A very good article in Quillette about Robert Kennedy, Jr. Whether he’s talking about WiFi and 5G, vaccines, or measures introduced in an effort to control the spread of a novel virus, Kennedy always returns to his grand narrative: shadowy forces are conspiring to eliminate Americans’ freedoms and transform their country into a terrifying police state. He uses the word “totalitarian” promiscuously throughout The Real Anthony Fauci . For example, he accuses Fauci of playing a “central role in undermining public health and subverting democracy and constitutional governance around the globe and in transitioning our civil governance toward medical totalitarianism.” Elsewhere in the book, he claims Fauci’s “extraordinary capacity to ruthlessly silence, censor, ridicule, defund, and ruin prominent dissidents” is comparable to “Soviet and other totalitarian systems.” Here is the conclusion: The normalisation of Kennedy by people who ought to know better is unlikely to end well. The man has successfully built a career around some of the most hysterical and scientifically illiterate conspiracy theories currently in circulation. His apologists are fooling themselves if they think he will suddenly become a responsible public-health official upon taking control of the United States’ health agencies. When US senators come to decide if they ought to confirm his nomination, they will hopefully disregard the deodorised version of his beliefs presented by his defenders and look instead at the positions he has freely and enthusiastically expressed for decades. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on RFK Jr. Aaron Rodgers Should be RFK Jr.'s Running Mate! He spouts the same nonsense. RFK Jr.'s Super Bowl Ad was a Disgrace The ad puts RFK Jr. into a JFK television ad. What in the world happened to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? Cartoonist Jack Ohman has a good op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle . RFK Jr.'s Campaign of Conspiracy Theories Politifact has named RFK Jr's campaign of conspiracy theories their 2023 Lie of the Year. RFK Jr. Says Woody Harrelson's Dad was Involved in the JFK Assassination Just when I thought he couldn't get any wackier. Is RFK Jr. a 9/11 Truther?   Of course, RFK Jr. is unclear as to what happened on 9/11. RFK Jr. Puts Words in Allen Dulles's Mouth   RFK Jr. is interviewed by Tucker Carlson and tells a story about Allen Dulles that is just not true. 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.

I had a blast as a guest on Matt Crumpton's Solving JFK Podcast. The topic of our discussion was New Orleans, and a large part of it centered around Guy Banister. Here is the video of our discussion : Previous Relevant Blog Posts The Decline of Guy Banister Banister's mental health was in decline in 1964. Was Guy Banister's Office at 544 Camp Street?   Guy Banister's office was at 531 Lafayette and his office was not connected to the office at 544 Camp Street. Was Guy Banister a CIA/FBI Mastermind? Guy Banister couldn't pay his rent in 1964 and was evicted. Mancuso's Restaurant   Some pictures of Camp and Lafayette streets. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister   Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass , makes the claim that Guy Banister gave Lee Harvey Oswald an office at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans. Did Delphine Roberts see Oswald in Banister's Office?   Roberts was interviewed by Garrison's office in 1967 and she said nothing about seeing Oswald in Banister's office. Did Delphine Roberts See Lee Harvey Oswald in Banister's Office? (Part Two) Mary Brengel worked for Banister for a few months, and she also did not see Oswald in the office. Did David Ferrie Speak to Clay Shaw on the Telephone from Guy Banister's Office? Joseph Newbrough, who worked for Banister, told PBS Frontline that Banister's office was not connected to 544 Camp Street. Did David Ferrie Introduce Jack Martin to Lee Harvey Oswald in Banister's office?   Jack Martin loved to tell stories. He said nothing about Oswald being in Banister's office when he blabbing to the FBI and the Secret Service in 1963 and 1964. Exclusive: Garrison Tells the HSCA about Guy Banister   Garrison told the HSCA some ridiculous stories about Banister. Why did Guy Banister Pistol-Whip Jack Martin?   The film JFK  explanation is not right. Exclusive: Jim Garrison Talks to Jack Martin   Jim Garrison interviewed Jack Martin in his office on December 14, 1966. Here is a link to a tape recording of that interview and a transcript. Martin talks about seeing Oswald in Banister's office with Sergio Arcacha Smith. But there are problems with his story.

I got myself invited to speak at the JFK Lancer conference this year in Dallas. I traveled down on November 21st and met my friend, and excellent researcher , Steve Roe for breakfast on the morning of the 22nd. We then attended the Sixth Floor Museum's lunch event with Professor Marc Selverstone . He is the Professor and Director of Presidential Studies and Co-Chair of the Presidential Recordings Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs, and the author of The Kennedy Withdrawal . Selverstone argues that Kennedy's plan to withdraw troops from Vietnam was conditional on the progress of the South Vietnamese army. Here is an excerpt of a meeting with JFK, Robert McNamara, and General Maxwell Taylor : Taylor : I will just say this: that we talked to 174 officers, Vietnamese and U.S., and in the case of the U.S., I always asked the question, “When can you finish this job in the sense that you will reduce this insurgency to little more than sporadic incidents?” Inevitably, except for the Delta, they would say, “’64 would be ample time.” I realize that’s not necessarily … I assume there’s no major new factors entering. I realize that— Kennedy : Well, let’s say it anyway. Then ’65, if it doesn’t work out, we’ll get a new date. Taylor : ’65, we’ll get another. Selverstone says that this conversation indicates that JFK would only withdraw from Vietnam “under propitious military circumstances.” I strongly recommend Selverstone's book. Right after the Sixth Floor event, we went to Dealey Plaza where the usual suspects (Judyth Vary Baker, Robert Groden) had addressed the crowd at 12:30 PM. The QAnon people stopped traffic at 12:30 PM. I had my picture taken with this QAnon person: Photo courtesy of Steve Roe. Here is their handout: We did not go out to the Helping our World Ranch, although it does sound enticing. And then Judyth came over to talk with them: Steve Roe and I did a walk through of Dealey Plaza and I did a small video wearing a CIA hat that Langley was kind enough to donate : Matt uploaded this to the Facebook group run by Matt Douthit, and have a look at this comment : Then it was time to head over to the JFK Lancer conference at the Marriott Hotel. We also had a good lunch at Jack Ruby's Salon & Grill. I wonder if there will be future conferences in person in Dallas. The CAPA Conference was only held virtually. They could not get enough people to register for their in-person event Somebody told me that about fifty people logged on to view the conference. But there was one benefit to the CAPA get together : It was "Litwin free." The JFK Lancer Conference was also sparsely attended. Dick Russell spoke at 9:00 AM on Saturday, November 23rd. Here is a view of the crowd: I count 33 people, including myself, the technicians at the front, and my guest Matt Kordelski in red in the foreground. Some of the other attendees were also presenters. This was as crowded as it got. At another hotel in Dallas, Judyth was holding her conference. I have no idea how many people attended her get together. I am not sure whether this is sustainable. I should add that the organizers of JFK Lancer, Kenneth Zediker and his wife Gabriella Glen are really nice people. They worked hard to put on a good conference, but at the end of the day, they were let down by some of the presenters. For instance, Brian Edwards presented on Roscoe White which has been thoroughly debunked by Dave Perry. And he also presented this slide: Lee Bowers never said anything like this, and it is interesting that Edwards did not show the actual letter. On Saturday morning, Andy Kiel, a former high school teacher, presented a slide with a map of the motorcade from the Dallas Morning News and alleged that the route was changed. This was debunked years ago -- the News left out the turn on to Elm Street but described it in the text. The Dallas Times Herald had a proper map. The route was not changed. Dick Russell spoke right after Kiel, and I was very keen to see his presentation. Here is his presentation: Russell had updates to his research for the Rob Reiner podcast series, Who Killed JFK? It was a complete mishmash of conspiracy nonsense. In additional to Richard Case Nagell and Herminio Diaz , Russell brought up the Pierre Lafitte diary which was featured in the book, Coup in Dallas . The diaries are "cryptic" and so require interpretation which Russell was very prepared to offer. In addition, he brought up Chauncey Holt , another supposed tramp. Russell mentioned that the Stasi files of Richard Case Nagell were "fascinating," but he provided no details. He did not stay for my presentation on the Stasi files , but we know he was around since we bumped into him in the hotel right after my presentation. The Lancer Facebook page had people talking about my presentation : A few people defended me which I appreciate. But I loved this comment: I swear to god that I am not a prefabricator. Nor do I decive. Some of the wares for sale at the JFK Lancer conference. On Sunday night we headed to Dave Perry's house and had a great time looking at his JFK collection of documents and books. We then went to dinner, and Langley gave Dave permission to wear the CIA hat: Photo courtesy of Matt Kordelski And look who joined us for dinner: Top, left to right: Dave Perry, Fred Litwin, Quentin Campbell Bottom, left to right: Steve Roe, Buell Frazier, Matt Kordelski It was a fun dinner. Buell Frazier is now 81 years old and is still working. I think he would prefer to talk about baseball, his pickup truck and his family rather than the assassination. He did tell Steve Roe that there had to be a conspiracy because he didn't believe one man could pull it off. He added that there are still some untold stories about the assassination. On Monday it was off to Baylor University to examine some of Gus Russo and Dick Russell's files. I particularly wanted to photograph Gus's files on Tosh Plumlee. On the way back to Dallas, I stopped in Irving and had some coffee with Sean DeGrilla , another excellent researcher: Have I shrunk or what? I don't know if I will be invited back to the JFK Lancer Conference. There are a lot of researchers out there who have conducted important research, but who may not believe in conspiracy. Nick Nalli comes to mind. The people at these conferences could learn quite a bit from Nick but they won't. But don't fret -- these people will appear on my podcasts . Previous Relevant Links A Travesty in Dealey Plaza My trip for the 60th anniversary The CIA's Dinner in Dallas Langley paid for a terrific dinner. My Research Trip to NARA My 2023 trip to College Park. My Trip to New Orleans My JFK buddies and I visited New Orleans.

One of the identity cards that was in Nagell's possession when he was arrested. In June 1968, Richard Case Nagell got on a train in Switzerland and headed to West Berlin. At the border with East Germany, it was discovered that he did not have a transit visa, and he was arrested. When I was writing my book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination, I decided to see if there was any new information on Richard Case Nagell. I watched a Dick Russell video from a presentation he gave at a Judyth Vary Baker conference from a few years ago. He mentioned Nagell's Stasi file, but it was not clear if he actually had the file. I immediately went to find the Stasi website, but it was pretty confusing as to where I should submit an application. I also searched on the web for Nagell's Stasi file and I found this article from Bild which had some good information . But then serendipity hit. Andrew and I were invited to a dinner party and one of the guests worked for a German NGO. I asked him if he could help me, and he said he could. That night I emailed with information from the Bild article, and he sent me an English-language link to retrieve Stasi files. I sent in my application, and it took about ten days to get an acknowledgment. They also sent me a price list and they charged higher prices for non-relatives of people whose file is being asked for. About ten weeks later they sent me a link and there was Nagell's Stasi file -- 280 pages in German. Google translate does not take PDFs and so I took an image of every page and had Google translate. Here is the Nagell Stasi file along with a Google translation. And here is my presentation on Nagell's Stasi file from the JFK Lancer conference held last weekend in Dallas. As you can see from the file, the East Germans arrested Nagell on the suspicion that he was a CIA agent on an espionage mission. That was in June. By October, they realized that he had serious mental problems stemming from his plane crash in 1954. They did not believe his stories about the CIA and about the JFK assassination. And so they just released him in October 1968. Additional Posts on Richard Case Nagell A Wrap-Up of the Richard Case Nagell Story   Why do People Believe the Richard Case Nagell Story? The Importance of Richard Case Nagell to Some Conspiracy Theorists Was Richard Case Nagell the "Most Important Witness There Is"?   Jim Garrison and a few conspiracy theorists think Nagell is a very important witness. But is he really? Genesis of the Richard Case Nagell story Did David Kroman Crack the JFK Assassination Conspiracy?   David Kroman met Richard Case Nagell at the Springfield Medical Center for Federal Prisoners. Stephen Jaffe, a Garrison volunteer, wrote a memo, relating Nagell's story through the eyes and ears of David Kroman. Richard Case Nagell Shoots Up the State National Bank in El Paso...   Nagell was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to ten years, but his conviction was overturned because of startling new evidence. Richard Case Nagell and the JFK Assassination Did Richard Case Nagell Have Foreknowledge of Oswald and the JFK Assassination?   There is no credible evidence that Nagell had any foreknowledge of either Lee Harvey Oswald or the JFK assassination. Did Richard Case Nagell Meet Lee Harvey Oswald?   Nagell claims he met Oswald in Japan, Texas, Mexico City, and New Orleans. There is no credible evidence that he ever met Oswald. Did Richard Case Nagell Warn Fidel Castro about the Assassination?   Nagell went to Cuba and met with Fidel Castro and even played ping-pong with the man.   Insane Conspiracy Theories about Richard Case Nagell Who was Leon Oswald?   Richard Case Nagell said that he knew the two Oswalds - Lee Harvey and Leon. Some conspiracy theorists believe this madness. Richard Popkin Melds the Second Oswald Theory with the Richard Case Nagell Story Combine one part crazy and one part ridiculous and what do you come up with? An early attempt at a unified conspiracy theory of the JFK assassination. Paul Bleau's Plots   Was there a plot in Los Angeles against JFK? Two Smoking Guns of the Richard Case Nagell Story Is this Document the Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story?   Nagell sent conspiracy theorist Dick Russell one page of a military intelligence file which seemed to indicate that he was monitoring Oswald and his wife on behalf of the CIA. But does the whole document really show that? Dick Russell's Second Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story   Did Richard Case Nagell have an Oswald Military ID in his possession when he was arrested in September 1963? Richard Case Nagell and Jim Garrison Why Didn't Richard Case Nagell Testify at Clay Shaw's Trial?   Richard Case Nagell believes that he wasn't called to testify at Clay Shaw's trial because his testimony would have blown up Jim Garrison's case. Jim Garrison Discusses Richard Case Nagell   At a conference in September 1968, Garrison and his investigators discuss his face-to-face meeting with Nagell in New York City. Richard Case Nagell Sends Jim Garrison on a Wild-Goose Chase   William Martin, an Assistant District Attorney working for Jim Garrison, tried to retrieve a tape that Nagell said contained the voices of three JFK assassination conspirators. Richard Popkin Writes Garrison About Richard Case Nagell   Richard Popkin, author of "The Second Oswald," writes Jim Garrison about Richard Case Nagell. Garrison staffer Tom Bethell thought the Nagell lead was useless. Richard Case Nagell's Mental Health Richard Case Nagell's Lawsuit   A lawsuit by Nagell proves his mental issues. Richard Case Nagell's Fight for a Disability Pension   Nagell won a full disability pension in 1982 and the 60+ page court case provides complete details on his mental problems. Why Did Richard Case Nagell Shoot Up the First National Bank of El Paso? Richard Case Nagell told a psychiatrist why he shot up the bank in El Paso in 1963. Richard Case Nagell's Family Speaks about his Mental Health   The FBI spoke to Nagell's ex-wife, his mother, his sister, and one of his friends. They all agreed that Nagell had significant mental health problems. Richard Case Nagell Visits Europe in 1969...   Nagell visited the American consulates in Zurich and Barcelona in 1969. He was a deeply disturbed man. Richard Case Nagell in Europe, 1970 Edition   More shenanigans in Europe in 1970. Richard Case Nagell Visits Zurich His mental issues were apparent during this visit. Richard Case Nagell's Evidence Richard Case Nagell's Nonexistent Evidence   None of the so-called evidence that Nagell promised would materialize on his death has shown up. Did this evidence ever exist? Thomas Samoluk on Richard Case Nagell Samoluk was Deputy Director of the ARRB and he doesn't think much of the Nagell story. You can read the whole Nagell story in my new book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination .

Today is the 61st anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and there is a buzz amongst conspiracy theorists. Donald Trump has promised to release the remaining secret files and thus there is excitement that we might finally know a little bit more about what happened on November 22, 1963. The truth is that there are no secret documents regarding the JFK assassination. The only documents withheld in full are IRS documents and grand jury testimony which are both exempt from disclosure. The other documents in question have already been released but with some redactions – about 3,000 files, mostly from the CIA. There are good reasons for some of the redactions. There are approximately four hundred files that contain the social security numbers of people who are still alive. There are also some FBI and CIA informants who are still alive who might have been promised anonymity decades ago. It would be a violation of their trust to reveal their identities. Most of the other redactions relate to intelligence methods used in the Cold War in which disclosure might still harm national security. I think most of the latter category of documents could be safely released. But guess what? The Assassination Records and Review Board (ARRB) reviewed those documents in the 1990s, and their Chairman, Judge John Tunheim, has repeatedly stated that there are no smoking guns. So, while we might learn a bit more about the Cold War, we won't add to our knowledge about the JFK assassination itself. Jefferson Morley has taken up the charge for releasing the documents. He usually uses extremely loose language that implies that there are thousands of unreleased documents. This has fed into a public perception that the CIA is hiding something related to the assassination. In Scott Sayare's article for New York Magazine, Morley is wrong about the secrecy of documents: At least 320,000 “assassination-related” documents have been released; by one estimate, some 4,000 remain withheld or redacted, the majority belonging to the CIA. And it goes beyond the JFK assassination: Morley summed up why he thinks the release of the remaining documents is so important: “If you want to get full disclosure on 9/11, unidentified aerial phenomenon, you’ve got to start with JFK. OK, if the CIA gets their way on the murder of a president, you know, then they’re going to get their way on other issues.” But Morley's quote "if the CIA gets their way on the murder of a president," is somewhat obtuse. Perhaps it should be read as "if the CIA gets their way on keeping redactions secret ..." Journalists usually pride themselves on the clarity of their language. Morley thrives on ambiguity and obfuscation. The only thing the CIA truly cares about regarding the JFK assassination, is protecting their sources and methods. One of my friends, Eric Dezenhall, thought a John Le Carré quote was apt: (Single & Single, page 337) He had arrived at the last, most hidden room of his search, he had prized open the most top-secret box, and it was empty. Tiger's secret was that he had no secret. Morley specifically feels that the CIA's personnel file of George Joannides would be especially enlightening. In fact, he believes it would provide evidence of a CIA operation 'involving' Lee Harvey Oswald. For instance, take this story from his December 28, 2023, Substack post: With the release of long-secret JFK files in recent years, the CIA’s surveillance of accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald from November 1959 to November 1963 has gone from a speculative proposition to a well-documented fact. But Joannides' personnel file was examined by the ARRB and many of the documents were deemed to be not related to the JFK assassination. In addition, there was no CIA surveillance of Oswald -- he just ran into various surveillance operations. I emailed Judge Tunheim and asked him about Joannides' personnel file, and here is one of his replies: I think the bottom line on Joannides is that it may well be much ado about nothing. But the fact that the CIA has fought a very lengthy court battle to prevent release of the documents suggests there may be more than meets the eye. It is simply time to release everything. We should have done that long ago, the DRE connection and his role with the HSCA alone made him subject to release — Joannides is long dead — he has gotten much more attention than he likely ever would have. Until all of the files are released, there will be questions. The [Oliver] Stone interview was interesting — he is a rather fascinating guy. I have not watched his documentary [JFK Revisited], just have not had time. My view has always been that there is no reliable evidence of a conspiracy but I will always keep an open mind. That was our goal at the ARRB — release everything so that people can decide for themselves what happened. Yes, the Joannides issue "may well be much ado about nothing." I'm glad that Judge Tunheim added that "my view has always been that there is no reliable evidence of a conspiracy." Tunheim has been influenced by people like Morley to believe there are still questions about this file, even though his own staff knew that Joannides oversaw the DRE in Florida. In fact, the ARRB knew exactly who he was and what he did, and they still decided that much of his personnel files should not be released. Robert Kennedy Jr. has also played a malignant role in alleging there was a CIA conspiracy to kill both his uncle and his father. As I have showed on this blog, he can't even get his family history right. RFK Jr. Disrespects the Memory of his Father RFK Jr. can't even quote his father properly. RFK Jr. Misquotes JFK He can't even quote his uncle properly. RFK Jr. Puts Words in Allen Dulles's Mouth RFK Jr. is interviewed by Tucker Carlson and tells a story about Allen Dulles that is just not true. Another notable person to muddy the water with nonsense was director/producer Rob Reiner. His podcast series, Who Killed JFK?, garnered several million listeners. Unfortunately, he relied upon the research of Dick Russell who saddled Reiner with fabulists like Richard Case Nagell and Tosh Plumlee. During the final episode, Reiner postulated a shooting scenario based on a "highly educated guess" with at least four gunmen -- in the TSBD, behind the picket fence, in the Dal-Tex and perhaps the County Records buildings, and the overpass at the south knoll. Michel Gagné, author of Thinking Critically About the Kennedy Assassination: Debunking the Myths and Conspiracy Theories, and I dissected Reiner's podcast: Here is part one of our discussion. Here is part two of our discussion. All of this discouraging discourse brings to mind David Lifton's 1968 encounter with Jim Garrison: “During one of our conversations, Garrison told me that his office had established an ironclad link between Ruby and Oswald. As evidence, he cited the fact that a Ft. Worth telephone number PE8-1951, was listed in Oswald’s address book and also was found on Ruby’s phone bill. Astonished, I went home and checked it out. That telephone number, as clearly indicated in Oswald’s address book, is television station KTVT, Channel 11, Fort Worth Texas. I confronted Garrison with this the next day. He became very truculent and annoyed. “David, stop arguing the defense,” he would say. “But, what does it mean, Jim?” I demanded. “Is there someone at the TV station whom you can prove knew both men?” “It means whatever the jury decides it means,” he said, adding that “Law is not a science.” Finally, I asked: “But what do YOU think, Jim? What is the truth of the matter.” His answer is one I will never forget. He said, with considerable annoyance and contempt, “After the fact, there IS NO truth. There is ONLY what the jury decides.” JFK conspiracy theorists have taken their cue from Jim Garrison. Why argue about the facts, if you can dismiss almost anything. Why accept CE 399 into evidence when you can argue about its chain of custody. The backyard photographs prove nothing because they are fakes. JFK's brain weighs too much and so it must be someone else's brain. There is a complete set of missing autopsy photographs and so we can ignore the existing autopsy materials. The cartridges recovered from the Tippit shooting might have been fired from Oswald's revolver, but who can say exactly when. And because Ruby handyman Larry Crafard looked like Oswald, maybe he was the guy who killed Tippit. And why not use a fake Oswald handbill to tie him to 544 Camp Street. And the latest JFK assassination books are also discouraging to say the least. Vince Palamara's new book, The Plot to Kill President Kennedy in Chicago and other Traces of Conspiracy Leading to the Assassination of JFK, is an epic failure in that it doesn't provide any evidence of a plot in Chicago. In May 2023, Palamara received a phone call from somebody who had some information on the JFK assassination. This person linked Palamara with former Secret Service agent Nemo Ciochina, who had some explosive information. Ciochina told Palamara that the real conspiracy against JFK was not in Texas, but in Chicago and that he should focus on a man by the name of Lloyd John Wilson. But the Warren Commission knew all about Wilson -- he was a young man who claimed that he paid Lee Harvey Oswald $1,000 at a wrestling match in San Francisco to kill JFK -- and they realized this was not worth any of their time. Like many other stories in this case (Raymond Broshears, Richard Case Nagell, Rose Cherami) mental health played a major role. When I wrote that I thought it was silly to think that Lloyd John Wilson was any sort of suspect, Palamara then wrote that perhaps he had met an Oswald impersonator. A heavily promoted book was The JFK Assassination: Chokeholds, by James DiEugenio and four other authors: This book purports to document the "chokeholds" that prove conspiracy. You can have a look at my eighteen posts debunking excerpts from this book. What's amazing about this book is not what is in it, but what is not. Snippets of information are given out without context or nuance. A good example is his first chapter which lists a variety of statements that seemingly prove conspiracy. Chapter author Bleau includes a summary of the HSCA conclusions. He also makes the following points: Oswald and Ruby were not loners and "were involved in relationships that could have matured into a conspiracy." Oswald was connected to David Ferrie and Guy Banister, if not Clay Shaw. Jack Ruby was connected to the Mafia. Marina Oswald's "incriminating statements against her husband were found to be lacking in credibility." The HSCA believed Sylvia Odio. The Lopez Report "established that someone was impersonating Oswald." The Justice Department reinvestigation of the case only looked at the acoustical evidence, "which it rejected based on science, but that itself is also contested." Bleau doesn't include this key finding of the HSCA: That's quite an omission, no? Another recent book was Pipe the Bimbo in Red. Some of the names that appear in this book are Fred Crisman, Judyth Vary Baker, Leander D'avy, Eladio del Valle, Gordon Novel, Roger Craig, Julia Ann Mercer, Richard Giesbrecht, Richard Case Nagell, John Armstrong's Harvey & Lee, Jim Hicks (the book claims there were two Jim Hicks), and Fletcher Prouty. The chapter on Permindex has few footnotes and a large part of it quotes a Lyndon LaRouche publication. Why should anybody take seriously the ravings of material from LaRouche's lunatic organization? Another book which is dishonest on Permindex is H. P. Albarelli's Coup in Dallas. The chapter on Permindex is riddled with errors and there are no footnotes. The author of this book did not visit Ottawa to see the papers of Louis Bloomfield, the Montreal lawyer who represented several of the major shareholders in Permindex. Nor did they visit the National Archives to get Clay Shaw's papers on Permindex. And they also did not have the State Department memos on Permindex. How on earth could they understand this topic without primary documents? Well, who needs primary documents when you can just rely on ridiculous secondary material? Earlier this week, Jefferson Morley interviewed Vince Palamara on his new book referenced above. There's not a hint of skepticism. Morley just accepts the premise of Palamara's book and thus uses his platform to spread the myth that there was a plot against JFK in Chicago in early November 1963. I have continually posted articles about the lack of evidence of any plot in Chicago in November 1963: 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. Truth matters. It shouldn't be a battle between people who believe in conspiracy and people who don't. It should be about the truth. Unfortunately, all too often, it all comes down to a Castro slogan, adapted by Paul Hoch: Within Conspiracism, everything; against Conspiracism, nothing

Duke Ellington and Johnny Hodges co-wrote the song "Who Struck John." In October 1971, President Richard Nixon met with his domestic affairs advisor John Ehrlichman. They discussed the importance of procuring documents from CIA Director Richard Helms on the Bay of Pigs and the assassination of South Vietnam's President Ngo Dinh Diem. Nixon wanted to use the documents to target his political enemies. Helms then arrives and Nixon browbeats him to turn over documents, telling him that they were needed for negotiations with the Russians. Here is a summary of the discussion. The tape of the meeting is almost inaudible, but you can listen here. The relevant section is at 17:30: President Nixon : The ‘Who shot John?’ angle. Is Eisenhower to blame? Is Kennedy to blame? Is Johnson to blame? Is Nixon to blame? Etc., etc. It may become, not by me, a very vigorous issue but if it does, I need to know what is necessary to protect frankly the intelligence gathering and the Dirty Tricks Department and I will protect it. I have done more than my share of lying to protect you, and I believe it’s totally right to do it. Former Washington Post journalist Jefferson Morley believes that Nixon was referring to the JFK assassination. Here is an excerpt from his 2022 book, Scorpion’s Dance: The President, the Spymaster, and Watergate : The facts of the Bay of Pigs, however, were not in dispute. The CIA-trained invasion force lost, and senior officers like Hunt were forever embittered. Nixon had something else, something very sensitive in mind. “What I want, what I want, Dick,” he rasped, “regarding any understanding, regarding any information, I do not want any information that comes in from you on these delicate and sensitive subjects to go to anybody outside …” Nixon was finally ready to tip his hand. “The ‘Who shot John?’ angle,” he said quietly, 17 minutes into the conversation. Nixon did not dwell on the phrase. He didn’t need to. In the context of his long-standing demand for the CIA’s records, the invocation of “the ‘Who shot John?’ angle” can only refer to one thing: Kennedy’s assassination. The ambush in Dallas was the first thing on Nixon’s mind as he pressed the director for the agency’s Bay of Pigs files. The president intuited a connection between the failed invasion in 1961 and JFK’s assassination two years later. Nixon had no desire to expose what Helms called the agency’s “dirty linen.” Rather, he wanted to use the Bay of Pigs issue against presumed rival Ted Kennedy while defending the CIA from recent allegations that the CIA’s plots against Castro had led to JFK’s death. Nixon knew the Agency was vulnerable to JFK’s assassination, which he presumed gave him leverage over Helms. Nixon assured Helms that his concern was not the agency’s actions related to Kennedy’s assassination but the criticism he faced as president. “Is Eisenhower to blame? Is Johnson to blame? Is Kennedy to blame? Is Nixon to blame?” the president went on. “Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. It may become — not by me — but it may become a very, very vigorous issue. If it does …” Morley wonders what Nixon was talking about when he says, "Who shot John." Nixon couldn’t have been referring to the Bay of Pigs or Cuba, which were both dead issues by then. The JFK assassination story, by contrast, had erupted vigorously earlier that year. In January 1971, a front-page New York Times story reported that Dallas police chief Jesse Curry published a book saying JFK had been killed by a conspiracy. The same day, Jack Anderson, the syndicated investigative reporter, wrote a startling column in The Washington Post that began, “Locked in the darkest recesses of the Central Intelligence Agency is the story of six assassination attempts against Cuba’s Fidel Castro.” Morley is wrong about a front-page article in the New York Times . The actual article appeared on page 14 in the January 17, 1970, edition and uses much weaker language: The Jack Anderson column appeared on January 18, 1971. Morley also raised the same issue in this article from 2012: In the context of a negotiation over sensitive government records from the early 1960s, Nixon’s aside -- “Who shot John?” -- could only have been a reference to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas in 1963. But if Nixon was implying that the CIA might have something to hide on the question of who ambushed the liberal president in Dealey Plaza, he was also assuring Helms he would keep the Agency's secrets. And Morley raised the issue again in an article on his substack on January 21, 2023 : Tucker Carlson discussed "Biden and the Deep State" and he mentioned the Nixon-Helms meeting: On June 23, 1972, Nixon met with the then-CIA director, Richard Helms, at the White House. During the conversation -- which thankfully was tape recorded -- Nixon suggested he knew, quote, "who shot John," meaning President John F. Kennedy. Nixon further implied that the CIA was directly involved in Kennedy's assassination, which we now know it was. Helms' telling response? Total silence. Morley noted that Carlson got the date wrong but then says: Carlson says “Nixon suggested he knew, quote, ‘who shot John,’" which is debatable. Based on the context, I think it’s more likely that Nixon did not know who killed Kennedy, which is why he was pressing Helms for more information. But Carlson may be right. His claim is certainly not factually incorrect. The same goes for Carlson’s assertion that “Nixon further implied that the CIA was directly involved.” Nixon’s vow to protect “the Dirty Tricks Department” is vague. But, along with his allusion to “delicate and sensitive subjects,” it is certainly open to the fair inference that Nixon was expressing a willingness to lie about “who shot John” if the CIA was involved. On this point, Carlson is right. But Morley is wrong about his interpretation. Nixon was not referring to the JFK assassination; Max Holland notes that had Nixon referred to JFK, he would have said, "who shot Jack." Nixon was just using an old but now obscure colloquial phrase to say he wanted all the details on who did what. An article in the Chicago Tribute from December 21, 2000 , agreed that Nixon wanted information on the Bay of Pigs and the assassination of Diem: According to previously undisclosed Oval Office tapes, Nixon and top aide John Ehrlichman worked strenuously, and cynically, to persuade CIA Director Richard Helms to fork over secret documents so that they might muddy political enemies, notably the Kennedy family. Conversations show Nixon and Ehrlichman rehearsing lines to use on Helms as they sought to procure CIA records on the 1963 assassination of South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem, as well as of the botched 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. It is clear that Helms, a fabled CIA official, knew what they were up to and did his best to resist, but finally surrendered a fair number of documents. Nixon also used the phrase during an interview with David Frost , and he was certainly not referring to the JFK assassination, but using it to mean 'attributing blame.' John Mitchell is a smart man. He's too smart to ever get involved in a stupid jackass thing like Watergate. And, John Mitchell also knew, he was smart enough to know the dangers of cover‐ups and that sort of thing. On the other hand, John Mitchell could only think of that poor Martha and that lovely child, Marne, and so, that's the human side of this story, which I don't, I know that you and the press, you can't be interested in that. You can only he interested in “Who shot John?” Well, go ahead. There is a long history to the phrase, "Who shot John?" or "Who struck John?" James Angleton famously was quoted in a New York Times article from December 25, 1974, by Seymour Hersh : ... Asked about alleged wrongdoing, Mr. Angleton said, "I've got problems." He explained his domestic activities this way: "A mansion has many rooms, and there were many thing[s] going on during the period of the [antiwar] bombings. I'm not privy to who struck John." Paul Hoch wondered about this back in 1975 when he wrote a long memo to the Rockefeller Commission on "CIA activities and the Warren Commission Investigation." Here is the CIA's response: Back then it was much more difficult to research something like the history of the phrase, 'who shot John?' The internet has made the job a lot easier. William Safire wrote about the phrase in the December 21, 1986, issue of the New York Times, and he noted that Richard Nixon liked to use the phrase: Here is an early usage of 'who struck John?': Baton Rouge State-Times Advocate, October 25, 1958 Here is an excerpt from an article in the Los Angeles Times from October 19, 1962, about former President Eisenhower's criticism of President Kennedy's foreign policy: Here is an example from a New York Times article from August 4, 1975: In a March 1, 2003, Los Angeles Times article on the guard who foiled the Watergate break-in: Here is another reference from testimony before the September 11th committee : John Lehman [Commission member]: One, a whole series of questions. What were you told by this short transition from Mr. Berger and associates and the long transition leading up to 9/11 by those officials about these key, a number of key issues? And I'd like to ask them quickly in turn. And the other is I'm struck by the continuity of the policies rather than the differences. And both of these sets of questions are really directed towards what I think is the real purpose of this commission. While it's certainly a lot more fun to be doing the who struck John and pointing fingers of which policy was more urgent or more important, so forth, the real business of this commission is to learn the lessons and to find the ways to fix those dysfunctions. The phrases 'who struck John?' or 'who shot John?' are generic and do not refer to the JFK assassination. Despite many comments on Morley's 2014 post on his own website about the origins and meanings of the phrase, he continues to write that Nixon was referring to the JFK assassination. JFK researcher Pat Speer got it right : I have listened to this tape and the day’s previous discussion with Ehrlichman and have come to realize that most of us have misunderstood the context of the tapes. Nixon is looking for info that will tie Kennedy to the assassination of Diem, which he strangely calls “the Kennedy assassination…of Diem” Helms has refused to hand it over to Ehrlichman, and brings it to Nixon himself. Nixon, of course, wants more and subsequently orders Hunt, through Colson, to fake up some cables that will tie Kennedy to the killing. When Nixon mentions “Who shot John?” He is mentioning it in the context of his old friend Lodge and others all pointing fingers in different directions as to who was to blame for Diem’s murder. Nixon and Ehrlichman know who they want to blame it on, however. In Ehrlichman’s book The Company he has the character based on Kennedy order the murder of a priest. This is a reference to Diem, an ardent catholic. But not everything is about the JFK assassination. The departure of Tucker Carlson from Fox News has led many people to wonder exactly what happened. Of course, Jefferson Morley, on his substack, quoted David Talbot alleging that Carlson was forced out because of his segments on the CIA and the JFK assassination : I suspect that Carlson was not jettisoned by the Murdochs because of a few offensive emails. What bigwig at Fox News is innocent of that charge? (Rupert and Lachlan would have to let go most of the company, starting with themselves.) I think the real reason that Carlson was fired was because he was evolving into a more independent voice on everything from the dominance of the war state -- which goes unchallenged by our media and political elites -- to the assassination of President Kennedy. Carlson believes that the CIA was involved in the assassination, the reason that the spy agency has repeatedly flouted the 1992 JFK Records Act and blocked the full release of Kennedy-related documents. Morley also quotes Jacob Hornberger: "Let me weigh in on another possibility (re Carlson's firing) — that the Pentagon and the CIA may have been the ones who put the quietus on Tucker and possibly signaled to Fox executives that he had to go... "Last December, Carlson broadcast a program on the assassination of President Kennedy in which he accused the CIA of having participated in the assassination. In doing so, Carlson violated a taboo that has existed within the mainstream media since November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated ... ." The Murdoch mansion has many rooms, and there have been many things going on; we are not now privy to who struck John. Carlson's first segment on the JFK assassination aired on December 15, 2022 . He was let go more than four months later on April 24, 2023. You'd think the CIA and the Pentagon would move a little quicker than that. Hat tip: Paul Hoch assisted with the research and editing of this article.

The story starts with Deuce Parent, a Sergeant on the Kenner, Louisiana police force, who told his friend Ronald Raymond that "an employee of Eastern Airlines had shown him the guest register" of the VIP Room at the New Orleans International Airport. It had been signed by several people on December 14, 1966 and included the signatures of four Latins, and "Clay Bertrand." Raymond reported this to Jim Garrison's office in August of 1967. (see page 390 of Don Carpenter's Man of a Million Fragments.) In September 1967, Ms. Jesse Parker, a hostess at the VIP Room, swore out this affidavit: So on December 14, 1966, Clay Shaw was supposedly still using the pseudonym of Clay Bertrand. You would think that after using it to plan the JFK assassination, he might jettison the name and use something else. Now, what is interesting in Ms. Parker's affidavit is that the person, identified as Clay Shaw, was accompanied by four people from Caracas, Venezuela who also signed the guestbook. Here is a picture from the New Orleans Times-Picayune of December 15, 1966: The next day, Andrew Sciambra interviewed Cecilia Fagan, who also worked in the VIP Room. She remembers the Venezuelans, but did not see Clay Shaw. (Carpenter, page 390) Garrison's office then subpoenaed Capt. Henry Spicer, but he convinced James Alcock, Garrison's second-in-command, that he had nothing to add. Here is a CIA document about Spicer and Alcock: The next step to corroborate this account was to find and interview the other members of the State Department that accompanied the Venezuelan party. Here is an entry from the diary of Tom Bethell for March 18, 1968: Andrew Sciambra went to Washington D.C. and interviewed these witnesses along with researcher Harold Weisberg. Here is Sciambra's memo of his interview with Captain John Warren, who was the military escort for the party; his interview with Theodore Herrera who worked for the State Department; and his interview with Ross Pope, another State Department employee. None of the three witnesses identified Clay Shaw - indeed, one witness identified Gordon Novel as being the man in the VIP Room. Here are the memos written by Harold Weisberg: Andrew Sciambra then visited with Alfred Moran who had also signed the guestbook: So, they could not find one witness who could corroborate that Clay Shaw had signed the guestbook. None of this material was disclosed to Shaw's legal team. On February 19, 1969, Ms. Jessie Parker testified at the Shaw trial. New Orleans Times-Picayune , February 20, 1969. Unfortunately, her testimony was not transcribed. So, we have to rely upon the New Orleans newspapers for a record of what was said. Here is the opening of her testimony: Parker's testimony has changed from her affidavit (shown at the top of this post). Her affidavit stated that Shaw was with four people from Venezuela and "accompanied by someone with London-type clothes." Now, Shaw is there with just one other person, and there is no mention of anybody from Venezuela. Now, she testifies that the other man did not sign the guestbook. In her affidavit, she said the other four men signed the guestbook. Remember there was no discovery back then in Louisiana courts, and so Shaw's defense team had not seen the original affidavit. Nor did they see the various statements of people denying they had seen Clay Shaw in the VIP Room. And that is why they could change her affidavit, and her testimony, and nobody had a clue what had happened.. On cross-examination, Ms. Parker admitted that she did not identify Clay Shaw when she was brought in to have a look during jury selection: And, in fact, they had administered a lie detector test to Ms. Parker, but Judge Haggerty would not allow testimony about the results of the test. Patricia Lambert spoke to James Kruebbe, who had administered the lie detector test: Excerpt from Patricia Lambert interview of James Kruebbe November 30, 1993. After her testimony, Mrs. Parker signed a new affidavit that excised the section about the Venezuelans. The Shaw defense team called Arthur Q. Davis to the stand. His signature on the guest book was right above Clay Bertrand : Both sides brought in handwriting experts to examine the signature from the VIP room guestbook. The Shaw team brought in Charles Appel who had worked for the FBI from 1924-1948. His claim to fame was breaking the Lindbergh kidnapping case. Here is the Clay Bertrand signature from the VIP room compared to Clay Shaw signing "Bertrand" (by the way, the signature was on the last line of the register): Charles Appel testified for Clay Shaw on February 25, 1969. He examined a variety of writings from Clay Shaw made in 1966, as well as the signature from the VIP Room. Here is his analysis of the writing samples: The headline from the States-Item regarding his testimony: New Orleans Times-Picayune , February 27, 1969. The handwriting expert for Garrison was Elizabeth McCarthy, who had limited formal training. She took a course back in the early 1930s. She told the court that the signatures were made by the same person: Milton Brener, an attorney who wrote the brilliant book The Garrison Case , found this strange - "The "probably" drew raised eyebrows from many attorneys. It was curious testimony from a handwriting expert. In the overwhelming majority of cases, such witnesses will reach a positive conclusion, for handwriting, like a fingerprint, is a means of positive identification." (page 263) McCarthy gave her reasons: Mrs. McCarthy only arrived in New Orleans the day before her testimony and started her examination the night before. She only saw the originals the morning of her testimony and she brought no photographic equipment with her. But she did examine the documents with equipment she brought: Now, what exactly did she use? A microscope, or binoculars? Here is a paragraph from James Kirkwood's book, American Grotesque : (page 425) "A reporter next to me had been busy writing and when he heard this he looked up, but by this time she was replacing the binoculars in her handbag. " What did she use?" he whispered to me. "Binoculars," I told him. "Binoculars?" he repeated. "That's what I thought she said." He stared to write and then looked back up at me. "You mean regular binoculars that you use . . ." His voice trailed off. "Yes," I replied. Milton Brener writes that Mrs. McCarthy was a last minute replacement: "There was still another expert who examined the guest register, though he was not called to testify. Gilbert Fortier, one of the best known examiners of questioned documents in this part of the country, had examined the book and known specimens of Shaw's handwriting at Garrison's request. Fortier is the expert most frequently called by this State to give testimony as to handwriting comparisons in cases involving forged or other questioned documents. In addition, he appears in other courts throughout this area undoubtedly more frequently than any other expert in the field. After examining the questioned guest book, Fortier conferred with Garrison. He was not called as a witness." Now, how do the conspiracy theorists treat the VIP Room signature? Both Joan Mellen and James DiEugenio accept Parker's testimony without question. DiEugenio has a claim that doesn't check out at all: (page 306) "The authority that Irvin Dymond first announced in court to dispute that expert finding was New Orleans handwriting analyst Gilbert Fortier. But this was soon changed to longtime former FBI employee Charles Appel." His source is page 348-349 in James Kirkwood's American Grotesque. But, the name Fortier doesn't appear in Kirkwood's book at all. DiEugenio claims he asked Irvin Dymond about the so-called switch and that he replied that "Appel called and volunteered his services." I am not sure he has this right. In fact, Irvin Dymond asked Judge Haggerty to allow Fortier to examine the VIP Room guestbook. He agreed, provided that a representative of the D.A.'s office was present. Neither Joan Mellen nor James DiEugenio mention the Venezuelans and the changing Parker affidavits. Not a word. But they do focus on Alfred Moran, who also signed the guest book (you can see his affidavit further up on this page), and who told the D.A.'s office that Clay Shaw was not there. The night after Moran's statement, he attended a party at which Hunter Leake, who worked for the CIA, also attended. They were friends and they discussed Garrison and his case. Here is a CIA memo regarding that party: Unfortunately Leake was not able to ask Moran more questions. Then this memo was discovered and it made conspiracy theorists go insane: Paragraph 2 above makes some people crazy - wouldn't it be illegal for the CIA to help Clay Shaw? I don't know about the legalities - what I do know is that Clay Shaw's defense team were looking for a lot more support than some private information about Alfred Moran and the VIP Room incident. James DiEugenio believes the CIA then convinced Moran to change his testimony: (page 278) "Houston then told Leake that he should "casually" inquire of Moran along the line that he had suggested: That Shaw had no reason to sign the register as Bertrand and they were two different people. In other words, talk the man out of the story by employing false information. The ploy worked with the pliable Moran. In two weeks Moran admitted to everything he had said to Leake at the party with one exception: He had not seen Shaw at the VIP lounge on that occasion. In other words, with some direction from the Agency, and implementation from Leake and Ray, the witness had reversed himself." What DiEugenio ignores is that Moran's statement to Alcock was one day before the party. He had already told Alcock that he did not see Shaw at the VIP room. Here is the CIA document with the full details of what happened: Nothing about Jessie Parker's statement held up. Don Carpenter sums it up nicely in his book, Man of a Million Fragments : (page 392) "Jessie Parker's testimony remains somewhat of a mystery. However, with the discovery of the conflicting versions of her recollections, the mystery has shifted from why Shaw would sign such a notorious alias in the guest register for no obvious logical reason, to how the prosecution was able to convince, or perhaps pressure, Jessie Parker to say the contradictory things she supposedly said, including her final trial testimony." . Update: Alfred Moran had links to the CIA JM/WAVE station. Update 2: In August 2023, I went back to the National Archives to go through the Garrison papers given to NARA by Harry Connick. I found some additional documents related to the VIP Room. Here is an interview with Cecilia Fagan who worked with Jessie Parker at the VIP Room. She had never seen Clay Shaw at the VIP Room. An interview with Arthur Q. Davis. His signature was right above the Clay Bertrand signature. He knew Clay Shaw but did not see him at the the VIP Room. Note that he was in the VIP in the late afternoon, and Jessie Parker's shift ended in the early afternoon. If the Bertrand signature was real it would have come after her shift. A photograph of the register at the VIP Room showing the Clay Bertrand signature on the bottom. A close-up the signatures. Here is a memo from the files of Edward Wegmann You can see on pages 2 and 2 that Mr. Scoffield that nobody had talked about Clay Shaw being in the VIP Room.

Mark Lane (one the right) with Jim Jones. For those of you who want to learn more about Mark Lane and his involvement with Jonestown, this New York Times article of February 4, 1978 serves as an excellent introduction. This profile of Mark Lane accompanied this article in the New York Times. New York Times, February 4, 1979 Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Mark Lane New York Times Profile of Mark Lane An apt profile. Nightmare Brought to Life An opinion piece by Anthony Lewis in the New York Times  on Mark Lane and Jonestown. Mark Lane, Again An opinion piece from the Washington Post Mark Lane: A Bent for the Macabre Side A good opinion piece from the Philadelphia Bulletin . Sylvia Meagher Corresponds with Philippe Labro Meagher tells Labro a story about Mark Lane. Mark Lane and The Progressive Even a left-wing magazine like The Progressive  found Mark Lane hard to take. Mark Lane on Clay Shaw Mark Lane's addition to the 1992 edition of Rush to Judgment is eye opening. Mark Lane on the Joe Dolan Show Lane tells Dolan about Garrison's amazing evidence. Did the CIA Try to Kill Mark Lane?   Lane makes a startling allegation. Mark Lane: The Left's Leading Hearse-Chaser   A profile from Mother Jones  magazine. Mark Lane vs. Sylvia Meagher   Lane and Meagher feuded about a blurb for her book. The Case Against Mark Lane   A profile from Esquire Magazine . Mark Lane saw a conspiracy - as usual   An article from the Tampa Bay Times . The Mark of Zorro   An Anthony Lewis column on Mark Lane from 1978. Mark Lane's Scholarship!   Howard Roffman finds that Mark Lane's scholarship is lacking. Mark Lane, Conspiracy Addict   A profile of Mark Lane in Newsweek . Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to "Mr. Candy"   Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to a witness that, for $25,000, would tie Jack Ruby with Clay Shaw. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions...   This post has a good case study of how Mark Lane exploited a redaction in a document.

February 4, 1979 Money Quote Seymour Ostrow, his law partner then, said recently that Mr. Lane's reputation was largely an illusion. Their small firm, Mr. Ostrow said, drew its clients from the impoverished neighborhood. But he said Mr. Lane seemed to be "motivated more by his ambition and quest for publicity than any dedication to a cause or concern for the interests of his clients." This profile accompanied a much larger article in the New York Times about Mark Lane and Jonestown. I'll post that separately. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Mark Lane Nightmare Brought to Life An opinion piece by Anthony Lewis in the New York Times on Mark Lane and Jonestown. Mark Lane, Again An opinion piece from the Washington Post Mark Lane: A Bent for the Macabre Side A good opinion piece from the Philadelphia Bulletin . Sylvia Meagher Corresponds with Philippe Labro Meagher tells Labro a story about Mark Lane. Mark Lane and The Progressive Even a left-wing magazine like The Progressive  found Mark Lane hard to take. Mark Lane on Clay Shaw Mark Lane's addition to the 1992 edition of Rush to Judgment is eye opening. Mark Lane on the Joe Dolan Show Lane tells Dolan about Garrison's amazing evidence. Did the CIA Try to Kill Mark Lane?   Lane makes a startling allegation. Mark Lane: The Left's Leading Hearse-Chaser   A profile from Mother Jones  magazine. Mark Lane vs. Sylvia Meagher   Lane and Meagher feuded about a blurb for her book. The Case Against Mark Lane   A profile from Esquire Magazine . Mark Lane saw a conspiracy - as usual   An article from the Tampa Bay Times . The Mark of Zorro   An Anthony Lewis column on Mark Lane from 1978. Mark Lane's Scholarship!   Howard Roffman finds that Mark Lane's scholarship is lacking. Mark Lane, Conspiracy Addict   A profile of Mark Lane in Newsweek . Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to "Mr. Candy"   Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to a witness that, for $25,000, would tie Jack Ruby with Clay Shaw. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions...   This post has a good case study of how Mark Lane exploited a redaction in a document.

New York Times, April 23, 1981 Money Quote: As the disciples murmured and applauded, the visitor said he had traveled in Guyana on a 19th-century train, a relic of colonialism. "And then you come here. And you don't just come up to the 20th century. You're in the future all of a sudden. It's a big move. And either this is the future or there won't be any." It was Mark Lane speaking: The lawyer-promoter who has so relentlessly exploited American assassinations. We have come to know Lane over his years of grisly self-promotion. But it is still something to hear his voice praising Jonestown -- and Jim Jones giggling in the background and saying, "That's so true." Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Mark Lane Mark Lane, Again An opinion piece from the Washington Post Mark Lane: A Bent for the Macabre Side A good opinion piece from the Philadelphia Bulletin. Sylvia Meagher Corresponds with Philippe Labro Meagher tells Labro a story about Mark Lane. Mark Lane and The Progressive Even a left-wing magazine like The Progressive  found Mark Lane hard to take. Mark Lane on Clay Shaw Mark Lane's addition to the 1992 edition of Rush to Judgment is eye opening. Mark Lane on the Joe Dolan Show Lane tells Dolan about Garrison's amazing evidence. Did the CIA Try to Kill Mark Lane?   Lane makes a startling allegation. Mark Lane: The Left's Leading Hearse-Chaser   A profile from Mother Jones  magazine. Mark Lane vs. Sylvia Meagher   Lane and Meagher feuded about a blurb for her book. The Case Against Mark Lane   A profile from Esquire Magazine . Mark Lane saw a conspiracy - as usual   An article from the Tampa Bay Times . The Mark of Zorro   An Anthony Lewis column on Mark Lane from 1978. Mark Lane's Scholarship!   Howard Roffman finds that Mark Lane's scholarship is lacking. Mark Lane, Conspiracy Addict   A profile of Mark Lane in Newsweek . Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to "Mr. Candy"   For $25,000 Mark Lane offers to introduce Jim Garrison to a witness that would tie Jack Ruby with Clay Shaw. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions...   This post has a good case study of how Mark Lane exploited a redaction in a document.

A recent article by Chad Nagle on Jefferson Morley's Substack suggests that Herminio Diaz, an anti-Castro Cuban, was one of the grassy knoll assassins . Of course, Nagle presents absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. When I first saw this post I thought there was something vaguely familiar. And, in fact, this is the second post on Morley's Substack that has mentioned Diaz: I found some of the redacted material on Diaz on the Mary Ferrell website. This time around, Nagle points to an FBI file and wonders why it is redacted: Some of the redactions are available at Mary Ferrell. For instance, take these two pages : This document has these two pages: Perhaps a visit to the National Archives might yield more sections of the document. Of course, Nagle is unhappy that the CIA has not been more forthcoming: Of course, this begs the question, why would anybody think that Diaz's file is an assassination-related record? Because Chad Nagle wants to see it? Because a hearsay rumor claims Diaz was involved? Ok, so what about the story that Diaz was a grassy knoll assassin? Well, the basic story is this: In the summer of 1966 Reinaldo Martinez Gomez was serving time for embezzlement when he met Antonio “Tony” Cuesta del Valle, one of the most violent of the anti-Castro commandos supported by the CIA in its secret war on Cuba. Cuesta had been infiltrating Diaz into Cuba on a mission to assassinate Castro when they were intercepted by Cuban security forces. The ensuing firefight left Cuesta blind and Diaz dead. Martinez, working as an orderly in the prison hospital, took care of the wounded man, and they became friendly. Cuesta told Martinez that Diaz had admitted complicity in the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. This story was told to author Anthony Summers by Martinez in 2007, and then then published in 2013. So what we have here is hearsay. Cuesta told Martinez that Diaz had told him that he was involved in the assassination. Nagle claims that the allegation is "partly corroborated" by diverse sources. He mentions the movie ZR Rifle : In a Cuban-Brazilian TV documentary, “ZR Rifle,” which aired on Nov. 27, 1993, former head and later historian of the Cuban intelligence service Gen. Fabian Escalante fingered Diaz for JFK’s assassination as well. Nagle linked to a Reuters article from November 28, 1993, which included the following paragraphs : But Gen. Fabian Escalante Font, an Interior Ministry official, said Cuban investigations showed that "four to five [gunshots] from various positions" were fired at Kennedy by Leonard Patrick, David Yaras and Richard Gaines, alleged members of Chicago organized crime syndicates, and Cuban exiles Eladio del Valle and Herminio Diaz Garcia. Escalante did not disclose what evidence Cuba had to prove this. Well, that sounds convincing, no? Escalante did actually disclose any evidence. Further, an allegation against Diaz would have had more credibility had all those other suspects not been named. I am reminded of a talk that Paul Hoch once gave in 1993 in Chicago: Anyone who spends time in the FBI files develops his own filters for detecting probable junk. For example, letters from citizens which are typed in all capitals — single spaced, with no margins — or handwritten with about ten words per page. I suspect that a useful measure of the plausibility of an allegation could be derived from the percentage of well-known names. If a source claims to have met with David Ferrie, Allen Dulles, and Fidel Castro in Jack Ruby's nightclub, I'll go on to the next document. Any post-Garrison story with Clay Shaw in it starts with a heavy burden of skepticism to overcome. I now put Roscoe White in the same category. The book ZR Rifle from 1994 has different suspects: (pages 163 - 164) Jack Ruby coordinated the sniper operation? Frank Sturgis was in charge of communications and was responsible for killing Oswald? Here is footnote 84 in case you are curious: The source for the allegation that del Valle and Diaz were assassins? Fabian Escalante: (page 165) Nagle then quote from Escalante's 2006 book, JFK: The Cuba Files : Shortly before his release, years later, Antonio Cuesta … affirmed that Herminio Diaz and Eladio Del Valle were part of the Kennedy assassination operation. According to Cuesta, they arrived in Dallas on November 20, 1963, and subsequently handled large sums of money. He affirmed that he learned this from Herminio Diaz, who had referred to it on one occasion. (“JFK: The Cuba Files,” p. 166) But let's quote directly from Escalante's book : (page 161) I love this quote from the last paragraph: The source assumed that they were connected to the assassination, given that they were united by a visceral hatred of the Kennedy brothers and had been trained as sharpshooters. Apparently, they also handled large sums of money after the crime. And why not bring in David Ferrie and Clay Shaw into the conspiracy: (page 162) The Friends of Democratic Cuba was indeed founded by Guy Banister but only lasted a few months, and it was then disbanded. But why on earth should we believe Fabian Escalante? He had been the head of the Cuban Department of State Security (DSE) and was later a senior official in the Cuban Interior Ministry. He had a vested interest in blaming the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans for the JFK assassination. His book is full of specious allegations, like Veciana linking David Phillips to Oswald, and this claim from above: (page 161) ... Phillips met Veciana in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and threatened to eliminate him if he revealed what he knew of the Kennedy assassination. And have a look at what Escalante says about Eladio del Valle and David Ferrie: (page 163) I have written extensively about Eladio del Valle and the fact that there is no serious evidence linking him to David Ferrie and to the JFK assassination. Was Eladio del Valle David Ferrie's Paymaster?   An examination of rumors about Eladio del Valle emanating from the Garrison investigation. Here are two more blog posts about Eladio del Valle: The Truth about Eladio del Valle Bill Barry, a reporter for the Miami News , who covered the Cuban exile community, said there was nothing to link del Valle to the assassination. Was Eladio del Valle one of the assassins?   An examination of the allegations that Eladio del Valle was one of the assassins. The next piece of corroborating evidence of Diaz being involved in the JFK assassination is Roger Craig. Nagle quotes from Craig's Warren Commission testimony : BELIN: What about the man who was driving the car? CRAIG: Now, he struck me, at first, as being a colored male. He was very dark complected, had real dark short hair, and was wearing a thin white-looking jacket — uh, it looked like the short windbreaker type, you know, because it was real thin and had the collar that came out over the shoulder (indicating with hands) like that — just a short jacket. BELIN: You say that he first struck you that way. Do you now think that he was a Negro? CRAIG: Well, I don’t — I didn’t get a real good look at him. But my first glance at him— I was more interested in the man coming down the hill — but my first glance at him, he struck me as a Negro. To Nagle, this is a huge clue. Although Craig "didn't get a real good look" at the driver, he thought he was "dark complected." That is good enough for Nagle: Was Diaz the “dark complected” man whom Craig saw? Maybe. Maybe not. Nagle's last piece of corroborating evidence is Mrs. Ruby Henderson who saw two men in the Texas School Book Depository, and that one man was "dark complexioned": Henderson told the FBI that one of the men was "possibly a Mexican, but could have been a Negro." She couldn't really describe the second man. She most probably saw two of the three men on the fifth floor of the TSBD, but who knows. How this testimony links Diaz to the assassination is beyond me. So what we have here is hearsay. I decided to go back to Anthony Summers' 2013 book, Not In Your Lifetime , and I found an interesting passage: There is a possible weakness to his [Martinez] account, however, Long before Martinez linked Diaz to President Kennedy's assassination, researchers had heard it from a Castro official. In the 1990s, former Cuban intelligence chief Fabian Escalante informed researchers that Cuesta had told him of Diaz's supposed role in the assassination shortly before his release from prison in 1978. Martinez, moreover, discussed Cuesta's claim with Escalante -- he told the author -- when he revisited Cuba in 2005. Might this whole affair be disinformation effort on the part of Escalante? Perhaps he told Cuesta who then told Martinez. It's amazing that conspiracy theorists do not accept the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald, but they are so quick to point the finger at other people. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley 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 understood as being 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.

My new book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination , has a chapter on Larry Crafard , Jack Ruby's handyman who many conspiracy theorists believed impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald. It's all complete nonsense, and there is not one iota to support the allegation. Of course, there was a resemblance between the two: Photo from an article on James DiEugenio's website. And it is quite possible that some visitors to the Carousel Club mistook Crafard for Oswald. In 2024, DiEugenio published an article by John Washburn on his website that claimed the Warren Commission suspected Crafard was impersonating Oswald: Unpublished WC papers in a dossier now in the Kennedy files show that Warren Commission staff had a suspicion that Laverne “Larry Crafard” was 1 of 4 persons who they suspected might be impersonating Oswald. (Memo from Burt Griffin to staff, March 13, 1964) Here is the document in question : There is nothing in that memo about impersonation. The Warren Commission was simply interested in mistaken identities. Then the article veers into silliness: The purpose of an impersonation in the form of Crafard would be a decoy operation to establish the narrative that the person to be blamed for the assassination of Kennedy, namely Oswald, was a lone gunman who’d escaped without assistance. A duped Oswald would need to be shot, and blamed. Case closed. A decoy operation? Really? James DiEugenio is back at it with two new articles by John Washburn alleging that Crafard impersonated Oswald. The first article discusses the sighting of Oswald on the bus by Mary Bledsoe: What emerges from all this is that the Marsalis Street bus that Oswald was said to have been on for 4 minutes, that bus was singled out for different treatment than other buses.  And also witnesses Mary Bledsoe and Roy Milton Jones described someone better resembling perhaps Larry Crafard, who worked for Jack Ruby, than Lee Oswald. Better resembling Larry Crafard? How so? Although Oswald under arrest an hour later had a black eye from his arrest, his appearance stood up remarkably well to press coverage and questioning at the police department in film and TV footage. His face is only ‘distorted’ at the point Jack Ruby shoots him. It follows that whoever Mary Bledsoe saw on the bus probably wasn’t Oswald. It may have been Crafard. Any facial distortion could be explained by the fact Crafard had no front teeth.  Distorted because Crafard had no front teeth? Does this sound convincing? Washburn's second article goes into more detail on Crafard : If it was Larry Crafard on the Marsalis bus and the purpose of that journey was to give the impression that a lone Lee Oswald was stopping at 1026 N Beckley to pick up a gun, and be witnessed by Earlene Roberts, then the question arises why Earlene Roberts wouldn’t have realised it wasn’t Oswald she saw if it was Oswald who was staying there. Washburn never really answers his own question. He then goes on to quote a Warren Commission document that brings up the Crafard-Oswald resemblance : Washburn complains that the Warren Commission did not further question Whaley. Probably because they realized that their scenario in the Hubert-Griffin memo above was ridiculous and that they were satisfied that Oswald was in Whaley's taxicab. But Washburn is upset: But the glaring omission – particularly in the light of what Mary Bledsoe and Roy Milton Jones said - is that neither Mary Bledsoe, Earlene Roberts nor Mr. & Mrs. Johnson—who owned the Beckley residence-- were shown photographs of Crafard and Oswald to clear up any confusion.  This is because while Crafard might have been mistaken for Oswald at the Carousel Club, there was no evidence that he was impersonating Oswald. Washburn finds the statement of Mary Lawrence alarming : There is even more evidence in the statements of Mary Lawrence, she told the FBI on 5 December 1963 and the DPD on 30 January 1964 that she had seen Oswald with Ruby in the early morning of 22 November in Lucas B&B Downtown Dallas. She came forward having seen a photograph of Oswald on TV. She said that he had dark hair and she could identify Oswald if he had a scar on his cheek. That detail describes Crafard. A few days after the assassination she received an anonymous telephone call “telling her to get out of town or she would die”. Why is this suspicious? Crafard did have coffee with Ruby at the B&B : Washburn then gives us some other examples of Oswald being impersonated including Roger Craig: That evidence that there was an imposter is additional to the evidence of Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig who said he saw a man who he thought was Oswald getting into a Nash Rambler at approximately 12:40pm. He doesn't discuss the credibility of Roger Craig . There is firm evidence that Oswald left the Depository in a bus and then a taxi. Dave Perry has an excellent article on Roger Craig. And then Washburn brings up Butch Burroughs: Then there were the statements by Texas Theater manager Butch Burroughs that Oswald entered the Theater just after 1:00 pm and then bought popcorn, thus 40 minutes before the fugitive Oswald was said to have entered. He quotes a statement by Burroughs to Jim Marrs in 1987. But when Burroughs testified before the Warren Commission, he said he did not know when Oswald entered the theater: and then he said this: Burroughs didn't say anything about selling Oswald popcorn. Washburn then brings up Bernard Haire: The arrest record from Officer Stringfellow said Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater. But Oswald was arrested on the floor and then taken out the front. Adjacent shoe owner Bernard Haire said he had seen Oswald taken out the back entrance and was shocked when years later he saw the photograph of him being taken out the front. The statements by Haire comes from an interview with Jim Marrs some twenty-five years after the assassination. Here is what Marrs writes: (page 344 of the second edition of Crossfire ) On November 22, 1963, Haire, who was unaware of the assassination, saw the street in front of his business fill up with police cars. He went outside and saw a crowd gathered at the Texas Theater but could not see what was happening. Haire was captured at the rear of the crowd in at least one photograph taken when Oswald was brought from the theater by police. So, Haire did not see Oswald being arrested out front. Marrs continues (page 344) Haire walked through his store and went into the alley, which he said was also filled with police cars. Walking toward the theater, Haire was opposite the rear door when police brought out a young white man out. He said the man was dressed in a pull-over shirt and slacks and appeared to be flushed as if having been in a struggle. Although Haire was unable to see if the man was handcuffed, he was certainly under the impression that the man was under arrest. Haire watched police put the man in a patrol car and drive off. Haire might have thought it was Oswald, but it might have just been a witness. Haire didn't see handcuffs and he just assumed the man was under arrest. What would be the purpose of arresting an Oswald impersonator in the back of the theater while Oswald himself was being led away from the front? I will await with bated breath the next installment of Washburn's series on impersonation. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Jim Garrison Names the Grassy Knoll Gunman! Garrison told a journalist that Larry Crafard was a gunman on the grassy knoll. Garrison, White-Collar Demagogue Was Garrison the second Oswald? Did Kerry Thornley Lie About Oswald's Height? Garrison tried to convince the HSCA that Thornley was lying about Oswald's height. Was Thornley the Second Oswald? Yes, Again! Garrison was convinced Thornley was the second Oswald. Was Kerry Thornley the Second Oswald? Garrison sent the HSCA a wacky memo about Thornley. Another Wacky Garrison Investigative Memo - Was Oswald Impersonated? Now here is a really wacky memo.