, and had
not asked that a lawyer be furnished to him---" ( 19 )

Now, keep in mind that King said this on the afternoon of Saturday,
the 23rd, AFTER Oswald had made a public plea the night before for "someone to come forward to give me legal assistance" and AFTER he appeared in the 2:30 pm lineup viewed by William Whaley, who testified:

"He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought
about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer." ( 20)

Nichols attempts to avoid becoming involved by asking Capt. King to
deliver a message to Oswald:

I said, "Well, Glen, if you know at any time that he asks for a
lawyer, or wants a lawyer, or needs a lawyer, will you tell him that you have talked to me, as president of the bar association, and that I have offered to get him a lawyer if he wants one." ( 21 )

Capt. King offered Nichols the chance to talk to Oswald but Nichols
"didn't know whether I wanted to or not at this point".

I didn't know to what extent I would, or wanted to, or should become
embroiled in the facts. I wanted to know whether he needed a lawyer,
and I didn't anticipate that I would be his lawyer, because I don't
practice criminal law. ( 22 )

However, Nichols was pressured into going by a law professor from
SMU.

I then received a call from another lawyer who was a professor out at
S.M.U. and he wanted to know whether or not the bar association was
doing anything about getting a lawyer for Oswald. I told him what had
transpired, what I had done, and I hadn't decided what should be done
at this time, if anything by me, as president of the bar association.
He seemed to think that it would be advisable and would be helpful if
I would go up and satisfy myself personally as to whether or not Oswald had any lawyer, wanted a lawyer or was asking for a lawyer and hadn't been able to get one, and I told him that I had not decided what to do, so, I sat around and decided if it had to be done. It seemed like enough time had gone by, and enough uncertainty among the people I talked to as to whether or not he had a lawyer or had asked for a lawyer that I decided I might as well go up and talk to him, so, I cleaned up and went on up to the city hall. That was probably 5:30 or so in the afternoon. ( 23 )

The law professor, in a sense, twists his arm as if saying, "It's been over 24 hours since his arrest and he hasn't asked for an attorney yet ?"

When he arrived at the police station, he went up to the Chief's
office looking for Capt. King. The Chief saw him and introduced him to an FBI agent, then volunteered to take him up to
Oswald's cell himself. ( 24 )

When Nichols asks Oswald if he had a lawyer, Oswald starts complaining about his treatment:

Mr. NICHOLS. I asked him if he had a lawyer, and he said, "Well, he
really didn't know what it was all about, that he was--had been incarcerated, and kept incommunicado, and I said, "Well, I have come up to see whether or not you want a lawyer, because as I understand--" I am not exactly sure what I ,said there, or whether he said something about not knowing what happened to President Kennedy, or I said that I understood that he was arrested for the shot that killed the President, and I don't remember who said what after that. This is a little bit vague. ( 25 )

Here Nichols is having an exclusive talk with the accused assassin of
President Kennedy, and he can't remember what was said in the
exchange.

Mr. STERN. He, I gather, used the word "incommunicado" to describe----

Mr. NICHOLS. Yes; that was his word.

Mr. STERN. Did he elaborate on that, or any---or indicate to you that
he had not been able to see members of his family or other people of
his choice?

Mr. NICHOLS. No; he did not say that he had been refused anything.
Just didn't elaborate, and I REALLY DIDN'T ASK HIM at that point. MY
INQUIRY WAS INTENTIONALLY VERY LIMITED. I merely wanted to know
whether he had a lawyer, if he had a lawyer then I had no problems. If he asked for a lawyer and they did not offer him one, that was
contrary to what I had been told, because I had been told, as far as
the police were concerned, and Mr. Wade, as he recalled, that the man
had never asked for a lawyer. Nor had he asked to call a lawyer, for
the right to call a lawyer, so that I was interested in knowing
whether or not he had a lawyer and whether or not he had requested a
lawyer and been refused..... I didn't go into the other questions, or
whether or not he wanted to see his family and hadn't been permitted.
I really was concerned about whether or not he had a lawyer or wanted
a lawyer, or whether we had any obligations to furnish him one.
( 26 )

In addition, when Oswald asked for John Abt or a lawyer from the
American Civil Liberites Union, Nichols told him that he didn't know
Abt and he didn't know any lawyers who were members of the ACLU but
admitted under oath that "as it turned out later, a number of lawyers
I know ARE members". ( 27 )

According to Nichols' testimony, this was the exchange between himself and Oswald:

NICHOLS. What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me
or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?"

Oswald. No, not now. You might come back next week, and if I don't
get some of these other people to represent me, I might ask you to get somebody to represent me.

Nichols. Well, now, all I want to do is to make it clear to you, and
to me, whether or not you want me or the Dallas Bar
Association to do anything about getting a lawyer right now.

Oswald. No. ( 28 )

As Nichols is leaving, Chief Curry asked him to make a statement to
the press:

"....As I left the chief asked me whether or not I wanted to make a
statement to the press, and I said, "Well, I don't know whether I do or not. I don't know whether it is the thing to do or not." And he said, "Well, they are going to be right outside the door there, and if you want to say anything this would be an opportunity to do it. Incidentally, I am very glad you came up here. We don't want any question coming up about us refusing to let him have a lawyer.
As far as I know, he has never asked for one. He has never asked to
call one." ( 29 )

Nichols then went before the media and stated that Oswald had refused
his offer for help:

"He appeared to me that he knew where he was and pretty much what his
rights were with regard to being represented, and he knew apparently--
at least the conversation was that if he didn't get somebody to
represent him that he wanted that he could always fall back on the bar association, or somebody, and I had told him that I would see him next week if he wanted me to, and I satisfied myself at least, to the
extent, that the man appeared to know what he was doing. He did not
appear to be irrational. He appeared to be calm. He turned down my
offer of help, and I felt like at that point that was all I needed to
do, and this was later Saturday afternoon, and I had no inkling that
anything else, except maybe that the next week if he didn't get a
lawyer I might hear from him, or check into it, and that's all I know
about Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald." ( 30 )

Nichols never mentioned to the press Oswald's request for John Abt or
the American Civil Liberties Union.
He never mentioned to the press Oswald's complaint of being held
"incommunicado".


CONFUSED CHIEF CURRY

Chief Curry, the only witness to the exchange between Oswald and
Nichols, could not remember which day it occurred, testifying that
Nichols' visit was on Friday ( 31 ).

Later in his testimony, Curry is told that Nichols' visit was on
Saturday, not Friday.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Curry, you said that Mr. Nichols came that
afternoon. I call to your attention that we have information
that he came there on the Saturday afternoon.

Mr. CURRY. Perhaps it was, not the Friday. That perhaps was on
Saturday.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. I wonder if you could just summarize briefly where we are.

(Discussion off the record.)

At that point, a "discussion off the record" is conducted and when the discussion comes back on the record, Curry's memory has improved. He tells the Commission that Nichols offered to provide counsel to Oswald, but Oswald "didn't care to at this time" but in the event he couldn't secure counsel for himself, he would "call on you later".

Then Rep. Ford asks the stupidest question:

Representative FORD. Did Nichols and Oswald talk one to another ?
( 32 )


THE SATURDAY CALL

FBI agent James Bookhout testified that he attended two interrogation
sessions of Oswald on November 23rd ( Saturday ). One was at 10:30 am and the second was at 6:30 pm. In the first one he attended, he said that Fritz gave Oswald directions on how to make a collect call. In the second Oswald thanked him for allowing him to make the call.

Mr. BOOKHOUT. Yes, it was in this interview that he mentioned he
wanted to contact Attorney Abt A-b-t, New York City. I
recall Captain Fritz asked him if he knew Abt personally and he said
he did not, but he explained that he knew that Abt had defended the
Smith Act cases in 1949, or 1950, and Captain Fritz asked him if he
knew how to get ahold of Mr. Abt, and he stated that he did not know
what his address was, but he was in New York.

I recall that Captain Fritz explained to him that he would allow him
to place a long distance call for Abt, and he explained to Oswald how to ask the long distance operator to trace him down and locate him, even though Oswald didn't even know his address or telephone number.

Mr. STERN. Did he actually make the call in your presence?

Mr. BOOKHOUT. No; he didn't make the call in my presence. The next
interview that we had with him, I recall that Captain Fritz asked him
if he had been able to contact Mr. Abt. Oswald stated that he had made the telephone call and thanked Captain Fritz for allowing him to make the call, but actually he had not been able to talk to Abt. He wasn't available. Wasn't in his office or something---- ( 33 )

Bookhout's account is supported by Forrest Sorrels. ( 34 )

So Bookhout puts the time of Oswald's use of the phone between 11:30
am and 6:30 pm on Saturday.

William Whaley testified that Oswald was still screaming for his
lawyer at the 2:30 lineup he viewed:

Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what
he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were
trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer. ( 35 )

Ruth Paine testified that Oswald called her about 3:30 or 4 pm and
asked her to contact John Abt after 6 pm. ( 36 )

Marguerite Oswald testified that she didn't see her son until sometime after 4:30 pm and that he told her that he'd
already requested to get in touch with attorney Abt. (37 )

From the time of his arrest, the longer the wait for Oswald to contact an attorney, the less chance that that contact was going to be made.

Try contacting a lawyer long distance in his New York office on a
Saturday evening in 1963.

Good luck.

And the police knew this, which is why Oswald was held incommunicado
through Friday and up until Saturday noon. The authorities could not allow him to come in contact with either counsel directly or family and friends, who would have sought counsel on his behalf.

Once they were satisfied that his chances of securing counsel were
next to nil, they allowed him to make the call.

When Oswald couldn't contact Abt, because it was a collect call and
there was no one there to accept the charges, he turned to Ruth Paine for help. Mrs. Paine testified that she called both numbers, home and office that Oswald had given her, but was unsuccessful in contacting Abt. When Oswald called back at 9:30 pm, she said that she "couldn't recall" whether she reported to him that she was unable to contact Abt.

She could only tell the Commission that "something was said but I do
not recall it specifically" ( 38 )

Mrs. Paine further told the Commission that "I am of the impression I
again tried the home telephone of John Abt on Sunday morning, but I am not certain, and there was no answer. That I certainly remember." ( 39 )

When the Commission inquired if Mrs. Paine had ever attempted to
report to Oswald that she was unable to contact attorney Abt, she was
forced to admit that she "made no effort" to call the police station
and speak with him. ( 40 )

The question remains: did Ruth Paine actually TRY to make those calls
on Oswald's behalf ?

And if she did, why didn't she keep Oswald informed of her progress ?

John Abt told the Warren Commission that he and his wife had gone off
for a weekend at their cabin in Connecticut and on Saturday, the press "began to call me up there" and that "these calls kept on all day Saturday and again Sunday morning". ( 41 )

How could all of these reporters reach Abt, but Mrs. Paine could not ?

Even if she could not contact Abt, why didn't Mrs. Paine, as a member
of the Civil Liberties Union, contact that organization for help or at least contact her husband to do so ?

Marguerite Oswald testified that on Friday, the 22nd, she was troubled by the attitude of Ruth Paine towards her son. Although Mrs. Paine said that she could get Lee a lawyer, she was doing nothing about it:

"I am worried because Lee hasn't had an attorney. And I am talking
about that, and Mrs. Paine said, "Oh, don't worry about that. I am a member of the Civil Liberties Union, and Lee will have an attorney, I can assure you." I said to myself 'but when ?' Of course, I didn't want to push her, argue with her. But the point was if she was a
member of the Union, why didn't she see Lee had an attorney then ? So
I wasn't too happy about that. ( 42 )


CONCLUSION

The testimony presented in this narrative has shown that Lee Harvey
Oswald requested a lawyer from the time of his arrest until late
Saturday afternoon, when he contacted Ruth Paine for help. The
testimony has also shown that Oswald was held incommunicado until
after noon on Saturday. During that period between his arrest and the
visit of his family, Oswald repeatedly pled for legal assistance and
when the ACLU responded to that plea, they were lied to by the Dallas
Police and chose to believe that lie.


The Dallas Police were successful in keeping Oswald "incommunicado"
until Saturday afternoon, at a time when the likelihood of Oswald's
securing counsel before Monday had diminished. It was at this time
that the Dallas Police allowed his family to see him and allowed him
to make his phone call.


The importance of the timing of Oswald's access to a telephone can be
summed up in this way:

Attorney Abt testified that he and his wife didn't leave for the cabin until Friday evening. ( 43 ) Had Oswald been allowed to make that phone call at the time of his arrest, he would have made contact with Abt before they left for Connecticut.

The authorities were eager to put the "denial of counsel" issue to
rest, so they agreed to allow a civil lawyer with connections to the
city and its police department and the president of the Dallas Bar
Association, to "question" Oswald about the denial of counsel issue in private.

After that interview, the lawyer faced the press and declared that
Oswald had refused his offer for help.

It's difficult to imagine, given the press coverage of that weekend,
that Nichols never saw on TV, never heard on radio or never read in
the newspapers, Oswald's pleas for assistance and instead was forced
to rely on "what I had been told".

The purpose of his "intentionally very limited" interview of Oswald
seems to have been to take the pressure off of the authorities in
Dallas rather than to insure that Oswald had counsel. By his own
admission, his "concern" was not for how Oswald was being treated.
When Oswald complained, Nichols admitted that he "didn't ask any
questions".

His testimony that Oswald told him to "come back next week" defies
logic and common sense and is contrary to documented video showing
Oswald repeatedly asking for "someone to come forward".

Not John Abt........someone..............ANYONE.

I find it hard to believe that Nichols could have been impartial and
not have mentioned that Oswald HAD requested the name of John Abt or
the American Civil Liberties Union. I also find it hard to believe
that an impartial party would not mention Oswald's complaint about his treatment.

In the end, Nichols served the interests of the Dallas authorities
better than he served the interests of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Perhaps that was the plan all along.

The proof of Lee Harvey Oswald's innocence is documented in the way in
which the Dallas Police conducted the police lineups, tampered with
the evidence and held him incommunicado for over 24 hours, effectively delaying his contacting counsel.

When you have a guilty suspect, you don't need to do those things
because the evidence will always stand on its own merit.

The fact that they DID do those things is a testament, IMO to his
innocence.


NOTES


OSWALD REQUESTS A LAWYER DURING THE FIRST INTERROGATION SESSION


1. ( 7 H 123, 7 H 165 )


2. ( 4 H 214-215 )


THE ACLU TO THE RESCUE....OR MAYBE NOT


3. ( 4 H 214-215 )


4. ( 7 H 323 )


5. ( 7 H 52 )


6. ( 7 H 61 )


7. ( 7 H 324 )


8. www.ctka.net/2008/Wade.html


9. ( 7 H 325 )


BEFORE THE JUDGE


10. ( 7 H 331 )


11. ( 15 H 507 )


12. ( 7 H 130 )


13. ( 4 H 217 )


14. ( 7 H 171 )


OSWALD & THE DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION


15. ( 7 H 327 )


16. ( ibid. )


17. ( 5 H 240 )


18. ( 7 H 327 )


19. ( ibid. )


20. ( 2 H 261 )


21. ( 7 H 327 )


22. ( 7 H 331 )


23. ( 7 H 327-328 )


24. ( 7 H 328 )


25. ( ibid. )


26. ( 7 H 330 )


27. ( 7 H 329 )


28. ( ibid. )


29. ( ibid. )


30. ( 7 H 330 )


CONFUSED CHIEF CURRY


31. ( 4 H 155 )


32. ( 4 H 158 )


THE SATURDAY CALL


33. ( 7 H 314 )


34. ( 7 H 356 )


35. ( 2 H 261 )


36. ( 3 H 85 )


37. ( 1 H 149 )


38. ( 3 H 88 )


39. ( 3 H 89 )


40. ( ibid. )


41. ( 10 H 116 )


42. ( 1 H 146 )


CONCLUSION


43. ( 10 H 116 )




http://www.youtube.com/GJJdude

Monday, October 26, 2009

Oswald Innocent: The Four Books You MUST READ!





LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID NOT KILL KENNEDY!
READ THE FOUR BOOKS THAT PRESENT THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND DOWNLOAD THIS INFORMATION!
Contents:
1. The Second Oswald by Richard H. Popkin:
Comments by Judyth Vary Baker
2. The FOUR BOOKS YOU MUST READ
3. Supporting Evidence of Oswald’s Innocence and the Cover-Up

THE SECOND OSWALD BY Richard H. Popkin: Comments by Judyth Vary Baker
Thanks to Dr. Jim Fetzer’s kindness, I finally possess books about the assassination. A friend once gave me several books, but they were the baddies --- Posner’s, for example. Dr. Howard Platzman gave me Robert Groden’s The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald. At that time, I remarked on how many photos showed smiling Lee Oswald, how very many photos there were of the so-called “lone nut” and how many friends he seemed to have – quite the opposite of the malapropos portrait the public has been given of him. Those few books I did have were all stolen by thieves in Holland in 2004, and I have been unable to live anywhere, since then, long enough to accumulate any books. My life of exile has been doubly harsh because so many beloved books are missing from my life.
You may have been told that ‘no’ historians or reputable people had written any early books about Lee Oswald that tended to exonerate him. That simply isn’t true. I read with amazement people’s statements on YouTube that no evidence exists that would clear Oswald’s name. People making such remarks are deeply suspect: WHY do they show up all the time at discussions about the Kennedy assassination? They must have a motive, since there they are. And anyone who has studied the Kennedy assassination honestly knows that evidence abounds that tends to exonerate Lee Oswald.
Certainly I was “na├»ve” in that I hadn’t read, until recently, books about the Kennedy assassination. I studiously avoided everything mentioning the assassination for years. Why? I dreaded being exposed, dreaded showing my feelings. I feared for my safety and the safety of my family. Such a mask I had to keep, that my natural love of life was deeply affected. Photos of me in 1964 do not show the formerly happy woman. I had been wounded to the core. The last thing I ever wished to do was to see or read anything about the most traumatic experience of my life, which I had to keep secret, and to myself.
Therefore, I avoided reading anything about the HSCA, Garrison’s New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw, and even the ARRB that met after Oliver Stone’s film JFK reawakened the pubic conscience and demanded release of records (only partially accommodated by the RRB, it turned out). And I missed Richard Popkin’s book, The second Oswald. Because this small (169 pages) book was published in September, 1966, by a reputable scholar, I consider it a valuable window on how the Kennedy assassination and the actions of Lee Oswald were interpreted by the public and the government at that time, as well as by Popkin. It’s eye-opening!
Consider this statement about the Warren Commission:
“The Commission, clothed in the imposing dignity of its august members, declared its conviction that one lone alienated assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, had indeed carried out the crime. The ready acceptance of this by then expected finding by the press and the public – except for a few critics – suggests that the American public got the kind of explanation it wanted, and perhaps deserved. “ (p 18)
Popkin stated that the American people had faith in authority, faith in the mass of data accumulated in 26 volumes – never mind how carefully selected to incriminate Oswald, and faith that the FBI, the CIA and the government would never, ever lie to them.
Look at this gem:
“ The majority of eye and ear-witnesses who had clear opinions as to the origins of the shots thought the first shot was from the knoll or the overpass (and these witnesses included such experienced hands as Sheriff Decker, the sheriff’s men standing in Houston Street, diagonally across from the Book depository, Secret Service Agent Sorrels, and many others).” 9p 23)
We always hear that Lee Oswald’s “sharpshooter” score in the Marines meant he was a good shot. But he actually scored as low as possible while still passing, missing the target itself more than once when he was tested. Writes Popkin:
“All of the Commission’s obfuscation notwithstanding, Oswald was a poor shot and his rifle was inaccurate. The Commission tried hard to account for Oswald’s very poor score on his last shooting test in the Marines. “It might well have been a bad day for firing the rifle – windy, rainy, dark.” (XI:304) …Mark Lane took the trouble to check on this, and reports in Rush to Judgment, p. 124, that the weather on that day in the Los Angeles area, where the test took place, was sunny and bright, and that there was no rain.” (p 24)
Many fine arguments follow that are still patent, today, concerning the “Magic Bullet” and amazing failures of the police and FBI concerning the rifle not even being checked to see if it was fired that day, etc. Imagine! The rifle was not even checked to determine if it had been fired! We’re talking about the President’s death, in a city where “Wanted for Treason” posters were plastered on every other street corner, and yet ONLY Oswald was involved, and this decision was made without even bothering to see if Oswald’s rifle had been fired!
I am a witness in this case, and have stated that Lee Oswald could drive. In my book, Me & Lee, I describe how lee drove us to Jackson, Louisiana. I was seen in the car we borrowed for the occasion, by LA. State representative Reeves Morgan’s daughter, Mary. At that time, she only observed a woman in the car—Lee was inside talking to her father. I am the only person who has ever claimed to be this woman, and at that time I had no driver’s license, because I couldn’t yet drive well. Here’s what Popkin says, on p. 64, about another witness who stated that Lee Oswald could drive:
“…(Albert) Bogard, a car salesman, reported that on November 9, 1963…” Lee Oswald “went driving with him…” He was supposed to have driven the car at high speed. “…on September 19, 1964, the FBI” gave Bogard a lie detector test, which he passed. The FBI “…established , both through finding corroborating witnesses, and by its polygraph test, that Bogard was a credible witness. Nevertheless, the Commission satisfied itself from other testimony that (a) Oswald didn’t drive, and (b) he spent November 9th in Irving…” (all day?JVB)
What Popkin doesn’t mention is that Bogard was too credible a witness: researcher Penn Jones reported that
“Shortly after Bogard gave his testimony to a Commission attorney in Dallas, he was badly beaten and had to be hospitalized. Upon his release, he was fearful for his safety. Bogard was from Hallsville, Louisiana. He was found dead in is car at the Hallsville Cemetery on St. Valentine’s Day in 1966. A rubber hose was attached to the exhaust and the other end extending into the car. The ruling was sicide. He was just 41 years old.” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/1016342/Disappearing-Witnesses-by-Penn-Jones-Jr-)
I include an interesting report from Spartacus Educational (at the bottom of this essay) where another ‘suicide’ using carbon monoxide was posited— supposedly the act of yet another witness who would have helped indict Vice President Johnson in the Billy Sol Estes matter –a suicide attemot supposedly committed via carbon monoxide from his car AFTER he shot himself FIVE TIMES with a bolt-action .22 ridfle. Oh, he also had a severe bruise on his head. The FBI investigator stated the poor fellow, Henry Marshall, having shot himself five times, and still not having found himself dead, then stuck his head under his truck’s pipe to finish himself off with carbon monoxide, by putting his shirt over his head. This ludicrous explanation was unacceptable to J. Edgar Hoover, but hey, anything goes when witnesses speak out. Suicide has been a common side-effect of doing so.
Popkin soon gets overwhelmed by the duplicate “Oswald’ activities. He of course cannot tell who is who. It was important to set Lee Oswald up as somebody rancorous and mean enough to kill Kennedy. Lee was obeying orders in New Orleans, but even then was aware that he was in danger. He told me that he wasn’t being treated right. In his own home town of New Orleans, where he had family, he was asked to make sure he got arrested, that he came off looking like a communist. Lee told me that he had never got in trouble when he was a teen, even though “everybody” around him got into petty trouble because he lived in a rough area, and also attended a rough school. Now, he was expected to dirty himself up in his home town. But I digress.
Popkin sees Lee Oswald’s lies as lies, it seems, rather than efforts to go into deep cover (USSR) or to appear to be a dissident (New Orleans) in order to seem pro-Russia and pro-Cuba. It was his job. Popkin makes a brilliant observation about Lee’s trip to Mexico City:
“On September 22, 1963, he told Mrs. Paine’s friend, Mrs. Kloepfer, that it usually takes six months to go to Russia (XXIII: 725). Then he supposedly went to Mexico City a couple of days later, on September 25th, on a fifteen-day visa (not the six-month one that he might have easily obtained) , visited the Cuban Embassy and asked for a transit visa to go to Russia via Cuba. By linking his trip to Cuba with a Russian voyage, he led the Cubans to call the Russian Embassy, who said the case would take months to handle. Oswald then became furious with the Cubans, not the Russians, and…claimed he was entitled to a visa because of his background, partisanship, and activities ( XXV:636)…he said he needed a visa right away because his Mexican visa was running out and he had to get to Russia immediately. He obviously could have got to Russia faster by traveling from New Orleans to Europe….” Popkin seems to be puzzled by these actions, because he adds that “…he doesn’t seem to have…cared about the final disposition of his case by the Cubans a few weeks later…his behavior in Mexico seems almost to have been designed to make sure that he could not succeed in his avowed aim of going to Cuba and Russia.”
Popkin is correct: the original reasons for going to Mexico City needed a time frame of only a day or two. When this mission was canceled, Lee Oswald, at the very least, needed an excuse for having made the trip, and at the most, he may have made a last-ditch effort to enter Cuba which he knew was doomed to failure. What I know is that Lee Oswald was deliberately impersonated at the same time that he, himself, was in Mexico City. Popkin states on p. 73 that “Much needs to be clarified about Oswald’s activities in New Orleans and Mexico.” I find his insight amazingly accurate, given the era in which he wrote.
On p. 75, Popkin assumes, as does almost everyone, that Lee Oswald did not have the means to travel by plane. He makes some astute judgments and is correct, but he doesn’t know he’s correct, nor can he cannot separate true sightings of Lee Oswald from those made by impersonators. I have been contacted by one of the individuals who was present when Sylvia Odio was introduced to Lee Oswald in Dallas. In addition, I know most of Lee’s activities just before he entered Mexico, because I was supposed to meet him there, and, instead, he had to telephone to tell me that the man responsible for my ride, and his pilot, were in some kind of trouble. Two days later, they were dead.
On p. 81, I see an interesting quote:
“…Oswald attended two meetings (in Dallas), one on October 23 to hear General Walker, the other on October 25 , a meeting of the ACLU, at which he spoke up and criticized Walker, and told one person after the meeting that John F. Kennedy “is doing a real fine job, a real good job” (IX:465).
Oops! Once again, we have a statement connected to Lee Oswald where he expresses approval of Kennedy. Oswald is no John Wilkes Booth – who proclaimed “Death to all tyrants!” right after shooting Lincoln, and whose anti-Lincoln feelings were well know. Where is Oswald’s motive? Ah, but I digress again.
Popkin mentions that while Lee rarely left his boarding house room in Oak Cliff, “he made calls (apparently long distance) at a gas station (XXVI: 250) ; he was at a Laundromat at midnight on the 20th or 21st…” I have mentioned in my book and elsewhere, such as in the banned History Channel documentary The Love Affair (Baker—The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Episode 8) that Lee called me about fifteen times, at night, after returning from Mexico City. I told researchers in 1999 that I could hear cars passing and thought Lee was calling me maybe from an underground garage., as I coukld hear car engines, but of course it could have been a gas station. Nobody ever told me about this reference to Lee making calls from a gas station during this same time period, and of course I am glad to see it. The Laundromat visit is important because Lee had no reason to be at a Laundromat to wash clothes, since he always did so at the Paine residence. But there must have been a phone nearby, because Lee did call me at about 10:30 his time, and we talked for an hour and a half. His last words in my ear were spoken only a day and a half before Kennedy was shot. And how heartbreaking those words were.
I personally believe Lee Oswald’s words that he had penetrated the assassination ring. Further, I believed him when he said that if he did not cooperate and stay with the assassins as part of their team (though he was hoping an ‘abort team’ would be in place to stop the assassination, which whom he would cooperate), his words “If I stay, that will be one less bullet aimed at Kennedy” still haunt me. He chose to stay and ‘play the part’ – at least as far as seeming to bring a package—too short to hold the ‘killer rifle’ –but perhaps passing long enough to decoy an observing eyes—that indeed he, Lee Oswald, HAD brought a ‘rifle’ to do his part that day. Instead, it was curtain rods, and he may have even ditched the package outside before entering the building, believing the play had worked, for nobody inside the building saw any package at all. Perhaps the package was for watching eyes?
At any rate, he then removed himself from the higher levels of the building, even bought a coke and stood there drinking it – officer Baker’s statement that Oswald held a coke being struck form the official report—but you can still see the struck-out word—that coke proving Oswald didn’t have time to shoot Kennedy. Lee then walks right out the front door of the building—but not before stopping to direct somebody to the nearest pay phone. By such slow and deliberate actions, he proved he was innocent. The police waiting to shoot him at back entrances waited in vain.
But there was one more way to catch the man who had so cleverly escaped being shot dead, as he had feared he would be, with the killer rifle placed in his hands: shoot the not-too-bright police officer Tippit, and blame it on Oswald. That would bring the police to his area. Popkin thinks maybe Oswald decided in cold blood to shoot the police office in order to appropriate his car for an escape (p. 109). The otherwise reasonable Popkin, who had stressed how Oswald wasn’t in any hurry,, suddenly has to have Oswald killing Tippit to take his police car. It is out of character, and one wonders if Popkin felt obliged to put this into his book in order to assure its publication. YouTube has a fine clip showing that Oswald didn’t have time to reach the scene before Tippit was shot; “Did Oswald Have Time to Make It to the Tippit Murder Scene? (No!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8D6NuLIhw&feature=PlayList&p=63629724DFBD0B74&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=53
There are so many strange peculiarities: a police car driving up and tooting, while Lee Oswald is inside his room changing his clothes. His housekeeper, Earlene Roberts, hears and sees the police car, sees Oswald leave a couple minutes later and go outside and stand there, waiting…apparently for a bus…he is there a couple of minutes, and those minutes ticking by are important, because Tippit is killed at about that same time, about a mile away. Still, Oswald is blamed.
They find him in the Texas Theater. Strangely, the guy who sold popcorn to Oswald says he was there too many minutes to have been the man who ran into the theater without buying a ticket, thus drawing attention to himself. He was supposedly Oswald. There is a photo of an “Oswald’ being arrested, quite dark, other figures have been blacked out, but it does not look like Lee Oswald to me. I assume somebody else ran into the theater, and the girl who sold tickets seems to have been harassed to state that it was Oswald. But her tears make her final statements as given under pressure.
Popkin’s final assessment is still being repeated today:
“The American Press, as well as others in positions of responsibility, would not and could not dream of a conspiratorial explanation. In a world in which conspiracies are going on all the time – in business (the anti-trust cases), in crime (the Mafia), in foreign affairs (the CIA)- it somehow was still not imaginable that two or more persons could decide to assassinate the President of the United States. “ (p. 117)
“the assassination of Kennedy was a momentous event in our history,” Popkin concludes. “We cannot hide from it by clinging to a hope that one lonely, alienated nut did it all by himself, and that nobody else was involved. ..Can we continue to live a lie about what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963? The public must cry out for a real examination and understanding of the events of that day.”
Mr. Popkin—the people did cry out. Many were threatened or killed for speaking out. Others had their lives ruined (such as what happened to me). After The Warren Commission proved insufficient, the HSCA (another case of the fox guarding the henhouse) came to the same basic conclusion that the Warren Commission did. However, they later learned that the CIA and the FBI withheld vital information. Jim Garrison attempted to get to the bottom of it, but we now know that his efforts were sabotaged with plants from the CIA in his own office, who fed him false information. (see Appendix II, and III, below).
WANT TO HELP YOUR COUNTRY? BUY THE FOUR BOOKS ALL GOOD AMERICANS NEED TO READ! HELP US KEEP THE FLAME OF TRUTH BURNING BRIGHTLY!
And what about today? Or do you believe everything the government tells you? Who profited from Kennedy’s death? Follow the money, as Deep Throat said. And look at those who get paid big bucks to keep selling you the lie that Oswald did it: the History Channel banned the truth. The government ignores demands that this case be re-opened with all the new evidence we now have.
WHAT CAN YOU DO? BUY FOUR BOOKS THAT YOU CAN SHARE WITH YOUR FRIENDS, PLACE IN LIBRARIES AND GIVE TO YOUR CHILDREN AND THEIR CHILDREN:
Read Dr. Mary’s Monkey, by Edward T. Haslam (http://www.doctormarysmonkey.com) to learn how cover-ups are made and how they affect you today via vaccines, cancer epidemics, and yes, the Kennedy assassination. Read my book: Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald (http://www.judythvarybaker.com). Get Jim Marrs’ great book – Crossfire-the Plot That Killed Kennedy. And finally, read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, by James W. Douglass.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. YOUR TIME IS VALUABLE. I AM GRATEFUL.
JUDYTH VARY BAKER
THE VOICE FOR JUSTICE AND THE VINDICATION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD
Appendix I: Another “Convenient Death” Story
Billie Sol Estes was born in Abilene, Texas, in 1924. After marrying in 1946 he moved to the small town of Pecos. As a result of high irrigation costs, local farmers found it difficult to make profits from their cotton crops. Estes started up a company providing irrigation pumps that used cheap natural gas. Farmers had previously used irrigation pumps powered by electricity. Estes also sold anhydrous ammonia as a fertilizer. This was a great success and Estes soon became a wealthy businessman.
Estes's business encountered problems when the Department of Agriculture began to control the production of cotton. Allotments were issued telling the cotton farmers how much they could and could not plant. In 1958 Estes made contact with Lyndon B. Johnson. Over the next couple of years Estes ran a vast scam getting federal agricultural subsidies. According to Estes he obtained $21 million a year for "growing" and "storing" non-existent crops of cotton.
In 1960 Henry Marshall was asked to investigate the activities of Billie Sol Estes. Marshall discovered that over a two year period, Estes had purchased 3,200 acres of cotton allotments from 116 different farmers. Marshall wrote to his superiors in Washington on 31st August, 1960, that: "The regulations should be strengthened to support our disapproval of every case (of allotment transfers)".
When he heard the news, Billie Sol Estes sent his lawyer, John P. Dennison, to meet Marshall in Robertson County. At the meeting on 17th January, 1961, Marshall told Dennison that Estes was clearly involved in a "scheme or device to buy allotments, and will not be approved, and prosecution will follow if this operation is ever used."
Henry Marshall was disturbed that as a result of sending a report of his meeting to Washington, he was offered a new post at headquarters. He assumed that Bille Sol Estes had friends in high places and that they wanted him removed from the field office in Robertson County. Marshall refused what he considered to be a bribe.
A week after the meeting between Marshall and Dennison, A. B. Foster, manager of Billie Sol Enterprises, wrote to Clifton C. Carter, a close aide to Lyndon B. Johnson, telling him about the problems that Marshall was causing the company. Foster wrote that "we would sincerely appreciate your investigating this and seeing if anything can be done."
Over the next few months Marshall had meetings with eleven county committees in Texas. He pointed out that Billie Sol Estes scheme to buy cotton allotments were illegal. This information was then communicated to those farmers who had been sold their cotton allotments to Billie Sol Enterprises.
On 3rd June, 1961, Marshall was found dead on his farm by the side of his Chevy Fleetside pickup truck. His rifle lay beside him. He had been shot five times with his own rifle. County Sheriff Howard Stegall decreed that Marshall had committed suicide. No pictures were taken of the crime scene, no blood samples were taken of the stains on the truck (the truck was washed and waxed the following day), and no check for fingerprints were made on the rifle or pickup.
Marshall's wife (Sybil Marshall) and brother (Robert Marshall) refused to believe he had committed suicide and posted a $2,000 reward for information leading to a murder conviction. The undertaker, Manley Jones, also reported: "To me it looked like murder. I just do not believe a man could shoot himself like that." The undertaker's son, Raymond Jones, later told the journalist, Bill Adler in 1986: "Daddy said he told Judge Farmer there was no way Mr. Marshall could have killed himself. Daddy had seen suicides before. JPs depend on us and our judgments about such things. we see a lot more deaths than they do. But in this case, Daddy said, Judge Farmer told him he was going to put suicide on the death certificate because the sheriff told him to." As a result, Lee Farmer returned a suicide verdict: "death by gunshot, self-inflicted."
Sybil Marshall hired an attorney, W. S. Barron, in order to persuade the Robertson County authorities to change the ruling on Marshall's cause of death. One man who did believe that Marshall had been murdered was Texas Ranger Clint Peoples. He had reported to Colonel Homer Garrison, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, that it "would have been utterly impossible for Mr. Marshall to have taken his own life."
Peoples also interviewed Nolan Griffin, a gas station attendant in Robertson County. Griffin claimed that on the day of Marshall's death, he had been asked by a stranger for directions to Marshall's farm. A Texas Ranger artist, Thadd Johnson, drew a facial sketch based on a description given by Griffin. Peoples eventually came to the conclusion that this man was Mac Wallace, the convicted murderer of John Kinser.
In the spring of 1962, Billie Sol Estes was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on fraud and conspiracy charges. Soon afterwards it was disclosed by the Secretary of Agriculture, Orville L. Freeman, that Henry Marshall had been a key figure in the investigation into the illegal activities of Billie Sol Estes. As a result, the Robertson County grand jury ordered that the body of Marshall should be exhumed and an autopsy performed. After eight hours of examination, Dr. Joseph A. Jachimczyk confirmed that Marshall had not committed suicide. Jachimczyk also discovered a 15 percent carbon monoxide concentration in Marshall's body. Jachimczyk calculated that it could have been as high as 30 percent at the time of death.
On 4th April, 1962, George Krutilek, Estes chief accountant, was found dead. Despite a severe bruise on Krutilek's head, the coroner decided that he had also committed suicide. The next day, Estes, and three business associates, were indicted by a federal grand jury on 57 counts of fraud. Two of these men, Harold Orr and Coleman Wade, later died in suspicious circumstances. At the time it was said they committed suicide but later Estes was to claim that both men were murdered by Mac Wallace in order to protect the political career of Lyndon B. Johnson.
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations also began to look into the case of Billie Sol Estes. Leonard C. Williams, a former assistant to Henry Marshall, testified about the evidence the department acquired against Estes. Orville L. Freeman also admitted that Marshall was a man "who left this world under questioned circumstances."
It was eventually discovered that three officials of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration in Washington had received bribes from Billie Sol Estes. Red Jacobs, Jim Ralph and Bill Morris were eventually removed from their jobs. However, further disclosures suggested that the Secretary of Agriculture, might be involved in the scam. In September, 1961, Billie Sol Estes had been fined $42,000 for illegal cotton allotments. Two months later, Freeman appointed Estes to the National Cotton Advisory Board.
It was also revealed that Billie Sol Estes told Wilson C. Tucker, deputy director of the Agriculture Department's cotton division, on 1st August, 1961, that he threatened to "embarrass the Kennedy administration if the investigation were not halted". Tucker went onto testify: "Estes stated that this pooled cotton allotment matter had caused the death of one person and then asked me if I knew Henry Marshall". As Tucker pointed out, this was six months before questions about Marshall's death had been raised publicly.
However, the cover-up continued. Tommy G. McWilliams, the FBI agent in charge of the Henry Marshall investigation, came to the conclusion that Marshall had indeed committed suicide. He wrote: "My theory was that he shot himself and then realized he wasn't dead." He then claimed that he then tried to kill himself by inhaling carbon monoxide from the exhaust pipe of his truck. McWilliams claimed that Marshall had used his shirt to make a hood over the exhaust pipe. Even J. Edgar Hoover was not impressed with this theory. He wrote on 21st May, 1962: "I just can't understand how one can fire five shots at himself."
Joseph A. Jachimczyk also disagreed with the FBI report. He believed that the bruise on Marshall's forehead had been caused by a "severe blow to the head". Jachimczyk also rejected the idea that Marshall had used his shirt as a hood. He pointed out that "if this were done, soot must have necessarily been found on the shirt; no such was found."
The Robertson County grand jury continued to investigate the death of Henry Marshall. However, some observers were disturbed by the news that grand jury member, Pryse Metcalfe, was dominating proceedings. Metcalfe was County Sheriff Howard Stegall's son-in-law.
On 1st June, 1962, the Dallas Morning News reported that President John F. Kennedy had "taken a personal interest in the mysterious death of Henry Marshall." As a result, the story said, Robert Kennedy "has ordered the FBI to step up its investigation of the case."
In June, 1962, Billie Sol Estes, appeared before the grand jury. He was accompanied by John Cofer, a lawyer who represented Lyndon B. Johnson when he was accused of ballot-rigging when elected to the Senate in 1948 and Mac Wallace when he was charged with the murder of John Kinser. Billie Sol Estes spent almost two hours before the grand jury, but he invoked the Texas version of the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer most questions on grounds that he might incriminate himself.
Tommy G. McWilliams of the FBI also appeared before the grand jury and put forward the theory that Henry Wallace had committed suicide. Dr. Joseph A. Jachimczyk also testified that "if in fact this is a suicide, it is the most unusual one I have seen during the examination of approximately 15,000 deceased persons."
McWilliams did admit that it was "hard to kill yourself with a bolt-action 22". This view was shared by John McClellan, a member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. He posed for photographs with a .22 caliber rifle similar to Marshall's. McClellan pointed out: "It doesn't take many deductions to come to the irrevocable conclusion that no man committed suicide by placing the rifle in that awkward position and then (cocking) it four times more." (source: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKestes.htm)


APPENDIX ii
Lasting Questions about the Murder of President Kennedy
Rex Bradford
November 2001
________________________________________
Are There any Smoking Guns in the New Records?
Researchers will hunt in vain for a memo containing the words "LeMay to Dulles: Get Kennedy in Dallas." Anyone who expected such, or holds it up as the standard for qualifying as a "smoking gun," is not serious. But if the term "smoking gun" is too strong, then there are many shining needles of truth in the vast haystack of chaff now available at the National Archives. Some would indeed have qualified as smoking guns in an earlier era, but the bar has been set very high of late by the defenders of the lone nut thesis. That the bar is continually raised, to meet the material which continues to emerge, is itself a phenomenon worth noting.
In any case, there is indeed much new of interest, though more of it related to coverup activities than actual direct leads to conspirators. Before jumping to these new finds, it's worthwhile to pause and examine one of the starker examples from the past.
In the 1970s it came out that Nicholas Katzenbach, then Assistant Attorney General, had written a memo to Presidential Assistant Bill Moyers at the White House on November 25, 1963, the day of Kennedy's funeral. Katzenbach's memo comes the closest an official document will probably ever come to announcing a baldfaced coverup:
"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he had no confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."
Of course, the silencing of Oswald by Ruby on the 24th would indicate to most open-minded people a high likelihood of a conspiracy, and the FBI had hardly run down its investigative leads by the next day, when this memo was written. Katzenbach's memo was a call to coverup, pure and simple. The concern behind it can be glimpsed in the second paragraph:
"Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists."
The logic of the latter of these possibilities is acknowledged:
"Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat—too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.)."

But the Katzenbach memo, while kept from the public for many years, has nonetheless been known for over two decades. What about the mass of declassified material released since the passage of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act? Has anything of import been found there, or should we all be reassured that the government didn't have really anything to hide after all?

Nicholas Katzenbach
LBJ Library
To read the newspapers, one would have to assume the latter, that nothing terrible or especially illuminating has come from the new files. This assumption would be dead wrong, as it turns out. What this says about press reporting in the modern era will be left for the reader to decide.
Two big stories, and a host of lesser ones, have emerged in the 1990s. One is a wealth of new material pointing to a medical coverup of previously unsuspected proportions. The second story is the Mexico City affair alluded to previously, about which a great deal more is now known. Beyond these two areas, there is much new of interest concerning Oswald, Ruby, the Garrison investigation, the HSCA's internal affairs, foreign policy secrets of the Kennedy administration, and more.
First, some highlights from the medical releases:
• As noted earlier, the HSCA's Report lied about the testimony it took on the nature of JFK's large head wound. Several autopsy witnesses corroborated the Dallas doctors' observations of a large exit-like wound in the rear of the head, something seemingly contradicted by autopsy photographs showing a full head of hair there. Equally amazing, HSCA investigators have revealed that the HSCA's nine-member forensic pathology panel was unaware of these interviews. Interviewed by the ARRB in 1996, HSCA staffer Andy Purdy, who conducted most of these interviews, said that the failure to make them public was "embarrassing," "shocking," and "inexcusable."
• The HSCA also reported, buried in a footnote, that it could not check the autopsy photos for authenticity against the original camera: "Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate the camera and lens that were used to take these photographs, the [photographic] panel was unable to engage in an analysis similar to the one undertaken with the Oswald backyard pictures that was designed to determine whether a particular camera in issue had been used to take the photographs..." But records reveal that the HSCA indeed acquired the Navy's camera, after a lengthy bureaucratic battle with the Department of Defense, and tested it. But the camera didn't match the photos (see memo with document attachments by ARRB Senior Analyst Doug Horne). Note that in this instance, through clever wording, the HSCA's quote is technically true, though quite misleading.
• The ARRB located a woman named Saundra Kay Spencer, who was identified as having developed Kennedy autopsy photos as part of her job at the Naval Photographic Center in Anacostia. Ms. Spencer viewed for the first time the full collection of autopsy photographs held at the National Archives. She testified, under oath, that they were not the pictures she developed. She gave detailed reasons why, involving both the content of the photos and the type of film used.
• The autopsy photographer of record, John Stringer, denied to the ARRB that there was a large wound in the rear of Kennedy's head. This despite suffering the embarrassment of having the ARRB play an audio tape from 1972, of a phone conversation in which Stringer told researcher David Lifton, repeated and unequivocally, that there had indeed been a large rear head wound. In any case, when Stringer was shown the Archives' photographs of what is purported to be the brain of JFK, he disavowed them. Stringer pointed to the lack of pictures of sliced "sections," the type of film used, the presence of basilar views, and other reasons why these were not the photos he took at a supplementary brain exam. At one point, Stringer was asked whether the brain photos represented accurately his memory of what Kennedy's brain had looked like. Stringer told the ARRB, "Well, it has to be, if that's Mr Kennedy." ARRB Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn's reply: "Well, that's the question."
• FBI agent Francis O'Neill Jr., who like many believes Oswald to have been the lone gunman, was shown the same brain photos (he was one of two FBI witnesses to the autopsy). O'Neill's reaction: "No......it's too much......it looks like a complete brain."
• Multiple interviews newly in the record cast grave doubt on the story, always hard to believe, that the autopsy doctors didn't know of Kennedy's neck wound until they called Parkland Hospital the morning after the autopsy. Among other people, the President's personal physician had been at Parkland Hospital and was also at the autopsy, and had surely told the autopsy doctors about the neck wound. One of these was the suppressed HSCA interview of Chief Radiologist John Ebersole, who remembered calls to Dallas on the night of the autopsy, "in the range of ten to eleven PM." Knowledge of the neck wound at autopsy makes even more grave the failure to dissect the neck organs and trace the path of the bullet. But there is additional new testimony which suggests that in fact bullet paths were traced, and photographs taken of the body with metal probes through it. White House photographer Robert Knudsen was one person who told the HSCA that he saw such photographs; his interview was also suppressed. If the story of the metal probes is true, then the deceit of the three autopsy doctors is of staggering proportions.
• One of those who spoke of the Friday night calls to Dallas was Nurse Audrey Bell of Parkland Hospital. This nurse also drew for the ARRB diagrams of bullet fragments she remembered were taken from Governor Connally—greater in number and size than those held at the Archives. Fragments of that size could also not have come from CE399, the "magic bullet," thus invalidating the single bullet theory and the entire Warren Report. The ARRB declined to take her drawings back to Washington.
• The HSCA files contain "memo to file" written by lead investigator Richard Sprague, who was soon to be forced to resign after attacks from the media and Committee Chairman Henry Gonzalez. This incredible memo states: "William F. Illig, an attorney from Erie, Pa., contacted me in Philadelphia this date, advising me that he represents Dr. George G. Burkley, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy retired, who had been the personal physician for presidents Kennedy and Johnson.....Dr. Burkley advised him that although he, Burkley, had signed the death certificate of President Kennedy in Dallas, he had never been interviewed and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated. Illig advised me that his client is a very quiet, unassuming person, not wanting any publicity whatsoever, but he, Illig, was calling me with his client's consent and that his client would talk to me in Washington." Sprague's replacement as HSCA Chief Counsel, Robert Blakey, apparently chose not to interview Burkley at all, as did the Warren Commission before it. The ARRB sought permission from Dr. Burkley's daughter, Nancy Denlea, for the release of any relevant information from the lawyer's files, which she at first agreed to do. She subsequently decided not to sign the waiver after all.
• Documents released by the National Archives in 1999 tell an odd story. They show that the ceremonial casket used to transport JFK's body from Dallas to Washington was dropped from military aircraft into 9000 feet of water off the coast of Maryland in early 1966. This strange event, whose implications will be discussed outside this essay, was initiated by a latter from former Dallas mayor Earl Cabell, and signed off by Robert Kennedy. Strange bedfellows.
• The military control of the autopsy has long been a subject for concern, but David Lifton's book Best Evidence went far beyond that, alleging military control over the body of Kennedy itself en route to Washington. The rationale given by Lifton for this alleged intervention, alteration of the body in preparation for autopsy, has long been controversial among assassination students. New testimony about the large head wound has lessened the argument that such alteration took place. Nonetheless, Lifton's thesis regarding military control of the body got stunning corroboration in an HSCA interview which was suppressed and not made public until 2000. The HSCA interviewed Richard Lipsey, aide to General Wehle, the Military District Commander of Washington, DC. Lipsey told the HSCA how General Wehle put him in charge of the body. He then related how a decoy casket had been used, with Mrs. Kennedy and her entourage accompanying an empty casket while a second limousine took the body separately to the Bethesda Naval Hospital morgue.
The bullet-item list above contains allegations which are shocking and in some cases not readily believed. That the list itself is accurate can be determined simply by following the links in it to their sources. That all the allegations are in fact true is of course another matter, and several of them remain controversial even among those convinced of a conspiracy and coverup. That said, it should be noted that in all cases where a controversial witness statement is presented, the person making the statement is indeed a witness to what is being alleged, not some self-appointed person from the general population. Such persons should be taken seriously at a minimum. It is this author's view that even a conservative view of the "new" medical evidence has knocked the floor out from under what is supposed to be the "bedrock" evidence for a lone gunman (not that it was ever really that).
There are also a great many revelations and allegations outside the area of medical evidence. A sampler of these, and it is only a sampler, appears below:

Marina Oswald
HSCA Numbered Boxes
• Grand jury transcripts from the Garrison investigation contain several surprises. Among them is a statement from Lee Oswald's widow, Marina. She was asked why she cut off contact after the assassination with Ruth Paine, the woman she was living with, and in whose house much incriminating evidence against Oswald was found. Marina's answer: "I was advised by the Secret Service not to be connected with her.....she was sympathisizing with the CIA. She wrote letters over there...."

Clay Shaw
AARC
• The "friends" of Lee Oswald continue to look less like friends and more like intelligence contacts. It has long been known that, before his death, Oswald's "best friend" George DeMohrenschildt admitted that local CIA man J. Walton Moore had suggested that George strike up an acquaintance with Oswald. In corroboration for Marina's statement above are the released documents showing that Ruth Paine's sister worked for the CIA, and her father was an informant to it. Another case is Priscilla Johnson, the reporter who interviewed Oswald in Moscow and later wrote Marina and Lee. Documents show that she applied for a job at the CIA, but was turned down, but was also viewed as a potential "witting asset" for the Agency. If Lee Oswald was not a U.S. intelligence agent, he was certainly surrounded by them. Whether or not he actually knew Oswald, it is interesting to note that businessman Clay Shaw, charged by New Orleans D.A. Garrison in the JFK murder, also had a relationship with the CIA. Besides being a contact of the CIA's Domestic Contact Division, a 1967 memo released in 1992 noted that Shaw was granted a covert security approval in December 1962 for "Project QKENCHANT." Another person approved for this same project was none other than E. Howard Hunt, of Watergate fame.
• Regardless of the excess or failures of the Garrison investigation, there is now abundant evidence that the federal government was bent on destroying it. Walter Sheridan, producer of a highly critical NBC White Paper in 1967, met with mobster Zachary "Red" Strate, according to the testimony of Strate, Judge Malcolm O'Hara, and attorney Edward Baldwin (the latter two disagreed as to who arranged the meeting, pointing the finger at each other). The purpose of the meeting was apparently to work out a deal whereby Strate would deliver anti-Garrison witnesses in exchange for help with a pending appeal. Other grand jury testimony supports the allegation that it was anti-Garrison forces who were bribing witnesses, not Garrison. The Justice Department also rushed JFK autopsy doctor J. Thorton Boswell to New Orleans during the trial, because, according to Boswell's ARRB testimony, "Pierre [Finck, another JFK autopsy doctor] is testifying, and he's really lousing everything up." Earlier that day Finck, after having told the court that an Army General had stated that he was in charge of the autopsy, was pressed repeatedly to explain why he did not dissect Kennedy's neck to trace the bullet path. Finck, after attempting to duck the question several times, finally stated "As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom." The CIA also was very keenly interested in the Shaw trial. A series of internal CIA memos also show great concern over the Garrison investigation, corroborating ex-CIA officer Victor Marchetti's claim that CIA Director Helms would begin staff meetings by asking, referring to Shaw and his lawyers, "Are we giving them all the help we can down there?"

Mexico City "Mystery Man", mistakenly identified as Oswald
AARC
• A torrent of cables, memos, and other documents have been released on the "Oswald" trip to Mexico City affair. Besides showing that Oswald was impersonated in phone calls to the Soviet Embassy, these documents show that the tapes were part of a broader effort, involving CIA officers, to implicate Oswald in a Cuban or Soviet conspiracy. There are also disturbing indications that the documentary record now available has been tampered with. For instance, there is reason to believe that one "Oswald" phone call was of a more sinister nature than any of the relatively innocuous transcripts now public. The many incredible details of these files and the stories they tell cannot be adequately presented in such a short space—see The Framing of Oswald topic.
• New information on foreign policy initiatives regarding both Vietnam and Cuba have begun to alter the Kennedy-era history of that time. The Pentagon Papers, published in the early 1970s, had curiously sparse information from 1963. That gap has now been filled—with detailed plans for the withdrawal of U.S. forces. More information has also come to light on a "second track" of accomodation with Castro's Cuba, as well as military plans to stage a fake Cuban provocation as a pretext for invasion. In all, the previously-secret records add weight to the thesis that, after the Missile Crisis at least, the Kennedy administration was moving toward peace and detente with the Soviet Union.
The list given above is the tip of a very large iceberg, and is hardly meant to be comprehensive. There is much for researchers to chew upon. Whether it is possible to make sense of the vast contradictory record, to pull all the threads together into a coherent narrative, is as yet unknown. The fact that the murder was never honestly investigated by the federal government with all its vast powers is a sad legacy, as armchair analysts can't subpoena witnesses and use the other tools which are needed to really solve such a crime. And at this late date, with most of the participants and witnesses dead or soon to be so, even the exceedingly unlikely event of a new investigation would set upon a trail long gone cold. Armchair analysts are all that remain, but what a wealth of material they have to work with. This website is devoted to highlighting and analyzing the assassination's documentary base, in particular the amazing new releases. Perhaps more importantly, its goal is to supply these documents in accessible electronic form to a new generation of scholars
(To see the rest of this fine essay, go to: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_3.htm)

APPENDIX III
Bernardo De Torres infiltrated Garrison's investigation before it started
9 infiltrators sounds high, but as we hear in this interview. The CIA spared no expense in their efforts to derail and discredit Jim Garrison.

Bernardo De Torres and Edwin Collins in 1963 Black Op Radio Interview