Screen shot from JFK: Destiny Betrayed Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , misleads viewers on the selection of Allen Dulles to serve on the Warren Commission. Here is an excerpt from the transcript: (11:49 of episode one) Oliver Stone : In regard to the Warren Commission, who do you think was the most puzzling appointment to this Commission? David Talbot : Allen Dulles's appointment to the Warren Commission, I think, is one of the great frauds of American history. Eric Sevareid : Have you ever committed any acts of violence in your life? Allen Dulles : No. David Talbot : Lyndon Johnson went around telling people that Bobby Kennedy, of all people, lobbied to have Dulles put on the Commission. Allen Dulles : I don't think that even if you had ten more Commissions, that you'd never get away from the idea that maybe there was a plot. We just didn't find any traces of it. David Talbot : What really happened with Allen Dulles was the CIA lobbied to have him put on the Commission, because they needed to have one of their own on the Commission, to make sure that certain doors remain closed. The segment of the Eric Sevareid interview with Allen Dulles is taken out of context. Here is a excerpt from a transcript : (04:04) Eric Sevareid : Mr. Dulles, the Russian writer and propagandist Ehrenburg once wrote that if the master spy Mr. Dulles ever got to heaven by anybody's absent-mindedness you would mine the clouds and begin to slaughter the angels. Allen Dulles : ‘Shoot the stars and slaughter the angels.’ Eric Sevareid: Have you ever committed any act of violence in your life? Allen Dulles : No. It really wasn't a serious question. Talbot claims that the CIA lobbied to have Dulles put on the Commission. I went to his book, The Devil's Chessboard , to determine the source of this statement. First, from the picture section of Talbot's book: Notice that Talbot says that "Dulles lobbied aggressively," and not the CIA. The next reference is on page 573: The Dulles camp itself made no bones about the fact that the Old Man aggressively lobbied to get appointed to the commission. Dick Helms later told historian Michael Kurtz that he "personally persuaded" Johnson to appoint Dulles. According to Kurtz, Dulles and Helms "wanted to make sure no agency secrets came out during the investigations ... And, of course, if Dulles was on the commission, that would ensure the agency would be safe. Johnson felt the same way -- he didn't want the investigation to dig up anything strange." Talbot's source of the allegation that Helms "personally persuaded" Johnson comes from Michael Kurtz's book, The JFK Assassination Debates (page 173). The footnote says that it comes from an interview with Richard Helms. The second statement that Helms "wanted to make sure no secrets came out ..." is from an interview Talbot conducted with Michael Kurtz. So far there is no documentation except the Michael Kurtz claim that Richard Helms told him this in an interview. The credibility of Michael Kurtz has been questioned by many people, including several conspiracy theorists . Here is Pat Speer's conclusion : The point is that Kurtz has made a series of claims in his JFK-related books and articles that are erratic and smell to high heaven, and that his sources for these claims are erratic and often involve interviews with people that were already dead. Well, geez Louise, it follows from this that Kurtz's wilder claims, particularly his claims of talking to people few ever talked to in which they told him things they never told anyone else, should be thoroughly disregarded. On the next page, Talbot writes: William Corson, a former Marine Corps officer and Navy intelligence agent who was close to Dulles, confirmed that the spymaster pulled strings to get on the Warren Commission. He "lobbied hard for the job," recalled Corson, who had commanded young Allen Jr. in the Korean War. After he took his place on the commission, Dulles recruited Corson to explore the Jack Ruby angle. After spending months pursuing various leads, Corson eventually concluded that he had been sent on a wild-goose chase. "It is entirely possible I was sent on an assignment which would go nowhere ... Allen Dulles had a lot to hide." Talbot's source for this is Joseph Trento's book, The Secret History of the CIA , page 269: According to William Corson, the former spymaster "lobbied hard for the job." Once appointed, Dulles wasted no time installing himself as the intelligence expert on the Warren Commission. Trento's source is an interview with William Corson. I checked four of William Corson's books and none say anything about the Warren Commission and Allen Dulles. So, the allegations in Talbot's book all stem from interviews with Michael Kurtz and William Corson. We have no underlying details or documents to support the claim. Talbot then writes: (page 574) Among those urging Johnson to give Dulles the Warren Commission job were establishment allies like Secretary of State Dean Rusk, former president of the Rockefeller Foundation. These same voices were raised on behalf of McCloy. Talbot's source is page 541 of Peter Grose's book, Gentleman Spy: The Life of Allen Dulles . On page 542, Grose writes: At 4 P.M. that day [November 29th] Johnson got through on the telephone to Richard B. Russell, Democrat of Georgia and a respected dean of the Senate. He said he would "try to get Allen Dulles" to serve on an investigating commission. Russell concurred, "Dulles is a good man." Secretary Rusk had also commended Allen: "Dulles, on this kind of issue, I think would not be partisan. I think that would be good." Then the President put the call in to Allen. Sounds to me that Johnson was asking Russell and Rusk what they thought -- as opposed to them "urging Johnson to give Dulles the Warren Commission job." Here is an audio recording of Johnson speaking to Rusk: Johnson brings up the name of Dulles first, and then Rusk gives his opinion. That is the extent of the evidence to support the allegation that Dulles, or the CIA, lobbied to have him put on the Warren Commission. As Talbot mentioned in that short clip from JFK: Destiny Betrayed , Lyndon Johnson wrote in his memoirs that Attorney General Robert Kennedy asked him to put Dulles on the Commission: (page 27 of The Vantage Point ) As for the makeup of the rest of the commission, I appointed the two men Bobby Kennedy asked me to put on it -- Allen Dulles and John McCloy -- immediately. Of course, it is easy to say. Is there any documentation to support what Johnson is saying? Here is a memo from Walter Jenkins to President Johnson: There was a second page with a list of possible members: The HSCA mentioned this memo: The foremost biographer of Lyndon Johnson, Robert Caro, discussed this in his book, The Passage of Power : (page 442) The purpose of the commission was to reassure the country, so he [Lyndon Johnson] felt its members must be public figures whose very presence on it would be reassuring, "men," in his phrase, "known to be beyond pressure and above suspicion." When, in response to his request, Robert Kennedy suggested two names -- former CIA director Allen Dulles and a longtime adviser to Presidents, John J. McCloy, both of them Republicans -- Johnson made them two of the seven, along with three respected Capital Hill figures. Caro's source was Johnson's autobiography (see above), and an Oral History, "Reminiscences of Lyndon B. Johnson," August 19, 1969 : There is another piece of evidence supporting the view that Robert Kennedy suggested Dulles and McCloy. Johnson discussed this in a tape recording of a conversation with Abe Fortas from December 17, 1966 (relevant section is at 1;21 in the recording ) . Lyndon Johnson : No, but I would just say that you hear from [Bennett] Cerf or some of 'em stories, that you['re] involved, that he [Katzenbach] came over to talk to you .. and that there's some rumor that we didn't want a national commission, that you came in [and] urged it ... we urged it. We went to the top to get the chief justice [to] do it, and we even asked the attorney general to name people he wanted. [And] he recommended people like Allen Dulles and John McCloy. (transcript from page 339 - 340 of Max Holland's The Kennedy Assassination Tapes ) Talbot is half right here: David Talbot : What really happened with Allen Dulles was the CIA lobbied to have him put on the Commission because they needed to have one of their own on the Commission, to make sure that certain doors remain closed. I believe that the reason Robert Kennedy wanted Dulles on the Commission was to ensure "that certain doors remain closed." Kennedy did not want the assassination attempts against Castro to come out because he and his brother were deeply implicated. And that is an area that JFK Revisited just can't visit. And did Bobby Kennedy hate Allen Dulles? Have a listen to this tape of a conversation with Johnson, Dulles and Robert Kennedy about sending Dulles to Mississippi in 1964. Here is a short excerpt from a transcript in Max Holland's book, The Kennedy Assassination Tapes , page 242. Lyndon Johnson : I know you are. Now let the attorney general tell you what he thinks about it, and I'll be back on in a minute. [ Robert Kennedy takes the telephone ] Robert Kennedy : Allen? Allen Dulles : Bob? Robert Kennedy : How are you? Allen Dulles : [I'm] very well. Robert Kennedy : Good. [ There is a brief discussion of Senator Edward Kennedy's injuries from a plane accident .] Robert Kennedy : I think this could be awfully important. You know the situation is extremely explosive in Mississippi. Allen Dulles : Oh, I know it is. Robert Kennedy : And there's very little contact -- and [it] has been ]that way] for the last few years -- between the authorities down there and the federal authorities. And the fact that the [Mississippi] governor said that this was a possibility that he'd accept , and have some impartial person go down there and look at the situation, I think could, you know, be a big help and give us some breathing space. And also, somebody with your reputation around the country and around the world, I think, could perform a real service. JFK: Destiny Betrayed misleads viewers into believing that Allen Dulles was appointed to the Warren Commission against the wishes of Robert Kennedy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Previous Relevant Blog Post on JFK: Destiny Betrayed What Ever Happened to Jim Garrison? Jim Garrison is AWOL in Oliver Stone's so-called documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed . Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass Oliver Stone Admits "JFK Revisited" is a Flop Oliver Stone is disappointed that no major movie or TV reviewers have commented on his so-called documentary. Oliver Stone Claims the Zapruder Film was Altered Yes, Oliver Stone is an alterationist. "Guilt by Orientation" - The CIA Strikes Again! James Kirchick's terrific article on Oliver Stone and homosexuality. Is the JFK assassination linked to 9/11 and Covid-19? Just when I thought conspiracy theorists couldn't get any crazier. Two Important Posts Debunk "JFK Revisited" Tracy Parnell debunks a series about JFK Revisited on the WhoWhatWhy website, and Andrew Jackson debunks the film on Quora. Both articles are well worth your time. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Autopsy Photographs of JFK, Part Two Did Saundra Spencer really develop a completely different set of autopsy photographs? "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Autopsy Photographs of JFK Oliver Stone's so-called documentary tries to make the case that a White House photographer took photos at the autopsy. The only problem is that there is no evidence he was actually there. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool Over Joe Rogan's Eyes, Part Two Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show about JFK's brain. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool over Joe Rogan's Eyes Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show and I present a challenge to conspiracy theorists. Jefferson Morley and "JFK Revisited" Tracy Parnell dissects Morley's article on JFK assassination documents and "JFK Revisited" "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth, Part Two Did President Kennedy actually say that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind? "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... David Talbot claims that JFK told the French Ambassador that he was not in full control of his entire government. There is no evidence he ever said that. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims the CIA supported the 1961 coup attempt against French President Charles de Gaulle in 1961. The only thing missing is evidence. Max Boot on Oliver Stone's Lies Max Boot: Oliver Stone just can't stop spreading lies about JFK's assassination. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Valery Giscard D'Estaing Did Gerald Ford really disclose to French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? Perhaps not. "JFK Revisited" Star Believes in a Massive COVID Conspiracy Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes in a massive conspiracy regarding Covid and the intelligence agencies. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" Oliver Stone's so-called documentary alleges that Oswald was "moved" to Dallas and "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository. This is totally ridiculous. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound The preponderance of the evidence indicates JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was actually a plot against JFK in Chicago. Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? Gochenaur's writings don't back up his allegations in JFK Revisited . "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that has ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited Oliver Stone's JFK Revisited Screenwriter Reprimanded by ARRB in 1998 An exchange of letters between James DiEugenio and Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB. Is This How Real Documentaries Are Made? There is some 'interesting' editing in Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Screen Writer Crawfishes on Dallas to Chicago Airmail Overnight Delivery James DiEugenio changes his story on the Klein's money order. Debunking Another JFK Myth - Overnight Mail from Dallas to Chicago Conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio doesn't understand the history of the mail deliver in the United States. JFK Revisited : More Deception and Half-Truths The truth about Jack Ruby and the FBI. JFK Revisited : Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited : Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Screen shot from Jefferson Morley's Substack of August 5, 2023. A recent article on James DiEugenio's website makes a big deal out of the whereabouts of Allen Dulles on the weekend right after the JFK assassination: According to [David] Talbot, Dulles was in Washington that day but he did not spend the late afternoon or evening at his home in Georgetown. He was at the top secret CIA facility known officially as Camp Peary. It was unofficially known as The Farm. And according to the date book, Dulles was there from at least late Friday afternoon, through Saturday and Sunday of that dramatic weekend. In other words during the Kennedy autopsy, while Lee Oswald was in detention and after Jack Ruby shot the alleged assassin. This is odd since, at the time of the assassination of President Kennedy, Allen Dulles had no formal role in the government of the United States. He was what was called a “gray eminence” a figure from a storied past collecting his civil service pension and giving speeches promoting the Cold War. But The Farm, located in southeast Virginia’s, York County, was not a club for Agency veterans to swig bourbon and talk about the overthrow of Mossadegh. It was a busy, coordinated center for testing and experimenting clandestine activities. This huge, sprawling base—over 9000 acres—is partly used to train CIA employees in the Directorate of Operations, as well as their equivalent in the, at that time, new Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). (An example would be the opening scene in David Mamet’s spy thriller Spartan .) Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, it is also available for off-site conferences and working groups. According to a CIA officer who visited there for three weeks, one thing they did was to stage mock executions. It was heavily guarded, but with a living legend like Dulles that stricture probably did not apply. Here are the relevant pages from the Dulles' desk calendar: This story was then picked up by Jefferson Morley at his Substack : Morley quoted a recent message from David Talbot, author of The Devil's Chessboard : I reported in my book that according to Dulles's daybook, he met with unnamed "bankers" in the days before the assassination. But I didn't see the Nov. 23, 1963, page until Morrow distributed it. According to that page, Dulles had dinner with banker John Simpson the day after the JFK assassination while he was staying at the Farm. Again, why was Dulles at this top-secret CIA facility when President Kennedy fired him from the CIA two years before? And while he was staying there, why did he have dinner the day after the assassination with a former executive of the Nazi-controlled J. Henry Schroder bank (where Dulles was a director), who then joined the OSS, and after the war became finance chairman of the Bechtel Corp., a construction and engineering giant with strong connections in the US intelligence world? First, it is not clear that Allen Dulles actually spent the weekend at "the farm," as originally planned. It appears that he did not. Here is a listing from his diary for November 21, 1963: https://findingaids.princeton.edu/catalog/MC019-09_c012?onlineToggle=false Download the file and in the last folder you will find a list of files. The above is the file 19631122_0000034513.pdf. Dulles had a scheduled dinner at the British Embassy at 8:00 PM, which means he had to fly back to Washington D.C. that day. Here is his schedule for November 22, 1963: Dulles flew to Newport News in the morning and then gave a speech at 9:00 AM. The notation indicates that he "returned to Washington with John Warner after hearing of JFK"s death." Warner was the CIA's Legislative Counsel during and after Dulles' tenure as DCI. The notations for "the farm" on the desk calendar appear to be Dulles' plans for the weekend -- after all most people use desk calendars to mark their upcoming events. I am old enough to remember using one when I worked in Toronto many years ago. An entry in his call diary indicates that his appearance at the farm was cancelled via a phone call from Matthew Baird, who was involved in training at the CIA. Dulles most likely went back to Washington D.C. with John Warner shortly after news of the assassination reached the Brookings conference. From a letter from F. W. Luikart of the Brookings staff to Dulles on December 9: The tragic circumstances which brought our conference to a close in November prevented me from expressing to you my thanks for your participation in an adequate fashion. It was only this final sad note which detracted from an otherwise very successful conference in which you played a most important part. The participants to a man were pleased with your session and from it each, I am sure, derived a great deal of benefit. It makes sense that he would want to be in D.C. right after the assassination. After all, he would want to pay his respects to the Kennedy family, and be available for any official events that might take place. Dulles had planned to have dinner on November 23rd with John Simpson, a friend from Bechtel Corporation. Talbot makes it sound nefarious but they were old friends. In my opinion, all of this is completely unremarkable and uninteresting. Even if Dulles had been at "the farm" at Camp Peary, so what? Why wouldn't the CIA want its recruits to hear from a former DCI? And even though Allen Dulles was not longer the Director of the CIA, he still had many 'official' duties. In February 1962, he was appointed to a Defense Department high-level advisory committee on non-military instruction in the Armed Forces. That was followed a few months later by his inclusion in a government study group that went to South Vietnam on a mission to review "non-military instruction" at military installations. He found that many of the troops were "confused about American aims in Southeast Asia." Dulles also continued to get consulting fees from the CIA. A dollar amount is mentioned in David Robarge's official history, John McCone As Director of Central Intelligence 1961-1965, but is redacted. JFK wanted to "make Dulles's exit as gentle and graceful as it could." Not exactly what you would expect from someone who supposedly wanted to smash the CIA into a thousand pieces. The reason this is all nefarious to Talbot and DiEugenio is that they suspect Dulles had some role in the assassination of JFK. To them, Dulles was bitter and angry at being forced out of his top position at the CIA. In fact, Talbot believes that Dulles set up a government-in-exile at his home after the assassination: ( JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass , page 325) DiEugenio : Was Allen Dulles really fired? Talbot : In reality, Allen Dulles recovers very quickly. He retreats to his home in Georgetown and he begins basically to set up a government in exile there. The top people at CIA do not regard John McCone, the new CIA director, really as their boss. So people like Richard Helms, James Angleton still feel they’re part of the Allen Dulles circle. They go to his home frequently or at the Metropolitan Club. Dulles is not only seeing his old CIA lieutenants, but generals, admirals, the national security network. He begins to operate a government in exile that is opposed to Kennedy policy and is creating opposition to the Kennedy administration. On C-SPAN in 2015, Talbot said this (33:07, emphasis added) ... So, in 1961 on the heels of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, young President Kennedy, who's just been inaugurated a couple months before, is now faced with another crisis related to the CIA. Charles de Gaulle and his government are furious, are screaming that the CIA is backing a right-wing military coup against him, and President Kennedy's put in the extremely awkward position of telling the de Gaulle government, well, I'm not in control of the CIA. I can't speak for them. I'm not supporting this coup, but I can't speak for the CIA. And then finally, I think the big headline, of course, in my book, that's getting a lot of pushback from the media gatekeepers, looks at Allen Dulles' involvement in the Kennedy assassination itself. De Gaulle, by the way, felt that these Dulles forces were behind the assassination of President Kennedy. He told his information minister, when he came back from the funeral of John Kennedy, that the same national security forces in the U.S. that targeted me killed President Kennedy. That has never been reported in this country. That book has never even been translated. It was a memoir by de Gaulle's information minister, that he wrote that was published in France, never translated in the U.S. So, that's very important. I present, I think, very compelling new evidence that ties Dulles to the assassination and, of course, to the cover-up, because he played such a critical role on the Warren Commission ... Talbot also wrote this : Over the final months of JFK’s presidency, a clear consensus took shape within America’s deep state: Kennedy was a national security threat. For the good of the country, he must be removed. And Dulles was the only man with the stature, connections, and decisive will to make something of this enormity happen. He had already assembled a killing machine to operate overseas. Now he prepared to bring it home to Dallas. All that his establishment colleagues had to do was to look the other way — as they always did when Dulles took executive action. James DiEugenio noted in the Afterword to his book JFK Revisited : (page 264) In the Destiny Betrayed version of the film, we suggest that two possible suspects in the coup were former CIA Director Allen Dulles and Air Force Chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay. Talbot and DiEugenio are just plain wrong. Whatever enmity there may have been between Allen Dulles and the Kennedy brothers just doesn't come close to justifying Talbot's and DiEugenio's suspicions. Gus Russo, in his book Live by the Sword , notes the close relationship between the Kennedy brothers and Allen Dulles: (page 71) The Kennedy brothers had also preserved a long-lasting association with Allen Dulles, then CIA Director. Letters in both the Kennedy and Dulles collections reflect that John and Robert Kennedy maintained correspondence with both Dulles brothers from at least 1955. Traveling in the same social sphere, Allen Dulles and John Kennedy were “comfortable with one another and there was a lot of mutual respect,” Richard Bissell said in an interview. In fact, Kennedy was known to regard Dulles as a legendary figure. Historian Herbert Parmet wrote, “Dulles often went to the Charles Wrightsman estate near Joe Kennedy’s Palm Beach House. As far back as Jack’s early days, they socialized down in Florida, much of the time swimming and playing golf.” Dulles himself said, “I knew Joe quite well from the days when he was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission." Their friendship blossomed: (Russo, page 72) Dulles first met Jack Kennedy at the Kennedy Florida compound in 1955. They became fast friends. “Our contact was fairly continuous,” Dulles later said. “When [JFK] was in Palm Beach, we always got together.” Jack came to revere both Dulles’ intellect and accomplishments. Peter Grose notes in his book, Gentleman Spy : (page 530) In 1965, Arthur Schlesinger asked RFK about JFK's feelings about Dulles : Gus Russo says that Dulles helped JFK by keeping some secrets to himself: (Pages 73 - 74 in the Kindle edition) Dulles kept a variety of Kennedy secrets from the public. For example, when John Kennedy won the election in November 1960, the CIA under Dulles conducted a background investigation of Kennedy in anticipation of his first intelligence briefing as President-elect on November 18. Such investigations were designed to predict how the subject would respond when informed of the full range of CIA operations, and to show Dulles the most effective method of appeal. Prepared by CIA psychologists, the study included hot evidence from the FBI: the indiscretion of a youthful Jack Kennedy, at the height of World War II, with alleged Nazi spy Inga Arvad Fejos. In 1942, while serving in the Office of Naval Intelligence in Washington, Jack Kennedy had established this potentially dangerous liaison. The FBI, which had wiretapped Arvad, initially compiled the file. Historian Thomas Reeves wrote: When Jack’s relationship with the woman became known to Navy officials, the assistant director of the Office of Naval Intelligence wanted to cashier the young ensign from the Navy. A witness remembered the officer being “really frantic.” Reminded of Joe Kennedy’s prestige, however, the official eventually calmed down and consented merely to give Jack a speedy transfer to an ONI outpost in Charleston, South Carolina. (FBI sources state that it was Hoover’s direct pressure that brought about the transfer. The potential value of this kind of political dynamite was most assuredly never lost on the FBI Director. It was just the kind of file that kept Hoover’s power inviolate for so long.) Dulles’ decision, or favor, to keep this matter secret was quite possibly rewarded later, when Kennedy, as president-elect, retained Dulles as CIA Director. It may also have played a part in Kennedy’s initial refusal to accept Dulles’ resignation after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. On November 28, 1961 JFK helped inaugurate the new CIA headquarters at Langley. He took the opportunity to award the National Security Medal to Allen Dulles : Here are JFK's remarks : Mr. Dulles, Mr. McCone, General Cabell, members of the Central Intelligence Agency: I want, first of all, to express my appreciation to you all for the opportunity that this ceremony gives to tell you how grateful we are in the government and in the country for the services that the personnel of this Agency render to the country. It is not always easy. Your successes are unheralded--your failures are trumpeted. I sometimes have that feeling myself. But I am sure you realize how important is your work, how essential it is--and how, in the long sweep of history, how significant your efforts will be judged. So I do want to express my appreciation to you now, and I'm confident that in the future you will continue to merit the appreciation of our country, as you have in the past. I'm also particularly grateful because this ceremony gives us all an opportunity to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant. Allen Dulles' career as a citizen of this country--and as one who has made his vast personal resources available to the country-stretches all the way back to the administration of President Woodrow Wilson. I know of no other American in the history of this country who has served in seven administrations of seven Presidents--varying from party to party, from point of view to point of view, from problem to problem, and yet at the end of each administration each President of the United States has paid tribute to his service--and also has counted Allen Dulles as their friend. This is an extraordinary record, and I know that all of you who have worked with him understand why this record has been made. I regard Allen Dulles as an almost unique figure in our country. I know of no man who brings a greater sense of personal commitment to his work--who has less pride in office--than he has. And therefore I was most gratified when we were permitted today to come out to the Agency to present this award to him in your presence. I'd like to read the citation. "Allen Welsh Dulles is hereby awarded the National Security Medal. "As principal intelligence adviser to the. President of the United States, Mr. Dulles has fulfilled the responsibilities of his office with unswerving purpose and high dedication. His ten years of service in the Central Intelligence Agency have been the climax of a lifetime of unprecedented and devoted public service beginning in the First World War, and stretching through the administrations of seven Presidents. "The outstanding contributions Mr. Dulles has made to the security of the United States have been based upon a profound knowledge of the role of the intelligence office, a broad understanding of international relations, and a naturally keen judgment of men and affairs. The zestful energy and undaunted integrity of his service to his country will be an enduring example to the profession he has done so much to create." The next day, they exchanged letters : Conspiracy theorists have constructed a mythical Allen Dulles who is an evil mastermind so at odds with JFK that he had him assassinated. It makes for a tantalizing plot line, but not great history. Research and analysis for this article was contributed by Jerry Shinley, Larry Haapanen, Mark Allen, and Paul Hoch (who also helped edit this article). Update Here is an article from the November 24, 1963 edition of the San Diego Union : Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Allen Dulles and the CIA : RFK Jr. Disrespects the Memory of his Father This blog posts contains excerpts from RFK's oral history book which has a lot of nice things to say about Allen Dulles. "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... David Talbot puts words in JFK's mouth about the CIA. "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth, Part Two JFK did not splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France The CIA did not support a coup attempt in France. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Allen Dulles and the Warren Commission It was RFK who asked Lyndon Johnson to put Dulles on the Warren Commission.

"I'm glad the little shit is dead. He thought he was a god." Allen Dulles, former head of the CIA and member of the Warren Commission, is getting a lot of attention from conspiracy theorists. Jefferson Morley wrote a Substack column on the whereabouts of Dulles on the weekend of November 22nd , (debunked here ) and now RFK Jr., in a recent interview with Tucker Carlson , has put words in his mouth about the death of JFK. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (45:40) Tucker Carlson : You've said a number of times publicly many times publicly, and I think it's now been confirmed that CIA had knowledge of, at best had knowledge of your uncle's assassination, new things still being hidden now. What do you think? And that's obviously true. What do you think the motive was in that killing? RFK Jr. : Well, I think the people who were involved in it, the specific people who were involved in it were, were almost all associated with the Miami station, which was the largest CIA station at that time. It was basically, it was the Cuban station. And the people who were involved in that station were people like Bill Harvey, and David Atlee Phillips, who was clearly involved in my uncle's assassination. He was, by all evidence, he was Lee Harvey Oswald's handler at the CIA. And, E. Howard Hunt, who made a confession, David Morales, who is the, you know, the chief hitman, he ran the Operation Phoenix program in Vietnam. He killed 10,000 people, civilians over there, murdered them. And he also gave a confession of being in Dallas. And then there was, most of the people were associated with Cuba. And the impetus came from that group of people who were, who were angry at my uncle for not sending in air cover during the Bay of Pigs invasion, and then even more so, after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. My uncle then developed this friendship with Khrushchev, and he shut down all of the Cuban attacks by Alpha 66, and these other groups that were harassing Cuba. They were sinking ships, sinking Russian ships. They were operating flotillas out of South Florida and doing raids. And my uncle and father sent the Coast Guard down to confiscate their boats and their weaponry and to arrest the ones that continue to do it. And those people, those individuals were also, you know, have been traced and, and tracked to the assassination. And, you know, over the years and there now, there has been a, you know, there's millions of documents. Tucker Carlson : But why not release all the documents? It doesn't make sense to me is, why not just admit it now? I mean, no, no one you describe would be, is still alive. RFK Jr. : No everybody now ... Tucker Carlson : Why wouldn't Biden declassify these documents? RFK Jr. : I don't know why. And why would Trump not ...? Tucker Carlson : I agree. I know why Trump wouldn't, because he was convinced by Mike Pompeo, not to. So, and it's not an excuse. You know, RFK Jr .: We don't know what Mike Pompeo said to him. Tucker Carlson : No, but that's the point. What could possibly be ... RFK Jr .: The law requires them to do it. So they, the JFK assassinations law required that all documents be released by 2017. Tucker Carlson : Yeah. RFK Jr .: And yet they refused. So, they ... Tucker Carlson : but it's suggested there's something ... RFK Jr. : there's about 4000 of them that are left, and you have to assume and again, I don't, I try not to try not to talk about things that I cannot document. Tucker Carlson : Right. RFK Jr .: I think, there's a, it's a fair assumption that they're not protecting individuals, that they're protecting some institutional interest. Tucker Carlson : What's the most powerful institution in America? RFK Jr. : Well again, I am not going to, I am not going to, I don't know. I don't know. And, you know, I Tucker Carlson : You don't know. RFK Jr. : Yeah. Tucker Carlson : There must be something because why wouldn't they just ... RFK Jr. : And by the way, for people, you know, you and I having this conversation about who did the assassination and why they did it. A lot of that is the stuff that I've told you and I've tried to stick to things that, you know, are documentable, and the names, etc. But for people who want a real, you know, kind of a panoramic view of what happened. I think the best book that's been written about this is Jim Douglass's book, which is called The Unspeakable because he's done something, you know, after the Warren Commission, that became the orthodoxy, and New York Times and all the major news organizations have enforced that orthodoxy and anybody who challenged that orthodoxy becomes a conspiracy theorist. And in fact, in 1967, the CIA sent a letter out to, a telecom out to all of its Operation Mockingbird people, which are all the assets it had in the American press. More than 400 people, editors, senior editors, senior writers, the American press thing. From now on, anybody who questions the single gunmen theory of the Kennedy assassination should be characterized as a conspiracy theorist. So, they didn't coin the word, conspiracy theory, but they popularized it with that memo. They sent out a memo to all their stations, saying that talk should be discouraged. So, those, you know, what happened after that is then, in 1979, the House Assassinations Committee met for a year and a half. And they looked at much more evidence than the Warren Commission, including, you know, Allen Dulles. Allen Dulles had run the Warren Commission. He was the head of the CIA, who my uncle fired. When my uncle died, he said, "I'm glad the little shit is dead. He thought he was a god." That's what he said to a young reporter and then he becomes the head of the Commission. That is, it shouldn't have been called the Warren Commission, it should be called the Dulles because Earl Warren was at a full-time job at the Supreme Court. All the other guys on the Warren Commission had full-time jobs, the Senators and Congressmen. The only guy who went to every meeting, and you know, looked at every piece of evidence and developed the questions for the witnesses was Allen Dulles. He was running the entire Warren Commission. And he should have been the prime suspect in the crime and he was communicating secretly, with the people at the CIA, with David Atlee Phillips, with George Joannides, who was the CIA liaison, telling them what, you know, what questions we're going to be asked and what they should reveal and with J. Edgar Hoover at the same time. But the whole thing was a coordinated kind of Kabuki theatre. But then Congress goes back and investigates it in '79. And Congress then comes back, after a year and a half, seeing a lot more stuff. And says, and they conclude this was a conspiracy. Tucker Carlson : Yes, RFK Jr. : They make that official. Anybody who says it was just Lee Harvey Oswald is differing from the people who actually made the investigation. Most of the people on that staff who I've talked to believe that it was the CIA, and as you know, at that time, the dispute between them was between the mob and the CIA, because there was a lot of mob involvement. You know, Johnny Roselli, Sam Giancana, who was the Chicago boss, Santos Trafficante, the Tampa boss, and Carlos Marcello, who was New Orleans boss were all involved, and they all had casinos in Havana. And they were working with the CIA to assassinate Castro. So, they had a hitman at their disposal, and they were training Cubans who were sharpshooters for Batista as hitmen. And I've talked to some of the hitmen, I've talked to Antonio Veciana, who was involved and who was also David Atlee Phillips, David Atlee Phillips was his handler, and he was Lee Harvey Oswald's handler. So, Veciana met Oswald, in Dallas, in I think, in September of 1963, oh, I've talked to, you know, the people who were actually working for the CIA and the mob at that time, you know, to kill Castro and how they were then pivoted to this, you know, some of them were pivoted to this new project. RFK Jr. says that he has "talked to some of the hitmen." Really? David Morales was the CIA's "chief hitman." He believes the story that Antonio Veciana met Oswald, that David Atlee Phillips was Oswald's handler, and that E. Howard Hunt really made a confession. I have discussed RFK Jr.'s claims about the JFK assassination here , here , here , and here . RFK's conspiracy stories are all familiar, some of them are exaggerated and some of them are distorted. For instance, there is no evidence that Dulles, during the Warren Commission investigation, coordinated questions with George Joannides who was the the CIA liaison with the HSCA. What really stood out for me was RFK Jr.'s supposed quote from Allen Dulles: Allen Dulles had run the Warren Commission. He was the head of the CIA, who my uncle fired. When my uncle died, he said, "I'm glad the little shit is dead. He thought he was a god." That's what he said to a young reporter and then he becomes the head of the Commission. This is a fabrication based on a supposed quote. Here's the real story. Willie Morris was a young writer whom Harper's Magazine had sent to work with Allen Dulles in 1965 on an article, which was never completed, about the Bay of Pigs. Morris first wrote about this for the Washington Evening Star in 1976 . He wrote: But from the moment we sat down to our 12-hour work days in a study overlooking a sedate walled-in terrace I knew I was in the company of a courtly and civilized man, a little precious at first on the arcane calling which had obsessed him since his OSS days in Bern, but still an easy man to be with, curious and feeling about his fellow creatures, a casual and entertaining host, and -- best of all -- an engrossing raconteur, especially with stories about spies. In 1993, Morris published a book which included this anecdote: This was written some twenty-eight years after his encounter with Allen Dulles. Notice that Morris does not provide any context for the comment. It is even unclear whether Dulles is referring to JFK or to his younger brother RFK. Of course, David Talbot was able to offer some context : Here is another example where Dav id Talbot added context : In September 1965, nearly two years after Kennedy was violently removed from office, Allen Dulles went for a stroll near his home in Georgetown with a young magazine editor named William Morris. The old spymaster, long since retired, struck Morris as an amiable, avuncular character until the name Kennedy suddenly came up in the conversation. Suddenly a dark cloud crossed the old man's brow. "That little Kennedy," he spat out. "He thought he was a god." Allen Dulles knew who the true overlords of American power were. (They were) men like him and his brother, not Jack and Bobby Kennedy. The Kennedys were mere upstarts in comparison to the Dulles family. The Dulles dynasty boasted diplomats and international bankers and three secretaries of state. The Kennedy clan, by comparison, was distinguished by saloon keepers and ward heelers. When paterfamilias Joseph Kennedy was amassing his fortune as a movie mogul and stock gambler, Dulles and his older brother were running Wall Street from their perch at the world's largest law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell and creating a new global financial order. And now we have RFK Jr. changing the quote to "I'm glad the little shit is dead. He thought he was a god," with making this remark right after the JFK assassination. What next? Allen Dulles is the current whipping boy of the conspiracy crowd. He was the featured villain in David Talbot's book, The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government , and that has been picked up by RFK Jr., Jefferson Morley and Oliver Stone, who promoted Dulles as one of the two featured villains in his so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed (General Curtis LeMay being the other). For David Talbot, Allen Dulles's is the mastermind behind the JFK assassination: I think what we're going to show over the next few years is that Allen Welsh Dulles was much more centrally involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, and its cover-up, than Lee Harvey Oswald. Fifty years later, it's finally time to give the man his rightful place in history. In his day, Allen Dulles was America's most legendary spymaster, the longest-serving director of the CIA. He took great pleasure in regaling the public about his espionage triumphs. But, for obvious reasons, he could never take credit for his biggest and boldest covert operation: the killing of the President of the United States in broad daylight on the streets of an American city. I hope that my forthcoming book, which will be titled "The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, JFK and the Epic Battle for America's Soul" will at long last give Mr. Dulles his due. As I say in my title of my remarks this morning, I believe Allen Dulles truly was the "Chairman of the Board of the Kennedy Assassination." One last point, Sylvia Meagher criticized Senator Russell for only being present during the questioning of six of the ninety-four witnesses who appeared before the Warren Commission (see page xxx of her book, Accessories After the Fact ). Dulles was there for the questioning of 60 witnesses and Gerald Ford was there for the questioning of 70 witnesses. Now, we have accusations from RFK Jr. that Allen Dulles ran the Warren Commission and that he was "The only guy who went to every meeting, and you know, looked at every piece of evidence." Doing your job is now a negative. A big thank you to Paul Hoch for his research and his editing of this article. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on RFK Jr.: RFK Jr. Lauds Jim Garrison Of all the people to quote, RFK Jr chooses a charlatan. RFK Jr. Disrespects the Memory of his Father RFK Jr. can't even quote his father properly. The RFK Jr. Bullshitosphere An examination of RFK Jr's latest comments on Covid-19. RFK Jr. Names the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination Finally, RFK Jr. gives us the name of one of the masterminds. RFK Jr. for President? Two articles on RFK Jr. RFK Jr. Shows He's Not a Serious Candidate His beliefs on Ukraine show that RFK Jr. is just not serious. Does RFK Jr. Have a Leaky Brain? RFK has some wacky views on Wi-Fi. Did RFK Jr. Tell Tony Muhammad that the CDC is Killing Black and Latino Boys? RFK Jr. has a disturbing relationship with the Nation of Islam. RFK Jr. is Taking Precautions to Avoid being Assassinated Besides being paranoid, RFK Jr. is naive about the world in which we live. Russian Propaganda Outlets are Pushing RFK Jr. Putin knows which candidate to back. RFK Jr. Misquotes JFK He can't even quote his uncle properly. RFK Jr. on the JFK Assassination and Jim Garrison He gets the Garrison story all wrong. RFK Jr.'s JFK Assassination Guru Promotes Crackpot Theories RFK Jr.'s favorite JFK assassination book is full of crackpot theories. RFK Jr. Continues with JFK Assassination Nuttiness! Just when you thought he couldn't get any nuttier.

In this Wednesday, July 15, 1981 photo made by the Central Intelligence Agency and obtained by Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter and author, George Joannides holds an award for his over 28 years of service at the agency, presented by U.S. Navy Adm. B.R. Inman, director of the CIA, right, at the agency's headquarters in Langley, Va. At left is Joannides' wife, Violet. Five decades after President John F. Kennedy's assassination, Joannides files and thousands more pages primarily from the CIA remain off-limits at a National Archives center in College Park, Md. (AP Photo/CIA via Jefferson Morley) [Hat tip: Paul Hoch] Jefferson Morley has alleged that the citation for a medal that Joannides received in 1981 would show Here is what he wrote in 2014 : The question remains whether Joannides' "distinctly exceptional achievements" included concealment of information about JFK's assassination. The top law enforcement officer in the District of Columbia asserts there is no evidence of that but the CIA is withholding the records that could confirm (or refute) his claim. Later that year he wrote : In short,  Joannides was honored for concealing material facts from JFK investigators. This fact does not benefit the CIA but it does benefit the American public. It tells us the JFK assassination cover-up was officially sanctioned by the CIA. And he said this in January 2025 : Based on these records and interviews with several dozen people who knew him, I think Joannides was a “clean-up man” for a CIA operation involving Oswald before and after JFK was killed. I think that’s why he received a medal in 1981 and that’s why the reasons he received the medal are still top secret 44 years later. Well, now the memo regarding the medal has been released : Here is the salient sentences about the HSCA: So, it appears that Joannides did not come out of retirement to work with the HSCA but he already supervised a large staff whose mission, amongst others, was to work with congressional committees: The primary responsibility of this staff was to handle all programming and budgeting for the Division (over 900 personnel at the time, and with a budget of about $50,000.000), to handle all Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act inquiries and Congressional inquiries ... Here is what Morley wrote yesterday about this document : Doc. No. 6: In a memo recommending Joannides for a Career Intelligence Medal, the CIA cited his handling of Cuban student agents in 1963 and his stonewalling of congressional investigators in 1978. But, of course, the memo says nothing of the sort. Also, please read Tracy Parnell's magisterial essay on Joannides and the HSCA. Previous Relevant Blogs Posts on Jefferson Morley's Congressional Testimony Jefferson Morley's Congressional NothingBurger An analysis of Congresswoman Luna's Congressional Hearings In Search of the Oswald Operation, Part One An FBI memo that quoted James Angleton is used by Morley to reach an unwarranted conclusion. In Search of the Oswald Operation, Part Two Morley misreads Angleton's testimony before the HSCA. In Search of an Oswald Operation, Part Three Morley believes a document proves the CIA did not believe that a lone gunman killed JFK. Update on the Heath Memo Additional documents relevant to Part Three. In Search of an Oswald Operation, Part Four Morley claims that there is some connection between the suicides of Gary Underhill, Charles Thomas, George de Mohrenschildt, and the overdose death of Dorothy Kilgallen. In Search of an Oswald Operation, Part Five Morley believes that Agustin Guitart was spying on pro-Castro forces in New Orleans Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley There Was No "Oswald Operation" There is no mention of an "Oswald Operation" in the Joannides' personnel file. The Parkland Doctors, Part Six Morley believes that Dr. Robert McClelland's recollections provides proof of a shot from the front. Here is the truth about McClelland. On the Loss of Occam’s Razor in the JFK Case A reply by Nicholas Nalli to Jefferson Morley. A Case Study in Redaction: The CIA's LIFEAT File Morley suspected a redacted file would reveal major secrets. It didn't. The Schlesinger Memo Unredacted! Several months ago, I posted an article, in association with several researchers, that showed what was contained in the redacted section of Schlesinger's memo. Jefferson Morley's Clairvoyance Morley somehow knows what is in the supposed 2,400 recently-discovered FBI files. Was Israel Behind the JFK Assassination? Morley discusses Israel with Tucker Carlson. Morley's Bad History Lesson Morley believes that the United States can never be great unless it solves the JFK assassination. Morley's List of 13 Documents Will Tell Us Little An analysis of the 13 documents Morley wants to see. The Schlesinger Memo, Again! Morley claims I am a CIA apologist and then misquotes me. For The Sake of Our Sanity - Release the Joannides File It would be worthwhile for the CIA to release the Joannides file just to stop the incessant posts from Jefferson Morley. Did Oswald Stay at a Luxury Hotel in Helsinki? Actually, Oswald stayed at two budget-priced hotels in Helsinki. Morley Keeps Asking the Same Questions He keeps asking the same questions, and we keep posting the same answers. The JFK Assassination and Truth Conspiracy authors are playing fast and loose with the facts. Was Herminio Diaz a Grassy Knoll Assassin? There is no evidence that Diaz was involved in the JFK assassination. Morley Misleads on Arthur Schlesinger's Memo on the CIA There are clues as to what is in a redacted section of Schlesinger's memo. Jefferson Morley's Podcast on New Orleans Lays an Egg Chad Nagle and Dan Storper's article on New Orleans gets everything wrong. Chad Nagle and Dan Storper Lay an Egg Believing Michael Kurtz is problematic. Is Jefferson Morley Seeing Double? Morley wrote that there are two redacted memos on CIA reorganization, but there is only one. He wrote about Goodwin's copy as if it was a different memo, rather than a copy of the Schlesinger memo. Jefferson Morley is wrong about "Who Shot John?" The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination. Jefferson Morley is Wrong on William Harvey, Again! Only one word is redacted in Harvey's deposition. Jefferson Morley is Wrong about Operation Northwoods, Again! There are no redactions in the Operation Northwoods document. Did Dorothy Kilgallen Have any Special Knowledge about the JFK Assassination? Kilgallen had nothing to tell. Morley's Interview of Marina Oswald Porter Fizzles! An underwhelming interview of Marina Oswald. Jefferson Morley: Able to Leap Intellectual Chasms in a Single Bound Morley often repeats stories and changes their meanings. There was NO Assassination Plot in Chicago Chad Nagle claims there was an assassination plot against JFK in Chicago in November 1963. One problem: There is no evidence of such a plot. Fred Litwin, CIA Apologist? A response to Morley's Substack post alleging that I am a CIA apologist. A Reply to Jefferson Morley on Bill Harvey   A rebuttal to Morley's response to my post Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963? Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963?   There is no credible evidence Harvey was in Dallas in November of 1963. Does it Matter Where Allen Dulles was on November 22, 1963?   Morley repeats the claim that Dulles was at a CIA training center during the weekend of the JFK assassination. He wasn't. Jefferson Morley's Claims about Reuben Efron   Morley's claims about Efron are all wrong. A Reply to Jefferson Morley regarding Operation Northwoods   Morley responded to my article "The Truth about Operation Northwoods." Here is my reply. W. Tracy Parnell on Jefferson Morley   W. Tracy Parnell is one of the best JFK assassination researchers out there. Here is his look at Jefferson Morley with several important articles. The Truth about Operation Northwoods   Operation Northwoods can only be understood as part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose. Jefferson Morley Responds to my Post on MK-Ultra and Jack Ruby   And a response from me. Did Dr. Louis Jolyon West Ask to Examine Jack Ruby in November 1963?   There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial. Did the CIA use a MK-Ultra Psychiatrist to Interfere with Jack Ruby's Case?   There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Four   Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions...   An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents. Jefferson Morley Doesn't Understand Jim Garrison's Homophobic Prosecution of Clay Shaw Morley doesn't understand Alecia Long's arguments about homophobia and Jim Garrison. Jefferson Morley asks why "what the CIA knew about Herminio Diaz is still off limits." Morley misses that a lot of redactions are actually available. Belief in a JFK Conspiracy Drops! Jefferson Morley's press conference presents evidence that belief in a conspiracy has dropped.

Boston Globe, June 21, 1981 Jefferson Morley believes that Dr. Robert McClelland's recollections provides proof that JFK was shot from the front. Here is what he said in his latest newsletter : The testimony of Dr. Robert McClelland is especially important to any consideration of the JFK assassination story today. McClelland was a unique eyewitness to history. He tried to save the life of President Kennedy, and two days later he was called to try to save the life of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. For the next three decades, he never spoke about what he saw on November 22, 1963. He authored a medical textbook and mentored three generations of Parkland Hospital doctors. He was, by all accounts, a distinguished physician and teacher. He died in 2019. In composing Dr. McClelland’s obituary , the editors of the New York Times were careful not to mention his diagnosis of JFK’s head wound, which is readily available on YouTube. In this 2013 conversation with a fellow doctor, McClelland could not have been more explicit: “ that bullet came from the grassy knoll .” Morley offers a weak counter to the above: Posner interviewed a number of the Dallas doctors and attempted to impugn their diagnosis of a blowout rear head wound. Dr. McClelland was simply mistaken, Posner wrote. He didn’t have enough time to examine the head wound, he said. Posner, a lawyer by professional training, raised enough particular questions about each doctor to enable him to dismiss all testimony that didn’t conform to his preferred interpretation of November 22. In response to “What the Doctors Saw,” Posner cited the interviews in his 1993 book. As far I know, Posner has never addressed or attempted to rebut what Dr. McClelland said in his 2013 interview, other than to repeat his opinion that McClelland was mistaken. I think Posner's chapter on the medical evidence is excellent. For instance, Morley must have missed these two paragraphs: (pages 309 - 310) Dr. Baden of the Select Committee concurs: “Parkland was not concerned with whether the bullet was going from front to back or vice versa, they were only treating the symptoms, not the wounds. Some of them could be good surgeons but lousy pathologists. A third of the time, an autopsy shows something was missed by the treating doctors at the hospital. In unnatural deaths, it is common for the treating physicians to mix up stab wounds and gun shots, and they are wrong half the time about exit or entrance. The Parkland doctors did not clean Kennedy off—there is just no way they could have hazarded a real guess about that wound, since it was covered with blood and tissue. If they say they saw cerebellum, they are just wrong because the cerebellum was perfect. And if they say there was a large hole in the rear of the head, they don’t know what they are talking about since there is nothing there but the entry injury in the rear cowlick. The mistakes in judgments from Parkland are exactly why we have autopsies. “One of the most important aspects of the Zapruder film, often overlooked by the critics, are the frames immediately after the President was shot in the head. It’s very clear on the enhanced frames that there is a wound over the right ear, but the back of the head is clean. That film is incontrovertible evidence that there was no defect on the rear of the head.” Perhaps Morley should read my five-part series on the Parkland Doctors which offers another perspective on Dr. McClelland. Here is the salient information on Dr. McClelland from those five posts: The Parkland Doctors, Part One Attending physicians often make mistakes in determining the nature of gunshot wounds. Should we care what the Parkland doctors think? The ARRB talked to forensic radiologist Dr. John Fitzpatrick : The Parkland Doctors, Part Two A look at what the Parkland doctors wrote and what they said. Dr. McClelland's written report from November 22, 1963, states that JFK had a wound in his left temple, which clearly shows he was either confused or did not get a good look at the wound :   He wrote that "cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." On December 18, 1963, Dr. McClelland spoke to Richard Dudman of the St. Lous Post-Dispatch : Secret Service agent Elmer Moore shared the conclusions of the autopsy pathologists with the Parkland doctors: Of course, some conspiracy theorists maintain that Moore applied pressure. But McClelland denied that right up front: McClelland was then quoted in the January 1964 issue of the Texas State Journal of Medicine : "A gunshot wound of the right side of the head." When Dr. McClelland testified before the Warren Commission he admitted that he did not raise JFK's head : Dr. McClelland's description of the head sometimes changed : McClelland testified  that he looked at the head wound when he was helping Dr. Perry with the tracheostomy: Pat Speer notes that the standard position for a tracheostomy would make it hard to see behind the head : Note that McClelland specifies both that he was at the head of the table helping out with the tracheotomy when he examined Kennedy's head wound, and that this put him in position to closely examine the wound. Here is Figure PR10.1, "Position for Tracheotomy", from the textbook Emergency Medicine (edited by Harold May, 1984): This closely mirrors the position on the slide above. Note that in order to expose the neck the head is tilted sharply backwards in the tracheotomy position. So how in the heck could McClelland 1) closely examine a wound low on the back of Kennedy's head while Kennedy was in such a position and he (McClelland) was standing at the head of the table? and 2) claim his standing at the head of the table put him in "such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound"? Dr. McClelland spoke to a reporter from Newsday  in 1992: Atlanta Journal, May 19, 1992 The Parkland Doctors, Part Three The Boston Globe  interviewed some of the Parkland doctors in 1981. It's instructive to read Pat Speer's analysis of the Boston Globe  interviews, in particular his conclusion : Let's reflect. Ben Bradlee and the Boston Globe  interviewed 14 Parkland witnesses in 1981. Of these 14, 8 strongly questioned or rejected the accuracy of the autopsy photo showing the back of Kennedy's head, and 6 supported or failed to question the accuracy of the photo. This is indeed interesting. But what's just as interesting, and just as telling in the long run, is that NINE of these 14 rejected the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, which those focusing on this issue nevertheless propped up as a depiction of the one true wound. Feel free to scream. And let's reflect that when ultimately reporting on these interviews, in his 1989 best seller High Treason , Livingstone and his co-author Robert Groden claimed that the "McClelland" drawing "was verified by every doctor, nurse, and eyewitness as accurate." So, I ask again, were we conned? The Parkland Doctors, Part Four A 1992 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association  has some interesting comments from a few of the Parkland doctors. Money Quote: Interviewed in Dallas, he [Dr. McClelland] told this reporter (Dennis Breo) that he maintains a "strong opinion" that the fatal head wound came from the front. Pressed on his reasons, he says, "After I saw the Zapruder film in 1969, I became convinced that the backward lurch of the head had to have come from a shot from the front. Unlike Crenshaw, I do not believe that one can tell the direction from which the bullet came simply by looking at the head wound, as I did, but the wound I observed did appear consistent with a shot from the front." So, McClelland was swayed by the Zapruder film. The Parkland Doctors, Part Five Jacob Carter interviewed Dr. Robert McClelland for his 2015 book Before History Dies , and what he had to say was quite illuminating: (page 50 in the Kindle edition) Jacob Carter : So, you have no doubt in your mind that there was a wound in the right rear portion of President Kennedy’s head? Dr. McClelland : Oh gosh, no more so than the sun comes up every morning. I saw that directly as I said from a distance of maybe 18 inches above it, and stared at that wound for five or six minutes before he was pronounced dead. Jacob Carter:  Did the other doctors see the same thing? Dr.   McClelland : No . They weren’t in the position I was in. Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter were working on the president’s neck, doing the tracheotomy. So, they turned all their attention towards that, not the wound at his head. And, people who were walking around the trauma room didn’t get anything but indirect glances at t he head. I had the best and most direct view for the longest period. So, only Dr. McClelland got a good view of Kennedy's wounds. All the other doctors only had "indirect glances" of the head wound. He says that he stared at that wound for five or six minutes. It's interesting that his initial written report says that he was only in the Emergency room for ten minutes. And then there was this question: (page 51 in the Kindle edition) Jacob Carter : Do you think you couldn’t see the entry wound because of the damage on his head? Dr.  McClelland : It  was bloody and there was a lot of hair, and also we didn’t get a chance to examine him closely. All we saw him was five minutes, and all I could see was the back of his head. Yes, exactly. There was a lot of blood and hair and that obscured everybody's view of Kennedy's head wounds. And here is another revealing interview with Dr. McClelland: [hat tip: Hideji Okina] McClelland stared at the hole in the back of the president’s head. He looked at where the skull crumpled slightly around the edges. Knowing nothing else of the assassination at the time, he, too, assumed a bullet had come out of that opening. He wouldn’t feel confident in his initial assessment until 11 and a half years later, when he and his wife watched an episode of The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. As the couple got ready for bed, Carson introduced his guest, a young, ambitious television host named Geraldo Rivera. Rivera had with him footage of the assassination previously unseen by the public, footage known simply as “the Zapruder film.” Shot by Abraham Zapruder, an immigrant from the Ukraine, the 8-millimeter Kodachrome movie shows the motorcade through the duration of the assassination. As McClelland watched it for the first time, he saw the back of the president’s head blasted out. He saw the president swayed “back and to the left,” a phrase later repeated ad nauseum in Oliver Stone’s JFK. McClelland was convinced he had been standing over an exit wound. Dr. McClelland wasn't sure about the nature of the wound until he saw the Zapruder film? Of course, the Zapruder film does NOT show a blow out to the back of JFK's head. Frame 328 of the Zapruder Film. It's curious that Morley is so anxious to accept Dr. McClelland's opinion, and the opinions of a few of the earwitnesses, but is completely willing to ignore the findings of the autopsy and the autopsy X-rays and photographs. The only way to sustain a blow-out wound in the back of JFK's head is to accept alteration of the Zapruder Film, alteration of the wounds of JFK, or alteration of the autopsy X-rays and photographs. The autopsy photographs show that the left hemisphere of JFK's brain was largely intact and thus provides proof that he was not shot from the grassy knoll. Even Dr. Cyril Wecht recognized that: Dr. Cyril Wecht Rules Out a Head Shot From the Front A letter from Dr. Wecht to Thomas Stamm on the head shot. Sylvia Meagher and Dr. Cyril Wecht Discuss the Head Shot   A letter from Dr. Wecht to Sylvia Meagher on the head shot. And this is why Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed had to make the case that the autopsy photographer did not take photos of JFK brain. John Stringer on JFK's Wounds and his Autopsy Photographs Stringer was very clear that he took the photographs of JFK's brain. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, I would also like to point out the results of the acoustics study by Bolt, Beranek and Newman on the earwitnesses : And that same panel concluded that even with the use of a silencer a witness would still be able to locate a grassy knoll shot . When David Green, Professor of Psychophysics at Harvard University, testified before the HSCA he said  that "any rifle shot from the Knoll was quite evident. It was a very, very loud sound. You almost jumped when the rifle was fired from such a close distance. We were probably 30 to 40 feet of the muzzle blast." His study also looked at the location of witnesses and their beliefs about the origins of the shots : Only two of the seven witnesses on the knoll thought the shots came from there. What also surprised Green was that only four people thought the shots came from two locations : Previous Relevant Blog Posts on the Medical Evidence Marilyn Sitzman on JFK's Head Wound Sitzman, who was standing right behind Abraham Zapruder, thoughts the shots came from the TSBD and that she clearly saw Kennedy's head wound over the right ear. John Stringer on JFK's Wounds and his Autopsy Photographs Stringer was very clear that he took the photographs of JFK's brain. The Parkland Doctors, Part One Attending physicians often make mistakes in determining the nature of gunshot wounds. Should we care what the Parkland doctors think? The Parkland Doctors, Part Two A look at what the Parkland doctors wrote and what they said. The Parkland Doctors, Part Three The Boston Globe  interviewed some of the Parkland doctors in 1981. The Parkland Doctors, Part Four A 1992 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association  has some interesting comments from a few of the Parkland doctors. The Parkland Doctors, Part Five An interesting interview with Dr. Robert McClelland. Why Autopsies are Needed The doctor treating John Lennon was mistaken about his wounds. Dr. Cyril Wecht Complains Wecht complains about the HSCA's forensic pathology panel. Dr. Cyril Wecht writes to Dr. Michael Baden Wecht has a suggestion for Dr. Baden. The Wecht Conclusion that Dare Not Speak Its Name, Part Two Wecht's memoir mentions his examination of the autopsy materials in 1972 but neglects to talk about his conclusion that the fatal head shot came from behind. The Wecht Conclusion that Dare Not Speak its Name James DiEugenio's obituary of Dr. Wecht leaves out his conclusion that the fatal head shot came from behind. Dr. Cyril Wecht (1931 - 2024) זיכ רונו לברכה My obituary for Dr. Cyril Wecht. Dr. Cyril Wecht Rules Out a Head Shot From the Front A letter from Dr. Wecht to Thomas Stamm on the head shot. Sylvia Meagher and Dr. Cyril Wecht Discuss the Head Shot   A letter from Dr. Wecht to Sylvia Meagher on the head shot. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound Dr. Wecht believes that JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again...   Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain   JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on Dr. Charles Crenshaw   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , features Dr. Charles Crenshaw to bolster its claim that President Kennedy was shot from the front. Viewers are not informed of Dr. Crenshaw's credibility problems. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Head Wound, Part Three   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , misleads viewers on the opinions of Parkland Hospital doctors and Bethesda witnesses regarding JFK's head wound. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on the Harper Fragment   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , misleads viewers into thinking the Harper fragment was occipital bone that came from the back of Kennedy's head. Dr. Joseph Dolce: Another Problematic Witness from "JFK: Destiny Betrayed"   Have a look at Dr. Joseph Dolce's bad judgment "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Head Wound, Part One   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series JFK: Destiny Betrayed uses a variety of supposed witnesses to allege that the wound in the back of Kennedy's head was one of exit. Audrey Bell is one such witness and she doesn't have much credibility. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Head Wound, Part Two   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series, JFK: Destiny Betrayed , tries to make the case that because Parkland Hospital doctors saw cerebellum extruding from Kennedy's head wound, that it indicated an exit wound. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound    While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads on JFK's Autopsy   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series,  JFK: Destiny Betrayed , alleges that autopsy pathologists were told to fit the wounds to a presupposed conclusion. On the Trail of Delusion, Episode 2 with Robert A. Wagner A podcast with Robert Wagner who has written an important book on the medical evidence.

Abraham Bolden's testimony starts at 22:18 Abraham Bolden testified before the Luna sub-committee on the declassification of documents this past Tuesday. Here is an excerpt from a transcript (29:40) Abraham Bolden : President Kennedy was coming to Chicago in March of 1963. We got a call from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and we had a meeting. President Kennedy was doing Chicago. This was in March. We received a call from the Federal Bureau of investigation here in Chicago, from a person who the FBI identified only as Lee. And this man, Lee said that President Kennedy was going to be assassinated between O'Hare Airport and the Conrad Hilton Hotel. So in order to protect him, we had the airplane land, and then we brought him by helicopter to Megs (?) Field, which is not being used at the time, which I thought and recommended that they do that. That was my recommendation now, to get the President in, Now during the President's trip in March, I noticed one thing, that every time the photographers would take our pictures together, where I was concerned, that they had an agent assigned to remove all the negatives. They took them, and I don't know what they did with them, but we haven't been able to find son of bitches (?) yet. As I said, I was one of the [garbled] agents [garbled] about their conduct, and they didn't like it, and I didn't like their conduct. So we were even-steven. Now the plot takes place in March of 1963, not November. Bolden's written statement was different. Here is a link to his written opening statement. Here is what Bolden said about the supposed plot against JFK in Chicago in early November, 1963: As a matter of fact, the first assassination attempt was supposed to take place here in Chicago, Illinois. Information that I had revealed was that some Cuban exiles we were trying to assassinate the President when he came to Chicago on November the 2nd to view an Army-Air Force football game. I was the person who raised so many complaints about his protection and brought out the fact in a meeting with the Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago office that it was our duty and obligation as government employees, responsible for the safety of the President — to notify Washington DC of a plan to assassinate President when he came into Chicago. As I knew then and as we know now, that plot was real. The White House found out about it – and the White House cancelled the President’s trip to Chicago before that November 2nd football game. This is yet another version of the Chicago plot story, and this time the story is shorn of any details. Compare the story above to the many previous versions of the story: 1967 Mark Lane Press Conference Mark Lane held a press conference in December 1967 along with Richard Burnes from Jim Garrison’s office. They had spent several hours with Bolden, and he told them that he was given the names of the people involved in the Chicago plot. At least one of the men was followed through the streets of Chicago. Lane told the press that “The identities of those who planned the assassination (in Chicago) of President Kennedy are known to the United States Secret Service. One of these men has been sought by District Attorney Jim Garrison for some time.” 1968 Interview by Bud Fensterwald Bolden said that the Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago office, Maurice Martineau, received a personal phone call from James Rowley, head of the Secret Service. He supposedly told Agent Martineau that the Secret Service “had word of an assassination plot” which was supposed to take place during JFK’s visit to Chicago. The agents were told to keep it all hush-hush and were shown pictures of the four men who were allegedly in the plot. The agents investigated and found that the four men were staying with a landlady. 1975 Article by Edwin Black A phone call came in from the FBI in Washington which was taken by agent Jay Stocks. He was warned about a “serious and dangerous four-man conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy at the Army-Air Force game.” The assassination would take place at an expressway overpass. A telex then came in from Rowley about the plot. A tip came in from a landlady who said four men were renting rooms and she had seen four rifles with telescopic scopes. She told the police that “perhaps there was some threat there.” Two of the men were followed and then brought in for questioning. 1978 Interview by the HSCA Bolden claimed a telex came in from the FBI, and then a phone call came in from the FBI. Bolden was not sure if the call was from the local office or Washington. Two of the four suspects were put under surveillance and were apprehended and brought into the Chicago office. Bolden saw one of the men and he picked out the picture of ex-mobster Jim Braden as being similar. He did not recognize a picture of Vallee. 2008 Bolden Book, The Echo from Dealey Plaza This time the phone call came in for Martineau from the Chicago office of the FBI who had information about JFK’s upcoming trip: “A woman who owned a rooming house on the city’s North Side had gone into one of the rooms to do some housekeeping and had discovered two rifles equipped with telescopic sights. She had rented the room to two men she believed to be Hispanic, and had also seen two white men going in and out of the room. Knowing that the president was due to visit Chicago, she grew concerned and called the authorities.” Now Bolden says it was information that he revealed, as opposed to a phone call or a telex from the FBI. Gone are the rifles, the suspects, the apprehension of two of the suspects, etc. And nobody asked him any questions about the plot in Chicago. I would have been particularly interested in why he never said anything about the supposed plot in 1964. I have continually written that there is no corroborating evidence for a plot in Chicago. I feel for Bolden, and I understand that he is 90 years old. But no one forced him to testify, and if you want to prove there was a plot against JFK in Chicago, then I expect just a little bit more than one paragraph. Here is what I really think happened in 1963: Perhaps from some rumors right after the assassination : This page reads: Larry Fanning, Executive Editor, "Chicago Daily News", had previously advised that on November 2, 1963, four men were reportedly arrested in Chicago, Illinois, and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. One of these individuals, according to Fanning's source, was believed to be the subject Oswald. SAC Marlin W. Johnson has periodically maintained contact with Mr. Fanning in an effort to determine Fanning's sources for this story. On January 21, 1964, Mr. Fanning advised SAC Johnson that he had looked into the matter thoroughly and there was absolutely no truth whatsoever in the story. He stated he could not tell Mr. Johnson exactly how the story originated. Fanning might have gotten it from his Assistant City Editor, William Mooney : Was this the genesis of the story about the Chicago plot? I also find it interesting that the story of Thomas Vallee and the four-man assassination team both feature landladies. In both cases, it was a landlady who called the police or Secret Service. Might Bolden have been conflating the Vallee story with the rumor above? Previous Blog Posts on Vince Palamara's book on the supposed plot in Chicago A Reply to Vince Palamara Palamara tries to respond to my five-part series on his book. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Five An examination of Palamara's second eight pieces of corroborating evidence for the plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Four An examination of Palamara's first eight pieces of corroborating evidence for the plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Three A look at the origin of the supposed plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Two A look at Homer Echeverria. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part One A look at Lloyd John Wilson. Previous Blog Posts on the supposed plot in Chicago Secret Service Report on Thomas Arthur Vallee Was Vallee really a threat? Secret Service Survey Report for Chicago, November 1963 This document was supposedly destroyed by the Secret Service. There was NO Assassination Plot in Chicago Chad Nagle tries to argue that there was a plot. Edwin Black Speaks to the HSCA   The HSCA did speak to Edwin Black. It was a memorable interview. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot   There is no evidence of a plot in Chicago against JFK. Paul Bleau and the Supposed Chicago Plot Against JFK   Bolden's story about the supposed Chicago plot has changed over the years. Paul Bleau's Plots   An examination of supposed other plots against JFK. Abraham Bolden's May 1964 Press Conference   Bolden didn't say one word about a supposed plot against JFK in Chicago.

James DiEugenio makes the following allegation in his book, Destiny Betrayed : (page 294) "Before and during the trials, Garrison's witnesses were being surveilled, harassed, and physically attacked." Ok, let's go over his evidence. First up is Richard Case Nagell: (page 294) "For instance, Richard Case Nagell had a grenade thrown at him from a speeding car in New York. Nagell brought the remains of the grenade to Garrison and told him he did not think it was wise for him to testify at Shaw's trial." DiEugenio's source is page 436 of Dick Russell's book The Man Who Knew Too Much: There are several problems with this story. First, Richard Case Nagell had serious credibility issues. Over the years, he repeatedly claimed to have secret evidence regarding the assassination, and nothing ever turned up. Second, there is no corroboration for this grenade story from anywhere - no press stories, no memos, and no one associated with the Garrison investigation talked about this. Third, Jim Garrison himself has a very different story about Nagell and the Shaw trial in his book On The Trail of The Assassins. Garrison claims that Nagell arrived "shortly before the trial, willing to testify against Shaw." After talking with Nagell, Garrison decided not to use him as a witness: (page 229) "However, he was also as inflexible as ever about identifying the intelligence agency with which he had been associated - and might still be associated. I understood his concern about the non-disclosure agreement which he apparently had signed with his parent agency. But it was all too clear to me what a field day the defense lawyers would have when they discovered on cross-examination that he would not disclose his affiliation. In short order they would be coming at him just as the sharks had come at Santiago's fish. By the time they finished with Nagell, the jury would have been left with the impression of a crackpot. One such incident, one such discrediting, is all it takes to undo an entire case. I decided that with Nagell we could not take the risk." I certainly don't take anything Garrison writes as the truth. So we have two different stories from two people with credibility issues. One thing is for certain - Nagell's name did not appear on the memo listing trial witnesses that Tom Bethell leaked to the Shaw defense team. The next witness that DiEugenio mentions is Clyde Johnson: (page 294) "Even though Garrison had spirited Clyde Johnson out of town, and very few people knew where he was, the FBI's total surveillance evidently paid off. He was brutally beaten on the eve of the trial and hospitalized." One of the crazier stories to come out of the so-called Garrison investigation was that of Slidin' Clyde Johnson. In 1963, he was a fringe candidate running to be Governor of Louisiana. He claimed that he met Clay Shaw, who was using the pseudonym of Alton Bernard, in a hotel room in Baton Rouge. There were two other men in the room - Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald, and 'Alton Bernard' gave envelopes of cash to Oswald, Ruby and Johnson. It was all part of a ridiculous scheme to lure Kennedy to the south. Sound far-fetched? I tell this story in Chapter 13 of my book, On The Trail of Delusion - Jim Garrison: The Great Accuser. Jim Garrison believed the story and actually included Clyde Johnson's meeting with Ruby, Shaw and Oswald in a list of overt acts during the jury selection of the Shaw trial. Mysteriously, the overt act vanished, when the trial actually started. There is no way Garrison was going to put Clyde Johnson on the stand. He was a drunk, and a complete fraud - he whole campaign for Governor was a con; he never actually filed the proper documents to run. Here is what really happened just before the start of the Clay Shaw trial: New Orleans Times-Picayune, January 21, 1969. Joan Mellen's book, A Farewell to Justice , also claims that "on the day before he was schedule to testify, Clyde Johnson was beaten up so badly he had to be hospitalized." Her source is the New Orleans Times=Picayune of July 24, 1969. Here is that article: The article does not corroborate the allegation. It just refers to Johnson being jailed for not paying his hotel bill. James DiEugenio references Mellen and Davy as his sources; and Davy does not have a source at all. In DiEugenio's critique of my book, On The Trail of Delusion , he finally gives us a source: "In fact, the source for this is an unpublished manuscript by a former Garrison volunteer named Jim Brown. His manuscript, titled Central Intelligence Assassination , was full of inside information on the workings of Garrison’s office, including the fact that Garrison was so worried about Johnson being attacked before his appearance that he hid him outside the city at a college dormitory." So the only source for this allegation is an unpublished manuscript by a former Garrison volunteer. But that's enough for DiEugenio, Davy and Mellen. And that manuscript is nowhere to be found on the internet. I suspect it's probably in the files of the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC), which is currently closed. I can't wait until I can get a copy - I have a feeling there are probably many more ridiculous allegations in the manuscript as well. Conspiracy theorists ignore the good Reverend being jailed for not paying his hotel bill. And, James DiEugenio would never tell his readers what Irvin Dymond told James Kirkwood about Clyde Johnson: Kirkwood: Now Slidin' Clyde, they didn't use, just because it was too much. Dymond: Too much, that's right. Kirkwood: Was it true that right around the time of the trial, he was put in jail for non-payment of a hotel bill? Dymond: Well that's a matter of public record. And during the jury selection, I received several phone calls from Slidin' Clyde. Kirkwood: Did you! Dymond: wanting to testify for us. Kirkwood: Why would he want to do that? Dymond: . . . loaded every time he called. And -- the wee small hours of the morning, every time. Kirkwood: Did you ever try to see him in person or talk to him? Dymond: No. Didn't figure it was worthwhile. Source: Papers of James Kirkwood, Boston University. DiEugenio's next intimidated witness was Aloysius Habighorst: (page 294) "Aloysius Habighorst, the man who booked Shaw and heard him say his alias was Bertrand, was rammed by a truck the day before he testified." DiEugenio claims that Garrison had put Habighorst under protective surveillance, but that it was lifted on Mardi Gras since he would be "guarding the parade." On his way home, a "yellow truck pulled out of an alley near his house and tried to ram him. Habighorst suffered facial lacerations in his attempt to avoid the truck." DiEugenio's source is Habighorst's widow. And, indeed Habighorst was in a hit and run accident - here is an brief excerpt from his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial: He broke his glasses. And, Habighorst did testify. The next witness was Clinton witness Edwin McGehee: (page 294) "After he testified, Edwin McGehee found a prowler on his front lawn. He called the marshal, and the man was arrested. At the station, the man asked to make one phone call. The call he made was to the International Trade Mart." Now, usually the intimidation occurs before you testify, not after. In this case, the source is McGehee who told this to DiEugenio. If this is true, it hardly sounds intimidating - the prowler was arrested after a phone call. Bill Davy, in his book, Let Justice Be Done , elaborates on the phone call: "Shortly after this testimony at the Shaw trial McGehee was at home one night when he noticed someone furtively trespassing on his property. He call the Marshall who arrested the man and took him to the local police station. McGehee followed them to the station and recalled that the man was unusually dressed in that he was wearing a business suit and carried a briefcase. The arrested suspect then asked that he be allowed a phone call. Surprisingly, he called the International Trade Mart in New Orleans. McGehee could only hear one end of the conversation of course, but he remembered the person the other end of the phone loudly admonishing the caller." Does this sound convincing? Since the man was arrested, you'd think there would be something on file, no? The last witness on the intimidation list is Clinton resident Reeves Morgan: (page 294) "After he testified, Reeves Morgan had the windows shot out of his truck." DiEugenio's source is Bill Davy who interviewed Morgan: (page 301) "Morgan also said that not long after his appearance at the Shaw trial, someone blew out the windows of his truck with a shotgun. Morgan was not in the truck at the time." So, Morgan is yet another witness intimidated after his testimony. And, he wasn't even in the truck. DiEugenio has discussed five witnesses; three of whom testified at Shaw's trial (Habighorst, McGehee, and Morgan) and two of whom were so bat-shit crazy that Garrison could not call them to the stand (Johnson and Nagell). But the real evidence of harassment comes from documents that cannot be found. Here is a quote from DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed : (page 294) "What makes all this violent witness intimidation more startling is what Robert Tanenbaum stated to the author in an interview for Probe Magazine . He said that he had seen a set of documents that originated in the office of Richard Helms. They revealed that the CIA was monitoring and harassing Garrison's witnesses. As Tanenbaum stated it, he had a negative view of Garrison up until the time he became Deputy Counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Then he read 'all this material that had come out of Helm's office, that in what what Garrison had said was true. They were harassing his witnesses, they were intimidating his witnesses. The documents exist. Where they are now, God only knows.'" Once again, the evidence has disappeared. Sound familiar? This post discusses other evidence that DiEugenio cites that has disappeared - the sewer system map in the possession of Sergio Arcacha Smith, the tapes of conspirators held by Richard Case Nagell, and never-before-seen pictures of Dealey Plaza held by Bernardo de Torres. And this post discusses a nonexistent map of Dealey Plaza found on the desk of David Ferrie. The only person intimidating and harassing witnesses was Jim Garrison. He abused the grand jury system to force witnesses to talk; he harassed anti-Castro Cubans in New Orleans like Carlos Quiroga and Carlos Bringuier (whose wife had a miscarriage because she was worried her husband was going to be arrested); he bribed witnesses; and he had David Ferrie not only under surveillance, but had an informant infiltrate his life. An upcoming blog post will look at how Garrison misused the grand jury system. Last but not least, was not Garrison's persecution of Clay Shaw an horrific example of harassment?

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass , misleads viewers on the context of discussions between Burkley's family and the ARRB regarding supposed papers in the possession of his lawyer. Screen Shot from JFK Revisited Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (1:01:28) Whoopi Goldberg: The one physician present at both Parkland Hospital and the Bethesda morgue was George Burkley, Kennedy's personal doctor. Arlen Specter did not depose George Burkley, but Burkley did an interview with the JFK Library in 1967, and was asked this question: Question : Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President's body? Burkley : I would not care to be quoted on that. Dr. Donald Miller : The reason he didn't say anything was he was intimately involved in the cover-up. Whoopi Goldberg : Burkley signed the autopsy descriptive sheet with the bullet in the back at the level of T3. He also signed Kennedy's death certificate, which also placed that wound in the back. That death certificate is not in the Warren Commission volumes and the descriptive sheet in the Commission volumes does not have Burkley's signature. In 1977, through his lawyer, he wrote a letter to Richard Sprague, Chief Counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He said he had information indicating that "others besides Oswald must have participated" in the assassination. Whoopi Goldberg : He was willing to talk about it at this time. Sprague, who made clear his intention to fully investigate the CIA's involvement, was forced out two weeks later. Dr. Burkley submitted a written statement to the House Select Committee but there is no official record of him being deposed as a witness. Douglas Horne: In 1982, he told JFK researcher Henry Hurt "I know there was more than one gunman." And when Henry Hurt tried to recontact Burkley for more details, Burkley cut him off at the knees, "I don't want to talk about it anymore." Douglas Horne : The very next year, Burkley talked to Michael Kurtz, another JFK researcher, told him that he knew there was a conspiracy to kill the President and that he recalled an exit wound in the back of President Kennedy's head. Now that's a very significant statement, that the only doctor we know of who was present at both Parkland, for treatment, and at Bethesda, during the autopsy, told Michael Kurtz in 1983 that Kennedy had an exit wound in the back of his head. When Kurtz tried to recontact Burkley, Burkley cut him off at the knees, "I don't want to talk about this anymore." Dr. Burkley was deceased by the time the Review Board was impaneled. So then [ARRB General Counsel] Jeremy [Gunn] decided, well, we can ask the executor of his estate, his daughter, to sign a waiver so that we could go to the law firm, that Mr. Illig used to work for, since he was deceased also, and see if there were any records in the files of Mr. Illig that would have revealed what it was he wanted to tell the HSCA, in detail. And she said she would do that. Douglas Horne : And then Jeremy called her on the phone, she had completely changed her mind and adamantly refused to sign it and terminated the phone call. JFK Revisited claims that "In 1977, through his lawyer, he [George Burkley] wrote a letter to Richard Sprague, Chief Counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations." As far as we know, there was no letter from either Burkley or his lawyer : Burkley was interviewed by the HSCA and he also submitted a sworn and signed affidavit. His first interview did suggest one possibility as to what Mr. Illig was talking about in his communication with Richard Sprague: Dr. Burkley said the doctors didn't section the brain and that if it had been done, it might be possible to prove whether or not there were two bullets. Dr. Burkley thinks there was one but concedes the possibility of there having been two. There is also another reason, and my next blog post will discuss that in more detail. Admiral Burkley died in 1991 at the age of 88. In May 1996, the ARRB reached out to Richard Burkley, one of Dr. Burkley's sons: In October 1996, the ARRB spoke with Isabel Starling, Dr. Burkley's daughter: Richard Burkley called Douglas Horne in January 1997: His "one small redwell" in the call was a Redweld (a brand of expanding file). Another son, George W. Burkley, also called D ouglas Horne: Douglas Horne then spoke to Nancy Denlea, Dr. Burkley's other daughter: A letter was then sent to Nancy Denlea with an attorney-client waiver: The waiver contained this language: A letter was also sent to Illig's law firm: The request to the law firm was rather broad, "allowing a duly-authorized attorney from the Assassination Records Review Board, a Federal agency, to determine" what records were of interest. Of course, the ARRB was only interested in assassination-related documents, but perhaps they could have offered to let the family, or the law firm, do the search. At some point. Ms. Denlea changed her mind: Was there any reason to expect that Mr. Illig had any assassination-related documents? If he did have documents, wouldn't he have told Sprague more than he did? In fact, we know exactly why Burkley was conferring with Mr. Illig. It's right there in the Richard Sprague memo shown above: Mr. Illig stated that he had a luncheon meeting with his client, Dr. Burkley, this date to take up some tax matters. So, Dr. Burkley was meeting Illig to discuss his tax affairs. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Illig had any relevant documents. This also provides a possible explanation for Ms. Denlea withdrawing her permission for the attorney-client waiver. Perhaps she didn't want an ARRB fishing expedition through Illig's files. Even though the ARRB was specifically going to search for assassination-related documents, she might have figured that private or personal matters might eventually become public. Not everything is about the JFK assassination. JFK Revisited is also misleading on the ouster of Richard Sprague as General Counsel of the HSCA. He was not forced to resign because of "his intention to fully investigate the CIA's involvement." Sprague took his old-school prosecution toolkit and misread the changing times. For instance, in February 1976, the House Government Operations Committee called for all government agencies to stop using polygraphs and "other similar devices." Here is an excerpt for their report in the Dallas Morning News of February 2, 1976, well before the start of the HSCA: The nature of the research undertaken, both federally and privately funded, and the results there-from have done little to persuade the committee that polygraphs, psychological stress evaluators, or voice stress analyzers have demonstrated either their validity or reliability in differentiating between truth and deception, other than possibly in laboratory situations. The Los Angeles Times reported on December 15, 1976, that Richard Sprague planned to use a variety of controversial techniques: The article noted that: Outlining his plans for the $6.5 million-a-year inquiry he has proposed, Sprague said that his staff would use extensively two types of lie detectors: the usual polygraph, which must be physically attached to the witness, and a "stress evaluator," which its developers claim can indicate truth or falseness of tape-recorded statements. The committee also plans to purchase two tiny transmitters that can be hidden in the clothing of an investigator during the questioning of a potential witness. When combined with the stress evaluator, this device will permit the committee to subject individuals to secret lie detector tests. Sprague said that witnesses, including present or former government officials, would be asked to submit voluntarily to a polygraph test. "The stress evaluator can be used when a person does not agree to the polygraph," he said. This caused alarm bells in Congress: Arizona Daily Star, January 6, 1977 As for the CIA, JFK Revisited makes the claim that Sprague fully intended to investigate their "involvement." But involvement in what? There is a revealing passage in Gaeton Fonzi's book, The Last Investigation : (page 197) He [Sprague] wanted complete information about the CIA's operation in Mexico City and total access to all its employees who may have had anything to do with the photographs, tape recordings and transcripts. The Agency balked. Sprague pushed harder. Finally the Agency agreed that Sprague could have access to the information if he agreed to sign a CIA Secrecy Agreement. Sprague refused. He contended that would be in direct conflict with the House Resolution which established the Assassinations Committee and authorized it to investigate the agencies of the United States government. "How," he asked, "can I possible sign an agreement with an agency I'm supposed to be investigating?" He indicated he would subpoena the CIA's records. So, even Fonzi admits that the CIA was willing to let Sprague have access to the requested documents. Sprague resigned at the end of March 1977: House Democrats didn't like the way he lectured them on the subject or his apparent effort to control everything connected with the probes. Particularly, they resented his demands for a big staff and a $13 million two-year budgets, along with plans to use sophisticated equipment such as "stress analyzers," secret microphones and lie detectors in dealing with witnesses. Sprague was in trouble well before the Illig contact. It's actually quite the non-sequitur to include the removal of Sprague in the Burkley segment. Coming Up: The real reason why Dr. George Burkley suspected a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited "JFK Revisited" Recklessly Accuses George Burkley of being Involved in a Cover-Up Reckless charges are made against George Burkley with no evidence. Two Important Posts Debunk "JFK Revisited" Tracy Parnell debunks a series about JFK Revisited on the WhoWhatWhy website, and Andrew Jackson debunks the film on Quora. Both articles are well worth your time. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Admiral Burkley and the HSCA Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass , greatly misleads viewers on Admiral George Burkley and his interactions with the HSCA. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Admiral George Burkley and Conspiracy Theorists Oliver Stone's so-called documentary puts words in Burkley's mouth. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Autopsy Photographs of JFK, Part Two Did Saundra Spencer really develop a completely different set of autopsy photographs? "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Autopsy Photographs of JFK Oliver Stone's so-called documentary tries to make the case that a White House photographer took photos at the autopsy. The only problem is that there is no evidence he was actually there. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool Over Joe Rogan's Eyes, Part Two Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show about JFK's brain. Oliver Stone Pulls the Wool over Joe Rogan's Eyes Stone misspeaks on the Joe Rogan show and I present a challenge to conspiracy theorists. Jefferson Morley and "JFK Revisited" Tracy Parnell dissects Morley's article on JFK assassination documents and "JFK Revisited" "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth, Part Two Did President Kennedy actually say that he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind? "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... David Talbot claims that JFK told the French Ambassador that he was not in full control of his entire government. There is no evidence he ever said that. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims the CIA supported the 1961 coup attempt against French President Charles de Gaulle in 1961. The only thing missing is evidence. Max Boot on Oliver Stone's Lies Max Boot: Oliver Stone just can't stop spreading lies about JFK's assassination. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Valery Giscard D'Estaing Did Gerald Ford really disclose to French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? Perhaps not. "JFK Revisited" Star Believes in a Massive COVID Conspiracy Robert Kennedy, Jr. believes in a massive conspiracy regarding Covid and the intelligence agencies. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Kennedy's Back Wound While Gerald Ford edited some language in the Warren Report, he did not change the location of the back wound. Autopsy photographs show exactly the location of the back wound. "JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" Oliver Stone's so-called documentary alleges that Oswald was "moved" to Dallas and "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository. This is totally ridiculous. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound The preponderance of the evidence indicates JFK's throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was actually a plot against JFK in Chicago. Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? Gochenaur's writings don't back up his allegations in JFK Revisited. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

It was a pleasure to have Nick Nalli on my podcast to discuss the acoustics evidence and the Zapruder film . If you have ever wanted a good explanation for why the acoustics evidence is not valid, well, here it is. Nick's detailed rebuttal was included in his review of Josiah Thompson's Last Second in Dallas . You can download a copy of Nick's slides here: This is Nick's second appearance on my podcast -- don't miss his first appearance.  Here is a link to Nick's paper: "Sniper Target Tracking Analysis of John F. Kennedy Assassination ."   Nick has written an amazing paper on the JFK's head shot. Please check out Nick's Oral History contribution for the Sixth Floor Museum. Previous Episodes of On the Trail of Delusion : Episode 1 My first guest was Robert Reynolds who is an expert on the JFK assassination files . Episode 2 Robert A. Wagner discusses his new book, JFK Assassinated. Episode 3 Gerald Posner discusses the JFK assassination and conspiracy theories. Episode 4 Dr. Martin Kelly, Jr., discusses conspiracy theories and the medical evidence in the JFK assassination. Episode 5 Steve Roe discusses the life of General Edwin Walker and Oswald's attempt to kill him. Episode 6 Gus Russo discusses his participation in the PBS Frontline documentary on Lee Harvey Oswald. Episode 7 Dave Perry tells some great stories about debunking JFK conspiracy nonsense. Episode 8 Nick Nalli explains some of the science behind the assassination. Episode 9 Alecia Long discusses Jim Garrison and his non-existent case against Clay Shaw. Episode 10 Don Carpenter discusses the life of Clay Shaw. Episode 11 Bill Brown discusses the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit. Episode 12 Eric Dezenhall discusses the relationship between the mob and JFK.

Jefferson Morley's Substack published an article by Chad Nagle about a supposed plot against JFK in Chicago in early November, 1963 . I have written about this supposed plot many times (see the links section below). There is absolutely NO evidence that there was a plot against JFK in Chicago. Chad Nagle's article is not footnoted. It starts off by passing off some allegations as facts: In Chicago 60 years ago today, the Secret Service arrested two members of a four-man sniper team on suspicion of planning to assassinate President Kennedy on his visit to the city the next day. This information is according to ex-Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, who in a 1978 interview with House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) testified that the FBI revealed the plot to Chicago’s Secret Service, telling them that “the suspects were rightwing para-military fanatics” and the assassination “would probably be attempted at one of the Northwest Expressway overpasses.” There is no evidence that the Secret Service arrested two members of a four-man sniper team. The allegation originates from Abraham Bolden who was the source for Edwin Black's article about the supposed Chicago Plot in 1975. However, Abraham Bolden's stories about this plot have changed considerably over the years. The article continues: The two suspects, detained at Secret Service headquarters in Chicago through the night, stonewalled the interrogators and remained anonymous thereafter. The FBI’s informant, according to Bolden, had identified himself only as “Lee.” Bolden also added that one of the members of the sniper team had a “Spanish-sounding name.” There is no corroborative evidence for any of these claims -- all of which come from Abraham Bolden. Bolden certainly likes to drop names. W hen he talked to Mark Lane in 1967 and to Bernard Fensterwald in 1968, he tied the alleged Chicago plot to the Garrison Investigation. Here is an excerpt from his interview with Bud Fensterwald: In December 1967, Jim Garrison indicted Edgar Eugene Bradley for conspiring to kill JFK, a charge that had absolutely no foundation. Garrison also believed that Manuel Garcia Gonzalez was one of the gunmen on the grassy knoll. Conspiracy theorists no longer bring up the names of Bradley and Gonzalez as two of the men involved in the plot Nagle then turns to Thomas Vallee: The Secret Service had learned two days earlier, on Oct. 30, of a threat to JFK in Chicago. The city’s police had been surveilling ex-Marine Thomas Arthur Vallee, pulled him over, and found an M1 rifle, a handgun, and 3,000 rounds of ammunition in his car. Vallee’s landlady had reported him after he said he was taking the day off on Nov. 2, the day Kennedy was scheduled to arrive. Vallee had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and was openly scornful of the president and his policies. Vallee had significant mental issues. It is not clear that he threatened the life of JFK -- certainly his landlord was alarmed, and he did not like JFK, but there is no evidence of an actual threat. Of course, Vallee's supposed threat, is not a plot. Here is the Secret Service Protective Research File on Vallee : The reason for PRS interest is "subj was reported by confidential source to have made critical remarks re JFK adm." Just critical remarks? Was there really a threat? Nagle continues: Vallee’s workplace, IPP Litho Plate, was on the third floor of a building in downtown Chicago that resembled the Texas School Book Depository, and in front of which JFK’s motorcade would have had to slow to a crawl to make a hairpin turn, as it did in Dallas. But yet Vallee took the day off work. The Edwin Black article claims that the attempt on Kennedy's life " would probably be attempted at one of the Northwest Expressway overpasses." Nagle continues: The HSCA discovered other similarities between the backgrounds of Vallee and Lee Harvey Oswald, accused assassin of JFK. For example, like Oswald, Vallee had worked at the base for the CIA’s U-2 spy plane in Atsugi, Japan, as a radar operator. Vallee trained anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the U.S., as Oswald had offered to do in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Both were seen to hold extreme views. Vallee did not work at Atsugi. Vallee was stationed at Camp Otsu in Japan, but it was not a U-2 base when he was there. There is no evidence that Vallee trained any anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the United States. The HSCA did not "discover" any of this. Nagle continues: Vallee was released on the evening of Nov. 2, by which time JFK’s trip to Chicago had been canceled for reasons that remain unknown. Here is page one from the Chicago Daily News of November 2, 1963: Here is page one from the Chicago Tribune from November 3, 1963: The Diem story was big -- just look at the headlines. There was no ambiguity about why JFK's plans were canceled. Conspiracy theorists maintain that Kennedy's trip was canceled because of the supposed plot. Note that the plot was uncovered on October 30th, some three days before JFK's visit. Here is an excerpt from Edwin Black's article "The Plot to Kill JFK in Chicago" from the Chicago Independent : A few hours after that meeting [a coordination meeting between the Secret Service and the Mayor's office on October 30] adjourned, the phone rang in the Chicago office of the Secret Service. Agent Jay Lawrence Stocks was for a few hours the ranking agent, so he took the call. It was the Federal Bureau of Investigation calling from Washington. The FBI man warned Stocks of a serious and dangerous four-man conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy at the Army-Air Force game. Had they really uncovered a serious plot against Kennedy on October 30th, his plans would have been cancelled well before the trip. Here is page one of the HSCA's Outside Contact Report with Pierre Salinger, JFK's press secretary: Nagle then goes on to mention the HSCA Final Report. Here is what he doesn't report : The committee was unable to document the existence of the alleged assassination team. Specifically, no agent who had been assigned to Chicago confirmed any aspect of Bolden's version. One agent did state there had been a threat in Chicago during that period, but he was unable to recall details. Bolden did not link Vallee to the supposed four-man assassination team, although he claimed to remember Vallee's name in connection with a 1963 Chicago case. Bolden was unable to identify Vallee's photograph during his interview with the HSCA . Nagle also does not tell his readers about Bolden's May 1964 press conference in Chicago in which he discussed his various issues with the Secret Service. Bolden didn't say one word about a supposed plot against JFK in Chicago. In fact, Bolden never said anything about this plot until 1967, well after the FBI and the Warren Commission's investigation. Did Bolden not realize there might be a connection between the Chicago plot and the actual assassination in Dallas? Of course he did! Here is an excerpt from his book: My opinion was that whoever was plotting the assassination trained their sights on Dallas once the Chicago attempt fell apart. So, why keep this secret from investigators? From the public? Was it because there was no assassination plot in Chicago? Previous Relevant Blog Posts Edwin Black Speaks to the HSCA The HSCA did speak to Edwin Black. It was a memorable interview. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence of a plot in Chicago against JFK. Paul Bleau and the Supposed Chicago Plot Against JFK Bolden's story about the supposed Chicago plot has changed over the years. Paul Bleau's Plots An examination of supposed other plots against JFK. Abraham Bolden's May 1964 Press Conference Bolden didn't say one word about a supposed plot against JFK in Chicago.

Vince Palamara has responded to my five-part series on his book : Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Five An examination of Palamara's second eight pieces of corroborating evidence for the plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Four An examination of Palamara's first eight pieces of corroborating evidence for the plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Three A look at the origin of the supposed plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Two A look at Homer Echeverria. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part One A look at Lloyd John Wilson. Vince leads off his reply with this: Well, I call Fred Litwin "The Omission Man"- there are whole swaths of my book-even whole chapters- he has avoided reviewing, despite all these parts. I have indeed avoided large parts of Palamara's book. My focus is on his epic failure to prove there was a plot in Chicago in November 1963. Fred conveniently leaves out that a former Chicago office agent who was mentioned by the HSCA in a summary and who served with Abe Bolden, Maurice Martineau, Ed Z. Tucker, Joseph Noonan and others, Nemo Ciochina, ALSO told me about "Puerto Rican persons of interest for the Chicago trip." No, it is NOT "just" about Lloyd John Wilson; far from it.  Well, I've never claimed it was 'just' about Lloyd John Wilson, although Palamara has devoted a whole chapter to him. So, let's talk about the "Puerto Rican persons of interest." Here is the document in question: So, yes Bolden was investigating three Puerto Ricans on November 25, 1963. I fail to see what this has to do with a supposed plot in early November. None of these people are named in Bolden's book, and two of the names he remembered as being involved with the November plot were Bradley and Gonzalez. My guess is that somebody from the Chicago office checked on these people once a year, and Bolden got the short stick this year. They were all Puerto Rican nationalists -- Diaz-Matos and Medina were sentenced to six years in prison at their sedition trial in 1954. At a second trial in 1955, Medina got 18 months. But is Palamara claiming that this has anything to do with a plot in early November 1963? By the way, the only sources in his book that point to Puerto Rico are the quotation from George McNally which talked about a possible Puerto Rican threat in March 1963, and Louis Sims who was talking about a threat that "could have been any time up to a year prior to the assassination," and that involved gun running. He was most probably thinking of Homer Echevarria (and indeed he mentioned Echevarria by name). The importance of the agents who were investigating Wilson, former White House Detail agents who left the detail during the Summer and Fall of 1963, joining field offices and investigating this mortal threat to JFK, is not noted and, thus, is conveniently ignored. Yes, ignored because the point is so opaque that nobody understands it. What on earth are you trying to say? Fred states that it is no big deal that Wilson was not noted in any prior book or article before because, in his opinion, he wasn't of importance and the documents were on the Mary Ferrell website (and the Archives). But, as with the millions of other documents out there, one has to call attention to them first- they might have been "there", but no one noticed or thought to look them up and no one I knew of ever even knew who Wilson was to begin with. And again: the volume of reports and the specific agents involved demonstrate the large importance that Wilson signified to the Secret Service (and FBI). A number of these documents were from months BEFORE both the Chicago plot and the 11/22/63 assassination.  The Wilson allegation was thoroughly investigated back in 1963 and 1964 and all the reports were sent to the Warren Commission. No one thought this was a worthwhile lead. And no one in the critical community thought this was a worthwhile lead, until Mr. Ciochina told you about Wilson. Vince, he gave you a bum steer. I mean, come on, Wilson said that he paid Oswald $1,000 at a wrestling match in San Francisco to kill Kennedy, and you think this is a worthwhile lead? Also: the authorities found no evidence of psychosis and Wilson was found COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL! In addition, and this goes for Fred's attempt to debunk Richard Case Nagell by stating that he was mentally ill (crazy): I am not impressed with any attempt to paint Wilson or many others as "mentally ill." Here is why: Author and prominent lone nutter Vince Bugliosi stated during the 1986 mock trial of Oswald that there was no doubt that Oswald was nuts. Still, he was allegedly capable of the assassination and, before that, was competent enough to be employed, have a wife, kids, a radar operator duty in the Marines, etc. In other words, Oswald was competent. I didn't paint Wilson as "mentally ill." I did post the results of his psychiatric examination at Springfield. Yes, he was deemed competent to stand trial, but he clearly had problems. I strongly suggest you read my new book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination , to fully understand Richard Case Nagell. Nagell suffered organic brain damage in his 1954 plane crash and that affected him the rest of his life. Vince, just go and read his own pleadings in his lawsuit for disability. Fred calls Wilson a "bum steer." If he was (and I do not believe he was a bum steer), he certainly fooled a lot of federal agents (Secret Service and FBI) who thought enough of Wilson and his threat to write many reports and actually have former Kennedy White House Detail agents (Sherman, Giovanetti, Tucker, etc.) LEAVE THE DETAIL to join field offices that were INVESTIGATING and following Wilson! The Wilson threat also involved several Chicago office agents (SAIC Maurice Martineau [Ciochina and Bolden's boss, all of whom believed there was a conspiracy], Joseph Noonan, Ed Tucker), as well as Springfield Illinois SAIC Fred Backstrom. Wilson didn't fool anyone. They investigated his case and realized there was nothing to it. The charges were dropped, and he went home to live with his family and get psychiatric help. Wilson: sent to Springfield, MO fed med center like Bolden and Richard case Nagell. So what? What on earth is your point? Wilson: connection to LHO; “Harvey Lee Oswald” as a Secret Service report noted. Also- who is to say that the "Oswald" Wilson claims he met in San Francisco wasn't an Oswald IMPOSTER and NOT LHO, per se? Is that your claim? That Wilson met an Oswald impersonator at the wrestling match? Really? Fred dismisses the notion that the 11/1/63 Vietnamese President Diem assassination was a CIA-backed coup by attempting to show that President Kennedy was involved, as well, but this has been disputed by others: as with Lumumba and the attempts on Castro, Kennedy was horrified by this event. Kennedy wasn't horrified by the coup; he was horrified by the Diem's assassination. Contrary to what Edwin Black reported several years before Salinger's HSCA interview, when Salinger told Black that the Chicago trip would not be canceled due to the Diem assassination, Salinger changed his tune and told the HSCA that Kennedy did cancel the Chicago trip due to the Diem assassination. That said, Fred ignores what is said by Salinger at the bottom of the document he posts: No need to ignore it since I posted the document. But so what? The salient point is that he was unaware of any threat to JFK, and he said that the Chicago trip was cancelled because of the assassination of Diem. My book lays out all the evidence of threats and plots (both) to Kennedy, demonstrating the appalling lack of security for JFK in Dallas, as the Secret Service was much aware of all of these threats and plots, many just in 1963 alone. I know the difference between a threat and a plot. "Just" a threat in no way lessens the severity or importance of said threat. I don't claim to have all the answers: I am merely an author over 6 decades removed from the assassination. I published 200-plus documents/photos/articles with 300-plus detailed footnotes to make my case without adding reams of speculation. The main thrust of my book is to demonstrate the sheer volume of threats and/or plots, with a special emphasis on Chicago (both 3/23/63 AND 11/2/63) and how all of these may relate or, in fact, do relate to 11/22/63. There are always lots of threats. You have not demonstrated that there was a plot. If you were honest, you would admit that the ONLY source for a plot is Abraham Bolden. There are no corroborating documents or witnesses, and Bolden's story changes every time he tells it. You can source JFK Revisited or JFK and the Unspeakable , or Edwin Black's article, but the only source is Bolden. The importance of Mosely and Echevarria is to demonstrate that former OSS man, Deputy Chief Paul Paterni, former CHICAGO Secret Service agent in charge of the Chicago office when GUY BANISTER was CHICAGO agent in charge of the FBI office, told the Chicago office to drop the case: Yes, the Secret Service decided to drop the Echevarria case and hand it off to the FBI. And what on earth does Echevarria have to do with the Chicago plot. The supposed Chicago plot occurred at the beginning of November. The Echevarria story was after the JFK assassination. Fred doesn't find Bolden credible. I do. I also find Ciochina credible regarding Wilson. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and there is a whole lot of smoke. Again, I admittedly don't have all the answers and never claimed that I did: I am merely an amateur author six-plus decades removed doing my best.  While there might be fire where there is smoke, in this case, there is no smoke. Is Bolden credible? When Bolden held his press conference in May 1964 to air his grievances against the Secret Service (only after he had been charged with fraud), he did not say one word about a plot in Chicago . Not one word. Here is a very telling paragraph from Bolden's book: (page 104 in the Kindle edition) By bringing the case against me, the Secret Service had unwittingly given me a national platform from which I could speak out about these issues. I wondered if they had considered the possibility that the press would be all over me. I thought that since I would be dead by the time I was thirty anyway, I had nothing to lose. I owed it to President Kennedy. None of the reporters interrupted by tirade. When I was finished, I walked to the kitchen to get some water, then came back into the living room and announced, "The news conference is over." He owed it to President Kennedy? And yet, Bolden didn't say one word about the supposed plot in Chicago. In addition, Bolden wrote very clearly that the assassination attempt in Chicago, in his mind, was linked to the assassination in Dallas: My opinion was that whoever was plotting the assassination trained their sights on Dallas once the Chicago attempt fell apart. And yet he didn't go public with the Chicago plot until 1967. Fred makes the claim that Bolden's story/details of the Chicago plot have changed somewhat thru the years but I view this mainly as a byproduct of many authors/sources detailing the case at different times and different vantage points (and, of course, thru the prism of their own voices, not Bolden himself actually authoring the prior statements/reports). Inevitably, some things fall thru the cracks, are misinterpreted, omitted or even exaggerated. I and many other authors have fallen victim to this thru the years. It goes with the territory.  It doesn't go with the territory. Bolden's story changes every time he tells it. Shouldn't this give us pause? It's his story, after all. The fact that he named suspects in the Garrison case back in 1968 as two of the gunmen is a huge red flag, no? Chicago SAIC Maurice Martineau, no fan of Bolden (to put it mildly), adamantly believed there was a conspiracy. So what? Lots of people believe there was a conspiracy. Secret Service agents aren't immune to the conspiracy bug. Ciochina ALSO mentioned "Puerto Rican persons of interest." Bolden checked up on Puerto Rican persons of interest, including a few that did time in federal prison for attempting to assassinate US Congressman in 1954! Recall that on 11/1/50, TWO Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to assassinate President Truman. My book details TWO Puerto Rican Nationalist plots to assassinate President Eisenhower. And, in keeping with the above, Fred omits: I did not omit that from my analysis . Palamara mentions the McNally quote five times in his book. But McNally was talking about a threat in March 1963, not November 1963. Fred attempts to downplay Sherman Skolnick as yet another source for the 1975 Edwin Black article, but he WAS another source AND Fred says nothing of the other sources named and interviewed in the article such as FBI Agent Thomas Coll (who said, regarding 11/2/63, "some people [plural] were picked up"), and Thomas Arthur Vallee himself, who stated: Skolnick was not another source. He got his information from Bolden. In any case, Skolnick is not someone to be believed. Here is an excerpt from a Skolnick interview from April 1970: Did Bolden say this? Or did Skolnick make this up? Either way, it's pretty damning. As for Thomas Vallee, well, all he mentions in that quote is that he was arrested. Black notes that "He then supplied confirming details about his whereabouts, the arrest, the weapons, the ammunition, where he purchased them, and his political beliefs about JFK and Major Daley." Vallee "patently denied he actually threatened the President or even considered doing him any harm." I agree with that. There is little evidence that he actually threatened JFK. But note that Vallee did not tell Black any details of the plot -- because there was no plot, and he knew absolutely nothing. But why should we even believe Black. He later says this: A quick check of Vallee's past with the CIA shows his involvement in anti-Castro assassination squads in Long Island. Where on earth is the evidence for that? Vallee worked as a printer in Long Island. It is easy to dismiss what the SAIC of the Secret Service's Chicago office, Maurice Martineau (the boss of Ciochina, Bolden, Stocks, Motto, Tucker, Noonan, etc.) when one never mentions what Martineau told me in 1993 and which I report at the very beginning of my book and in my first book, for that matter: Martineau adamantly believed there was a conspiracy. It is also crucial to note that Martineau was not a fan of Bolden: he called him "a blight on the agency" and did not even want to discuss anything about him. Martineau was there, Fred wasn't. So what? And this says nothing about a supposed plot in Chicago in November 1963. In another instance of "whistling past the graveyard", Fred invokes (yet again) a clever prosecuting lawyer's trick: actually calling attention to incriminating evidence, then dismissing its significance in the hopes that the spin on it will lessen the severity of said evidence. Like the 9/10/63 Secret Service report shown above, get a load of this: Fred also fails to note that Paterni was a former OSS man who served with James Jesus Angleton and Ray Rocca, as I duly reference in my book, the one he is reviewing. Who cares if Paterni was a former OSS man who served with Angleton? How is that relevant. The document above refers to Homer Echevarria, a story which happened after the JFK assassination. -I adamantly disagree with Fred's dismissal of FBI agent/spokesman Thomas Coll and his 1975 statements about "people" [plural] being picked up at Soldiers Field in Chicago. Coll was a distinguished and long serving member of the Bureau: This quotation comes from the Edwin Black article. We have no idea what he was really talking about or if the quotation is accurate. He was a PR flack for the FBI and was not involved in what happened in Chicago. 1) Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago office, Maurice Martineau, believed there was a conspiracy. 2) Chicago Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden believes there was a conspiracy. 3) Chicago Secret Service agent Nemo Ciochina believed there was a conspiracy. Again, so what? I believe the sum total of my book demonstrates many threats and traces of conspiracy that led to both the 3/23/63 Chicago threats and plot AND the cancelled 11/2/63 Chicago trip. What's more, I believe that these threats and evidence of plots demonstrate a moving crime that led to 11/22/63. While not ALL of the threats I detail are necessarily evidence of a PLOT, per se, they do reveal the stunning level of mortal danger that President Kennedy was under and just how appalling his security was. In spite of all of these threats and the evidence of plots and, despite the good security used on prior trips, Kennedy was left a sitting duck by the agents who were much aware of most if not all of these threats and probably more. Traces of conspiracy? What traces is Palamara talking about? Why lump the March trip with the November trip? There was no moving crime. Vince Palamara's book is an epic failure. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Five An examination of Palamara's second eight pieces of corroborating evidence for the plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Four An examination of Palamara's first eight pieces of corroborating evidence for the plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Three A look at the origin of the supposed plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Two A look at Homer Echeverria. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part One A look at Lloyd John Wilson. There was NO Assassination Plot in Chicago Chad Nagle tries to argue that there was a plot. Edwin Black Speaks to the HSCA   The HSCA did speak to Edwin Black. It was a memorable interview. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot   There is no evidence of a plot in Chicago against JFK. Paul Bleau and the Supposed Chicago Plot Against JFK   Bolden's story about the supposed Chicago plot has changed over the years. Paul Bleau's Plots   An examination of supposed other plots against JFK. Abraham Bolden's May 1964 Press Conference   Bolden didn't say one word about a supposed plot against JFK in Chicago.

Screen shot from the Luna hearings with Dr. Curtis showing his diagram of the shots. My initial thoughts. More to come. I must be a glutton for punishment. I watched the complete two hours+ of the Luna hearing and I thought my brain would explode. I don't know what was worse - the silly testimony of the witnesses or the brainless questions of the committee members. Congresswoman Luna opened the hearing with this: The objective of the Task Force is not to indulge in conspiracy theories, but to push for the release of information so these theories can be put to bed and the American people can finally have truth. And yet they engaged in some of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories. Where to even start? Dr. Don Curtis Dr. Don Curtis is one of the few remaining doctors from Parkland Hospital. He is a dentist and he found himself in the emergency room where he performed some cut-down on JFK"s legs. He said that he was never called to testify before the Warren Commission but you can find his testimony to Arlen Specter in Volume VI. Here is his testimony about the head wound: At the end of his testimony, Dr. Curtis was asked if he had anything to add: In 1998, he wrote a letter to Vince Palamara in which he wrote: The wound involving the right posterior lateral surface of the skull appeared to me to be an exit wound or a tangential entrance wound. I have to say that Dr. Curtis's memory has improved over time. He now says there was a entrance wound in JFK's right temple, and an exit wound in the back of his head. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (43:00) Dr. Curtis: After I did that, then Dr Perry had already completed the tracheostomy, and I was looked up, and then the President's heart had stopped or it wasn't running. They put a monitor on the President and found out his heart was not beating. And so the, and so the external cardiac massage was being done by Kemp Clark, the chief of neurosurgery, And somebody relieved him, and Kemp Clark went and picked up the head and stopped the resuscitation. "This wound is not compatible with life." You got dead quiet. Nobody knew what to say. Nobody said anything for the longest time. Then he said, okay, and he looked -- by that time, the chiefs of all the surgical services were against the wall, across the room from me, and all in white coats, and they had responded to the call that they needed help. And so he said, pointed them out, I need to tell each of you individually what the wound is, so you can say that later on. And then he described the wound as about a three or four inch hole in the posterior cranium and then there's a bullet hole in the right temple. So he described it. The bullet hole came through the temple, into the cranial vault, created huge pressure in the cranial vault, and when the bullet finally tumbled into the posterior wall, it blew it out, and he explained all that to individually, to these five doctors, seven doctors, and those doctors knew what was happening and what happened to the President and the wound that killed him, and they never were called by the by the Warren Commission. So, that didn't work. Really? This does not match anybody else's testimony. And all the doctors either provided statements or did testify before the Warren Commission. It's clear that Dr, Curtis has read the conspiracy literature because he referred to the many turns of the so-called magic bullet. And he even presented a diagram of the shots - including a shot from the overpass which somehow hit Kennedy in the throat -- missing the windshield and Governor Connally. Dan Hardway Dan Hardway testified about his work with the HSCA and his relationship with the CIA. This excerpt from his written submission caught my eye: He says the CIA repeatedly denied that any associated with DRE existed in 1963. But here is an excerpt from an HSCA draft report on the DRE: Hardway also wrote that "It was also denied that any CIA officer was assigned to work with them in 1963." Here is another excerpt from that same HSCA draft report: The report notes that "with this discovery, someone immediately called the DRE's case officer at the Miami CIA station." Did Hardway not read this report? Hardway believes there was a CIA covert operation directed against the HSCA. He claims this was admitted in a CIA letter to the Committee, but I sure would like to see that letter. To Hardway, Oswald had no agency. He was a pawn in the CIA hands when he went to Mexico City and he was a pawn in the CIA's hands in New Orleans. This was all done to discredit the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Why they had to send Oswald to Mexico City to do that is beyond me. Judge John Tunheim Judge John Tunheim was a major disappointment. He told Congresswoman Luna that the CIA misled the ARRB regarding George Joannides. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: (1:20:20) John Tunheim: We had in our hands a small file on George Joannides that was disclosed. That disclosed nothing really, so it was returned. We didn't know the details of his work at the time. We now know much more about Joannides and his file should be immediately disclosed. There's no reason anymore for protecting those files. Clearly, we were misled. I actually wrote to President Biden asking that he order the CIA to release the Joannides file, and I never received a response. But the ARRB examined the Joannides file and declassified parts of it. The ARRB knew that Joannides oversaw the DRE in 1963 and that he was a liaison with the HSCA. And then Tunheim came out with this during questioning: (1:47:05) John Tunheim: I think it's an interesting question you posed as to why. I mean, I think that clearly, if you look at the history of all this, there were cover-ups by both the FBI and the CIA, perhaps other organizations, in part because they had a lot of contact with Oswald in advance of the assassination, and there's no evidence that they alerted the Secret Service to the erratic behavior of Oswald. Oswald was in New Orleans. There was CIA contact with him, then, when he was a volunteer for this Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I mean, they knew all about his visit to Mexico City. Both the FBI and the CIA knew about it. The FBI was following him in Dallas because he was a suspect in another shooting. All of this suggests that they had a lot of contact with him ahead of time, and the -- I don't know what that suggests, other than the fact that they wanted to cover that up, the fact that they knew a lot about him ahead of time and didn't do much about it. Oswald was a suspect in another shooting? Where on earth did Tunheim get that from? There was no CIA contact with Oswald in New Orleans - Carlos Bringuier had contact with him, but he was an unpaid delegate to the DRE and only provided information to the CIA after the assassination. Douglas Horne Douglas Horne was a huge embarrassment. He testified that the Zapruder film was altered and that JFK's body was also altered before the autopsy. He wrote that he believes that JFK was shot three times in the head - I would have liked to have seen him debate Dr. Curtis about the head shots. I've already debunked a lot of Horne's nonsense: Photographs of the brain John Stringer on JFK's Wounds and his Autopsy Photographs Stringer was very clear that he took the photographs of JFK's brain. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, The Autopsy Photographs "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Autopsy Photographs of JFK Did Robert Knudsen take additional autopsy photographs? "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Autopsy Photographs of JFK, Part Two Did Saundra Spencer take additional autopsy photographs? Horne did not mention the Zavada report which authenticated the Zapruder film. The reason Horne focuses so much on the brain is that the left hemisphere of JFK"s brain was intact -- meaning there could not have been a shot from the grassy knoll. Dr. Cyril Wecht recognized this years ago: Dr. Cyril Wecht Rules Out a Head Shot From the Front A letter from Dr. Wecht to Thomas Stamm on the head shot. Sylvia Meagher and Dr. Cyril Wecht Discuss the Head Shot A letter from Dr. Wecht to Sylvia Meagher on the head shot. Abraham Bolden also testified but the streaming service did not capture the audio of his presentation. I hope that they release the video so that I can comment on his testimony. The questions from the Committee members were ridiculous. No one was prepared to ask serious questions. Luna apologized to Bolden for his treatment by the U. S. government -- but has she reviewed the trial documents from his conviction. Last year, I went to the National Archives and I have the complete Bolden file and I can tell you that there is a lot of evidence against Bolden. At some point, I will review it all. Had they done a modicum of research about Douglas Horne, they might have asked him about the shot fired by limousine driver William Greer. Inside the ARRB, Volume 4, page 1150 The very unpleasant and tentative possibility exists that limousine driver William Greer fired a fourth head shot into the President's left temple with his revolver. This cannot be proven today, since there is no left temporal wound mentioned in the autopsy report, nor is there such a wound depicted in the autopsy photographs of the left side of the head (But the autopsy report has been rewritten, and the head was not shaved at autopsy, so the absence of evidence for a left temporal wound in the autopsy report and in the autopsy photographs is not conclusive, by any means.) Inside the ARRB, Volume 5, page 1415: And so Horne believes the Zapruder film has been altered to hide the car stop when Greer shot at JFK. Somebody should pull the plug on the Committee, or get an adult to oversee it. If they were serious, they would ask Robert Reynolds, and Gerald Posner to testify. They would focus on the files in Moscow, Minsk, Mexico City and Havana, and get some of the private collections online. Lastly, we need digitization of the current collection and a new search tool. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Jefferson Morley's Congressional NothingBurger An analysis of Congresswoman Luna's Congressional Hearings Is Congresswoman Luna a Luna-tic? Congresswoman Luna doesn't really know much about the JFK assassination. Is Congresswoman Luna a Luna-tic? Part Two Have a look at the book on Luna's desk Jefferson Morley's Clairvoyance Morley somehow knows what is in the supposed 2,400 recently-discovered FBI files. RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard Bring Conspiracy Nonsense into the Trump Administration Gabbard likes James Douglass's book, JFK and the Unspeakable, Anna Luna's JFK Conspiracy Circus A link to an excellent article by Michael Isikoff. Congresswoman Luna Finds a New Witness Here is the conspiracy witness who knows the truth.