Layton Martens was questioned before the grand jury on March 29, 1967. He told Garrison that he never saw Clay Shaw and David Ferrie together. A future blog post will examine his testimony. Garrison also asked Martens if he had sexual relations with David Ferrie. Yesterday we posted a memo regarding discussions that Layton Martens had with Perry Russo. Martens was also interviewed by Shaw's lawyers: Russo tells Martens that "he could have been hypnotized and misled into the whole thing. He doesn't really know for sure." Russo says he'd like to sit down and have an opportunity to talk to Clay Shaw. Martens tried to get Russo to tell him why he didn't go the Warren Commission, but "there doesn't seem to be any answer for it." Russo probably realizes it was a mistake to tell Martens about the $25,000 promise. Russo now thinks they might have been talking about Castro at the so-called assassination gathering. Layton Martens never heard of Russo until the Garrison probe and he was quite close to Ferrie. Now Russo admits that he didn't know Ferrie all that well. But perhaps Russo met with Ferrie when Martens was out of town. Russo denies telling Sheridan that he wants out, but then tells Martens that he wants out. The Shaw and Ruby connection relates to a story told by the Reverend Clyde Johnson. Russo tells Martens that Garrison wanted a preliminary hearing "to alleviate Garrison from any responsibility or kickback if it goes against him." That is similar to what Clay Shaw wrote in his journal. The 'air line people' refers to the V.I.P. Room incident. I am not sure what incidents they are talking about in regards to North Louisiana, or the West Coast. Baton Rouge is the Clyde Johnson story mentioned above. It's interesting that Russo says they know the date of the assassination party but don't want to say -- quite possibly because Oswald might not have been in New Orleans. Russo also won't say exactly who was at the party, but does say that Lefty Peterson and Sandra Moffett were there. Russo is one of the last people left at the party and is then involved in a discussion about the assassination of a President. Ridiculous on its face. Russo is convinced he is not a key witness, but "he realizes he's in a tight spot." I find it hard to believe Russo was still selling insurance. I suspect he was getting money from Garrison, but just didn't want to say. You can read more about Emilio Santana here. He is mentioned in Garrison's first memo on propinquity. Previous Relevant Posts on Perry Russo Perry Russo Talks to Layton Martens The Contradictions of Perry Russo's Story Perry Russo's First Lie Detector Test... Lt. Edward O'Donnell Testifies about Perry Russo's Lie Detector Test... Why Did Perry Russo Plead The Fifth? Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part One Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part Two Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part Three Perry Russo Pays a Visit to Shaw's Lawyer...

Here is a memo from 1967, probably written by one of Clay Shaw's attorneys, that you won't find quoted in any conspiracy book. Here is the memo that Martens wrote: And here is a letter that Ed Wegmann wrote to his brother and Irvin Dymond: Perry Russo was conflicted. He was horrified that Garrison's case against Clay Shaw was entirely based on his testimony. He was told that there was a lot of other evidence, but there wasn't. Not one of David Ferrie's friends backed up Perry Russo's story about a party at which an assassination was discussed. Gus Russo wrote, in his book Live By the Sword: (page 411) "Between Morris [Brownlee], Al {Beauboeuf], and Alan [Campbell], one or more of us were at Dave's apartment practically every night that year [1963]. And none of us heard any talk of killing Kennedy, none of us ever saw Clay Shaw, and none of us remember a Perry Russo." Previous Relevant Posts on Perry Russo The Contradictions of Perry Russo's Story Perry Russo's First Lie Detector Test... Lt. Edward O'Donnell Testifies about Perry Russo's Lie Detector Test... Why Did Perry Russo Plead The Fifth? Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part One Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part Two Perry Russo Talks - in Baton Rouge, Part Three Perry Russo Pays a Visit to Shaw's Lawyer...

Leave it to Oliver Stone to side with the dictatorship in Cuba: A full-page ad placed in the New York Times on July 23 by the left-wing Code Pink organization, and signed by numerous left-wing luminaries, was denounced by the Center for a Free Cuba as "siding with the repressive dictatorship of Cuba’s abuses against the people of Cuba." Here is a statement from the Center for a Free Cuba: Center for a Free Cuba. Washington DC. July 23, 2021 - In the ad released today by Code Pink it is siding with the repressive dictatorship of Cuba’s abuses against the people of Cuba. CFC sides with the Cuban people, who have been repressed for six decades by the only political party allowed, the Communist Party. "Left out of the ad is the fact that Cuba has no free or independent trade unions, newspapers, radio or television stations, civic associations, nor does the population have any other avenue to express its disgust with its government than by protesting in the streets," said John Suarez, executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba. The result of six decades of stifling oppression, human rights abuses, and failed communist central planning was the nation-wide uprising of July 11th. It was spontaneous, and Cubans of all races participated. The cry of the tens of thousands across Cuba was for “Libertad” - Liberty! Not “Lift the Embargo.” Last week the Cuban government that Codepink asks President Biden to “Let Live” unleashed a brutal wave of beatings, disappearances of citizens, jailings, and extrajudicial executions that are akin to the worst ever carried out by other totalitarian regimes in the past. The Cuban people know that the scarcities that Codepink falsely attributes to the limited US embargo are the result of 62 years of Marxist-Leninist rule. It is their own government that Cubans asked to be changed, not US policy. Cuba trades with the rest of the world, and the US is one of the largest providers of food to the island. Havana cannot buy more from abroad because the ruling elites have stolen or wasted the money, and price gouge Cubans with the products imported. Many of the signatories are well-known sympathizers of communist dictatorships; in the case of the "former heads of state” they include convicted or indicted former presidents charged with massive corruption and abuse of power. Some of the people who signed: Some of these "prominent activists" include actors Mark Ruffalo, Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, and Danny Glover; the Black Lives Matter Global Network; Oliver Stone, Cornel West, Noam Chomsky, Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Opal Tometi, and the Vermont State Labor Council, AFL-CIO. Jeremy Corbyn, the antisemitic former head of the UK Labour Party, also signed. Documented deaths in Cuba attributed to the regime: Here is part of the ad: You can see the full ad here. The protests in Cuba give this person some hope: "I came to the United States about a decade ago from Cuba, where I was a pro-democracy student activist. The work I did there was mild by American standards; with a few of my friends, I organized small gatherings and collected signatures to submit to the government. But my efforts attracted the notice of the secret police, and I eventually moved to Florida as a political refugee. So it has filled me with hope to see the demonstrations in Cuba the past few days, which would have been unthinkable while I was an organizer there. That hundreds of people are publicly demanding reforms shows how the regime has weakened and the people sense a historic opportunity for change. You can hear it in their rallying cries: “Se acabó! Abajo el comunismo!” It is over, down with communism. Much has been made about recent food shortages on the island and the lack of access to coronavirus vaccines. Certainly, that is fueling some of the current anger. But focusing on those factors ignores the longer arc of change in Cuba. Disillusionment has grown about the communist ideology, not only among Cubans of my generation, but also older Cubans who believed in the revolution 60 years ago. The older generation sacrificed freedoms to achieve a communist utopia, but their efforts ended in misery. For instance, Cubans were promised a world-class health care system, but the result six decades later is dirty hospitals, a lack of medicine and a lack of doctors as Cuban doctors are sent abroad for the state’s profit and propaganda. Other big propaganda programs have also devolved into disaster, such as late dictator Fidel Castro’s touted literacy program. It might still woo the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), a self-described democratic socialist, but it has become a decayed tool of indoctrination. The most significant recent change is communication technology. Cellphone usage, the Internet and social media have enabled Cubans to network and communicate. During the last uprising in 1994, known as the Maleconazo, the regime easily isolated and cracked down on the demonstrations by cutting off the few phone landlines. That prevented most Cubans from learning about the demonstrations until after they were over. This time, footage from spontaneous demonstrations in two towns far away from each other were shared on social media, allowing the rest of the country to learn about them immediately. In contrast with previous demonstrations — such as the Ladies in White (a collective of mothers and wives of political prisoners) and the San Isidro Movement (artists demanding freedom of expression) — these demonstrations have spread beyond their small enclaves and have been made up of tens of thousands of Cubans, despite harsh repression tactics including arbitrary arrests and disappearances. The technology has helped give rise to a robust civil society. Cubans have seen communities crop up around religion, LGBT issues, politics, entrepreneurship and even video games. These associations, harmless in a normal society where people freely pursue common interests, are considered a threat to the communists’ power in Cuba. A growing social media movement of influencers is also challenging the Communist Party’s monopoly on public discourse. While the Cuba Communist Party’s flagship show, “Mesa Redonda,” has since 2009 had more than 4 million views and 32,000 subscribers on YouTube, the “Cubanos por el Mundos” channel, which provides independent news and entertainment, has racked up more than 38 million views and 142,000 subscribers since 2013. A popular YouTuber, Alex Otaola, who is mostly unknown outside of the Spanish-speaking Cuban and Cuban-American social media niche, has used his provocative commentary to push prominent Cuban artists and celebrities to echo his anti-communist message and persuade Cubans to peacefully fight for freedom on the streets. Even if this uprising is crushed, I feel sure these events are the beginning of the end of communist rule in Cuba, because people realized they can demand their freedoms. Even if the regime is able to retain power, it will be forced to make economic reforms and possibly allow more political freedoms. Despite the strong repression, my contacts in Cuba are telling me people are still going to the demonstrations. They are afraid, but they believe this is the end of the dictatorship. They just want to have the support of the free world. The United States can take a leadership role in supporting the demonstrations by applying further sanctions and other measures if the regime resorts to violence to repress the demonstrations. More immediately, the Biden administration should make clear to the Cuban regime that provoking an exodus, like the 1980 Mariel boatlift or the 1994 rafter crisis, will be considered a hostile action and dealt with by putting all options on the table, including military intervention. Many Cuban Americans like me did not vote for President Biden, but we hope he rejects domestic radicals, including the democratic socialists, and fights against our foreign communist enemies. Biden has claimed he has “taken on the Castros and Putins of the world. I let them know: it stops here. It stops with me.” He also recently called communism a “failed system.” This is the time to act. The Biden administration’s message to the Cuban regime should echo the Cuban people’s “Se acabó!” It is over." Here is another good link. "Cuba will be different now. Freedom can be felt in the streets, the people are tired of so many lies, of so many Cubans separated by a political ideology and I am certain that this will be the year that the Cuban people finally get their freedom. Long live free Cuba!" Previous Relevant Blog Posts Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Oliver Stone's Greatest Hits Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone

Steve Derby was one of Perry Russo's closest friends, and when he got into trouble, he knew that Russo could help. Here is an excerpt from an interview with Perry Russo and Clay Shaw's attorneys from March 26, 1971. Ok, so this was one small favor. But wait, there's more. This is from an interview on January 29, 1971: Ok, so it's just a little cheating. But wait, there's more. From the March 26, 1971 interview: A month later on April 16, 1971 Russo was interviewed again: You know, it's good to be the District Attorney.

Oliver Stone heads to Kazakhstan to sing Nazarbayev’s praises... Christian Mamo July 24, 2021 Oliver Stone’s new documentary about Nursultan Nazarbayev aimed to lionise the long-time leader of Kazakhstan, but has instead attracted derision both within Kazakhstan and abroad as a shameless piece of propaganda. The maker of iconic films like Scarface, Platoon and Any Given Sunday is back. However, this time, it’s not a Hollywood blockbuster, but an eight-hour-long documentary entirely about the Republic of Kazakhstan’s first (and essentially only) head of state, Nursultan Nazarbayev. Titled Qazaq: History of the Golden Man, the film premiered on July 6, Nazarbayev’s 81st birthday in the Kazakh capital of Nur-Sultan. The eight-part series is based on extensive interviews conducted by Oliver Stone with Nazarbayev over the past two years. ‘The Man Who Surprised Everyone’ For anyone familiar with Oliver Stone’s non-Hollywood career, this would hardly come as a surprise. The American filmmaker has publicly wholeheartedly expressed his support for certain Kremlin narratives about geopolitics and history. He was critical of the Maidan revolution, which toppled the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych. In late 2014, nearly a year after the revolution, Stone conducted a four-hour interview with Yanukovych, in which he essentially allowed the ousted president to give his side of the events, completely unchallenged. He has also done similarly one-sided interviews with Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian billionaire with close ties to the Kremlin, and, in 2017, with Vladimir Putin himself. As such, for many, it was expected that Stone would go on to make a propagandistic puff piece for another unsavoury character. “It looks like the old man is trying to secure his legacy,” a member of the outlawed Kazakh political party Democratic Choice who preferred to stay anonymous tells Emerging Europe. “I wouldn’t even bother with watching it, from an artistic or even informational perspective. This is naked propaganda.” “Call Nazarbayev what you want — dictator, strongman, tyrant, founder,” Stone wrote on Twitter, “You’ll find him to be a modest man explaining the Soviet empire’s demise and his important country’s transition to an independent nation, including the disposal of its nuclear weaponry.” For many Kazakhs, this reads like a sick joke. Many adjectives are used to describe Nazarbayev, but hardly ever the word “modest”. This is, after all, a man who named his country’s capital city after himself, has statues of himself adorning virtually every major city in the country (including two which were inaugurated this year on his birthday) and granted himself the title of elbasy, meaning “father of the nation.” Even the cinema the documentary was premiered in, like many other things ranging from airports to universities, is named after the Kazakh leader. The title of the film, History of the Golden Man is a direct reference to an ancient Scythian prince buried with 4,000 gold ornaments whose tomb was discovered in 1969 — it isn’t hard to decipher the parallels that Stone and Nazarbayev are attempting to draw here. Nazarbayev is very much cut from the same cloth as the several autocrats who began springing up in the post-Soviet world; however, lacking the over-the-top antics of Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow or the confrontational verve of Aleksandr Lukashenko, he has somewhat flown under the radar. In power since Kazakhstan’s independence, he has ruled with an iron fist, jailing activists, outlawing opposition parties under bogus charges of “extremism”, and, allegedly, siphoning huge amounts of public funds for himself and his inner circle. ‘The Audacity of Democracy’ Although he officially stepped down as president in 2019, he is nevertheless undoubtedly in charge of the country through his official office of elbasy. He maintains a public cult of personality, with his likeness adorning boulevards, offices and train stations. In interviews about the documentary, the director seems nonplussed about the subject’s reputation. “I’m not going to come over and lecture these people about how to run their country and how to run a democracy,” Stone said in an interview with The Guardian. “It [democracy] doesn’t work. Democracy barely works in the US.” From what is publicly available of the documentary (so far, there is only a trailer on YouTube), it appears that this will be the predominant narrative: that western-style liberal democracy has no place in Kazakhstan, that Kazakhs need the guidance of a strong leader. “This is how he legitimises his rule,” Emerging Europe’s interviewee says. “He creates a false dichotomy that Kazakhs can either enjoy slow but stable progress under his rule and his system or fall victim to decadent anarchic western-style democracy. Obviously, this is nonsense — our people are capable of choosing competent, representative leaders for ourselves who can develop our country. But this documentary is an attempt to cement Nazarbayev’s narrative — and I fear people may fall for it, especially with a big name like Oliver Stone validating the documentary.” Here is another good article on Oliver Stone and Kazakhstan: The sad decline of Oliver Stone The filmmaker has sold himself to some of the worst tyrannies on earth Writer-director Oliver Stone is one of the most gifted filmmakers the United States ever produced. In the late 1980s, Stone had a remarkable run, with Salvador, Platoon, Wall Street and Born on the Fourth of July making him one of the most discussed, imitated, and controversial figures in Hollywood. Left-wing but idiosyncratic in his politics, uber-literate and a maximal drug user, for a time Stone was the baby boom generation’s foremost guru. So how deflating to see that Stone is reduced to shilling for Nursultan Nazarbayev, the former President of Kazakhstan. Qazaq: History of the Golden Man is an eight-hour documentary about Nazarbayev and his near three decades long, quasi-monarchical rule of the central Asian state. The film premiered on the autocrat’s 81st birthday — one of several gifts, which also included the unveiling of two new Nazarbayev statues in Kazakh cities. The authorities in Kazakhstan regularly harass, arrest, detain, and send severed dogs’ heads to their critics. Nazarbayev himself is an out of central-casting kleptocrat who sits Smaug-like on an enormous pile of oil wealth. It’s that wealth that has tempted both Kanye West and Tony Blair to work in Kazakhstan over the years. Oliver Stone is not exactly alone in doing some lackey work for Nazarbayev. Even so, History of the Golden Man looks particularly embarrassing, with the trailer splicing sterile shots of Nazarbayev’s face with footage of swooping golden eagles. L’aigle c’est moi! At least Leni Riefenstahl put a bit of effort into the Triumph of the Will. Stone probably just needs the money. “There’s a… mystical aspect to this Golden Man” Stone intones sagely, while Nazarbayev nods. This is both a throwback to the fantastical musings that once made Stone so popular in his home country, and very sad to watch. As a director, Stone had success at an unusually young age. By the time he was in his early forties he’d won every prize going, and seemed to hold the future of American cinema in his hands. For this macho, brawny, unabashedly trigger-happy director, there were few worlds left to conquer. It is notable that his recent memoir Chasing the Light is about the years from his birth to 1986 — before he became a cultural force. It’s as if he can’t bear to remember his real downfall, which arrived ahead of his association with Nazarbayev, or his other hagiographical tributes to strongman leaders like Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin. Stone’s marvellously paranoid thriller JFK was released in 1991. Initially acclaimed, Stone’s liberties with the historical record (the film implies that Lyndon Johnson plotted Kennedy’s assassination) soon attracted heavyweight criticism from America’s prestige press and Hollywood power-brokers. “A man of technical skill, scant education, and negligible consequence,” was how the Washington Post‘s George Will described the director at the time. Stone was denounced as a conspiracy theorist, cancelled, and would never regain his position at the centre of American culture. But there were good reasons why Stone’s education was scant. Unlike Will, who’d spent the sixties studying at Oxford, Stone dropped out of Yale to enlist as a private in the Army. He was wounded twice in Vietnam. This vital fact, I think, gives him some leeway as a skin-in-the-game critic of American foreign policy. He was there man. For decades he’s had to scramble and stoop in the margins to make his living, largely for political reasons. In the end, as bleak as this journey has been, it means Stone has become a much greater entertainment than the movies he makes. Previous Relevant Posts on Oliver Stone Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Oliver Stone's Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone

Niles "Lefty" Peterson was a close friend of Perry Russo's. Russo told Andrew Sciambra that Lefty Peterson, and others, would be able to identify Lee Harvey Oswald as David Ferrie's roommate. Here are two excerpts from Andrew Sciambra's infamous memo of February 27, 1967: The 'Sciambra memorandum' was infamous because it did not mention anything about a party at David Ferrie's apartment where Oswald, Clay Bertrand and Ferrie discussed the assassination. None of the people mentioned in the memo recognized Oswald as David Ferrie's roommate. A future blog post will examine Perry Russo's other friends. When Russo was hypnotized in New Orleans, he said that Lefty Peterson was at the party with Clay Bertrand, David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald. Here are a few excerpts from Russo's third hypnosis session from March 12, 1967: So, Russo and his friend Lefty Peterson picked up Sandra Moffett and went to David Ferrie's house. And everybody is already there, including Clem Bertrand. While Sandra Moffett and Lefty Peterson were there, the conversation turned to President Kennedy. Russo believed this made an impression on Peterson because he claims Peterson "said that everybody's nuts." Some people left the party but Lefty Peterson stayed and, according to Russo, was there with Clem Bertrand, Leon Oswald, David Ferrie, and Sandra Moffett. This made Sandra Moffett and Lefty Peterson people of extreme interest to Garrison. You can learn more about Sandra Moffett here. A few days later, Russo testified at the preliminary hearing and once again said that Lefty Peterson was at the party: Peterson didn't just pop in, he stayed a couple of hours: After the preliminary hearing, one of Perry Russo's friends, Nelson Wayne Thomas, was interviewed by investigators working for Clay Shaw. Here are some excerpts of their report: There was a party at David Ferrie's but the only person Peterson could identify was David Ferrie. I doubt the coroner was there, he was probably thinking of Dr. Esmond Fatter, who was the person who hypnotized people. None of Perry Russo's friends had ever heard him talk about Clay Bertrand or Clay Shaw. Peterson was hypnotized. There are no records in the Garrison papers about him being hypnotized. Not a bad question. Lefty Peterson was also interviewed by investigators working for Clay Shaw: Peterson said that he did go to a party at David Ferrie's apartment, but that he only stayed there for a brief period. He did not see Clay Shaw or Lee Harvey Oswald at the party. Note that he did see Ferrie's roommate who had a beard which was consistent with what Perry Russo had said. The big difference is that Peterson did not believe this person was Oswald. Peterson was interviewed again in May, 1967: The timing of the party is interesting. If the party was October 4th, then Oswald definitely could not have been there since he had already left New Orleans for Dallas, with a brief interlude in Mexico City. Perry Russo testified that he went to the party after playing basketball at Tulane. Peterson says that they tried to hypnotize him but that it didn't work. Peterson just didn't have what it takes to be a Garrison witness. On June 19, 1967 NBC aired "The JFK Conspiracy: The Case of Jim Garrison," which included an interview with Lefty Peterson: (Peterson starts on PDF p 19, transcript p. 14) McGee: Did you ever know a man named David Ferrie? Peterson: Yes I did. McGee: And how did you meet Ferrie? Peterson: I met him at Perry's house. McGee: Did you ever see David Ferrie at any other time? Peterson: I seen him twice, since then, since then. I seen him once on the Louisiana Parkway. I went to his house with Perry and some other people. About 4 of us stopped in. We stayed about 20/25 minutes then we left. McGee: All of you left? Peterson: No. Perry stayed there I think. He didn't leave. McGee: When was this? Peterson: September, 1963. McGee: Describe that occurrence. Peterson: We was comin' from some kind of sports event - football game I think. McGee: Do you remember who played? Peterson: No sir. McGee: Was that the Tulane game? Peterson: Yessir, Tulane, yessir. McGee: You're pretty sure it was a football game though? Peterson: Positively. McGee: What makes you think it was in September? Peterson: Well, it was the first game of the season. The first or second game of the season. One of the two. Tulane played two home games that year; one on October 4th and one on September 20th. Both dates are problematic for the Russo story in that Oswald was not in New Orleans on October 4th, and Ruth Paine was in New Orleans assisting with moving Marina Oswald to Dallas on the weekend of September 20th. Investigators for Shaw interviewed Ken Carter in March, 1967 and he did confirm that he went to a football game with the gang: This would seem to rule out Oswald. At the trial, Perry Russo would not testify that Peterson was at the party: Yes, Perry Russo only said that Peterson was at the party because Irvin Dymond forced him to: Russo could not be definitive on who went to the party: Lefty Peterson was on a list of potential witnesses for Clay Shaw. There is a question mark next to his name, perhaps they weren't sure if he would testify. On March 26, 1971 Perry Russo sat down for an interview with William Gurvich and Clay Shaw's attorneys. He said that before the preliminary hearing he was told not to say who was at the party: And here is an interesting excerpt from the preliminary hearing: There were ten people who went to the party, but Russo would not say who they were. Here is what he had to say about Lefty Peterson: So Sciambra told Russo they would get Peterson a police job if he would just go along with Russo's story. Fortunately, Lefty Peterson was no Perry Russo, and he wasn't up to the task. How do conspiracy books deal with Lefty Peterson? Jim Garrison doesn't mention him at all. James DiEugenio, in his book Destiny Betrayed, writes: (page 217) "Russo said he had known Ferrie fairly well and had attended a gathering at Ferrie's apartment in mid-September of 1963. He revealed that, late in the evening, after most had left, he, Ferrie, two of Ferrie's friends, and several Cuban exiles remained. Russo had brought two friends to Ferrie's that night, Sandra Moffett and Niles Peterson. Both left early, but Peterson later remembered a man named Leon Oswald." DiEugenio's footnote regarding Peterson refers to Richard Popkin's article, "Garrison's Case," in the New York Review of Books, page 25. Here is the excerpt in question: DiEugenio totally misquoted Popkin. Popkin only noted that Peterson saw a roommate of Ferrie's who had a beard, as did Russo. But Peterson never identified Lee Harvey Oswald as being that roommate. Later on in his book, DiEugenio makes the following claim: (page 248) "Niles Peterson, who was a friend of Russo's and briefly attended the gathering, told William Davy and Peter Vea that there was a Leon Oswald there. This author believes that it was this man -- not Lee Harvey Oswald -- who was at Ferrie's the night of the gathering described by Russo." The footnote indicates that the interview of Peterson took place in 1994. Yet William Davy's book, Let Justice Be Done, published in 1999, doesn't mention Lefty Peterson at all, except to list him as a person that was interviewed. I don't know what Peterson actually told Davy and Vea, but in 1967 he consistently said that Oswald was not at the party, and he never said anything about a "Leon Oswald." DiEugenio actually believes that the fake Oswald was at David Ferrie's apartment. Joan Mellen only mentions Peterson twice, noting that: (page 114) "For Richard Billings, who continued his own investigation, Russo's friends Ken Carter, Niles Peterson and Ted and Jerry Kirschenstein corroborated that Oswald had been the bearded "roommate" at Ferrie's." There is no footnote for this claim. Lefty Peterson is yet another inconvenient witness for conspiracy theorists. Perry Russo claimed that Peterson was at the party for a couple of hours. Peterson says he wasn't. He also didn't see Clay Shaw or Lee Harvey Oswald at the party. And, if he is correct about the date of the party, it occurred when Oswald was either in Dallas or with Marina and Ruth Paine at home.

About two weeks ago I received a very nice email from Teemu Saarenpää in Finland who was reading my book, On the Trail of Delusion - Jim Garrison: The Great Accuser. Here is Teemu's review of my book from Goodreads: Teemu interviewed me for ForenSeek. From that interview, something non-JFK related: Your top 3 albums? As you might know, I am blues fan, and I am the founder and owner of NorthernBlues Music, a cutting-edge blues label. Here are my 3 favorite albums of all time: – Albert King, Blues Power: A live tour de force. I never get tired of Albert King and this album captures his electric energy. – The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, Will the Circle Be Unbroken: This was a triple album in its day, and the NGDB brought in the best stars from country music. The results of the collaboration is terrific. Add fantastic sound quality, and you have a must-have album. – Watermelon Slim, The Wheel Man: This is one of my artists. Watermelon Slim is a Vietnam war veteran who plays lap slide guitar and harmonica. His original lyrics are amazing, and this album won Album of the Year at the Blues Music Awards in 2008. Your top 3 films? – Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Charade is a musical comedy thriller, and it succeeds on all three genres. The dialogue is amazing, the story is terrific, and the chemistry between Grant and Hepburn is something to behold. – Winter Kills with a star-studded cast including Elizabeth Taylor. This film is a fictional account of the JFK assassination, and just check out the stars. A really fun story that takes conspiracy to a whole new level. – Cabaret with Liza Minelli. I never get tired of this film. The music is great, and the story is important and meaningful. The scenes in the club are amazing, and Peter York is scrumptious. Your top 3 books? – George Orwell, 1984: I read this when I was twelve. One of the most important books ever written. – The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck: Amazing history and an excellent story. I was really moved by the book, and it reinforced my then belief in socialism. – The Destruction of the European Jews, by Raul Hilberg: In my teens, I avoided books about the holocaust. I wanted to look forward. But I finally read Hilberg’s book, and it really opened my eyes to what happened in the Holocaust.

Rosemary James was the reporter who broke the story about Jim Garrison's investigation into the JFK assassination for the New Orleans States-Item. She then went on to work for WWL-TV. This review is from the July 11, 1999 edition of the New Orleans Times-Picayune. My favorite part of the review is Rosemary James' description of Garrisons' book: "Still not content, Garrison sat down at his typewriter and concocted the biggest lie of all, his book, "On the Trail of the Assassins," once again defaming Clay Shaw. To give the devil his due, the book was well written, a fast-moving, exciting piece of cold war spy genre fiction, and it produced a lot of money for the DA in book sales, and a movie contract. Oliver Stone, as gullible as they get in La-La Land, swallowed Garrison's tale hook, line and sinker, and spent millions regurgitating it on film. With "JFK," Stone became another False Witness, distorting history and justifying his film on the basis of artistic license, giving Garrison the image of a God-fearing family man and caped crusader and using the same smear tactics as Garrison to destroy the image of an innocent man no longer able to defend himself." I strongly recommend that everybody read Patricia Lambert's False Witness, one of the finest books out there on the Garrison investigation Click here to purchase False Witness. Check out this blog post about reactions by Rosemary James and Pershing Gervais to Oliver Stone's JFK..

Historian Alecia Long has written an excellent blog post on the role of photographs in Garrison's investigation. "The three men pictured in the photo above are (from left) Lester Otillio, a policeman assigned to the D.A.’s office as an investigator, James Alcock, the ADA who would argue most of the state's case against Clay Shaw at his 1969 trial, and John Volz, also an ADA who eventually became a prominent federal prosecutor." "One thing that’s very clear in NOPD annual reports is that, as the 1960s got underway, arrests of men who were gay or were cruising for sex with other men rose precipitously. One result is that many had their names and addresses printed in the newspaper. And, while charges were often dropped (an issue I explore in the book) many were processed and had mug shots taken and rap sheets created. Even if they were quickly released, police and investigators in the local District Attorney’s office had a very rich trove of photographs of gay men on which to draw." You can see some of the mug shots in Alecia's blog post. Alecia Long's book, Cruising for Conspirators: How a New Orleans DA Prosecuted the Kennedy Assassination as a Sex Crime, will be released in mid-September. I've got my copy on order. Please order your own copy. This is a very important book, and deserves to be in your library.

Sandra Moffett [born Lillie Mae Moffett] hung out with Perry Russo in New Orleans in the 1960s. She considered herself to be his girlfriend, but his interest was more in having her lure young men to Russo's apartment so they could be photographed or filmed. When Russo was hypnotized in New Orleans, he said that Sandra Moffett was at the party with Clay Bertrand, David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald. Here are a few excerpts from Russo's third hypnosis session from March 12, 1967: So, Russo and his friend Lefty Peterson picked up Sandra Moffett and went to David Ferrie's house. And everybody is already there, including Clem Bertrand. While Sandra Moffett and Lefty Peterson were there, the conversation turned to President Kennedy. Russo believed this made an impression on Peterson because he claims Peterson "said that everybody's nuts." Some people left the party but Sandra Moffett stayed and, according to Russo, was there with Clem Bertrand, Leon Oswald, David Ferrie, and Lefty Peterson. One other person even tried to "put the make" on Moffett. This made Sandra Moffett and Lefty Peterson people of extreme interest to Garrison [a future post will look at Lefty Peterson]. But, first, they had to find Moffett. She had gotten married to a truck driver and part-time minister and had made a new life for herself in Omaha, Nebraska. She was now going by her legal name Lillie Mae and her married surname McMaines. Garrison sent two policemen to Omaha to try and convince her to return to New Orleans for questioning. They arrived at 10 P. M. and urged her to come to New Orleans. The next day Mr. and Mrs. McMaines went to the office of the County Attorney, Donald Knowles. The two officers came by for a discussion. Mr. McMaines consulted a lawyer who told them that they should not voluntarily leave Omaha. They left the meeting and were followed by the two policemen. At 11 P. M. they returned to the McMaines' apartment, but the couple had left with all of their belongings. Knowles then told the detectives the next day that the McMaines had a lawyer, Richard Duskin, and they all huddled in a meeting. He offered to have Lillie Mae questioned in Omaha. The McMaines were scared that they would not be allowed to leave New Orleans if they went back for questioning. Here is a memo that the two detectives wrote to Louis Ivon: A few days later, Russo testified at the preliminary hearing and once again said that Sandra Moffett was at the party: Russo had no issue with Dymond's question: Moffett didn't just pop in, she stayed a couple of hours. So did Lefty Peterson. The publicity from the preliminary hearing cause Mr. McMaines to lose his job as a truck driver. Lillie Mae McMaines also lost two jobs but did eventually find work in a cleaning company. Here is a story from the Omaha World-Herald from March 24, 1967: Some comments about the article: - Lillian McMaines had a child with Perry Russo in New Orleans, and the child was now living with her parents. When Russo found out she was pregnant, he told her to "get rid of it." - She saw Perry Russo as "the big bully type." - She was a party girl in New Orleans. - The first time Lillian McMaines met David Ferrie was in 1965. - In 1965, Perry Russo attempted suicide. - Ms. McMaines never saw Lee Harvey Oswald, or Clay Bertrand. - Ms. McMaines said that Russo mentioned here because "He probably thought 'good old Sandy; she'll stand up for me 'cause she loves me.'" - Mr. McMaines said he lost his job because of the publicity from the case. Jim Garrison then filed a warrant for the arrest of Lillie Mae McMaines. Bond was set at $5,000: Lillie McMaines told the World-Herald that "she fears things in her past will be made public which are not relevant to Mr. Garrison's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy." She added that she "would like to forget her New Orleans days." Who can blame her? She knew that her private life would be ripped apart in New Orleans, let alone the possibility of being charged in the probe. Detectives working for Clay Shaw's attorneys interviewed many friends of Perry Russo and they found many examples of Russo pimping out Moffett as a prostitute, or using her to lure boys to be photographed or filmed, while having sex with her. I have decided to leave their statements out of this blog. Perry Russo was a pretty horrible person. By the way, it's interesting that not one friend of Perry Russo ever remembered him talking about Clay or Clem Bertrand, Leon Oswald, or about the party where the assassination of Kennedy was discussed. I can clearly understand why Lillie McMaines wanted to just get on with her new life. Testifying in secret before the grand jury would have given a lot of material for Garrison to blackmail McMaines. Garrison's investigators were even looking into her child: They actually bothered Mrs. McMaines' father. He asked them not to get in touch with his daughter, 'as it would cause her too much mental anguish." He is the birth certificate of the child: Garrison went to court in New Orleans to get an order for the extradition of Lillian McMaines, and she was arrested in Omaha: New Orleans States-Item, April 10, 1967 Lillie Mae was released on $1,000 bond. Fortunately, a court in Omaha ruled against extradition. McMaines had moved to Iowa which did not have an agreement on extradition. I have to laugh that they used the conspiracy theory of "mysterious deaths" to help get the court to rule in her favor. New Orleans States-Item, April 25, 1967 In June 1967, Lillie McMaines' lawyer Lex Hawkins had her take a polygraph examination. She repeated her story about David Ferrie: She also gave her opinion why Perry Russo was telling his story about a conspiracy party: Lillie McMaines passed her lie detector test: Interestingly, the polygraph examiner, Leonard Harrelson, informed the FBI that Perry Russo had failed a polygraph test in New Orleans. He had heard this from the examiner, Edward O'Donnell. See the last two pages of the above document. You can read more about Perry Russo's lie detector test here. Lillie McMaines' lawyer then wrote both Jim Garrison and Clay Shaw's attorneys, offering them an opportunity to depose her in Des Moines. Edward Wegmann replied: Unfortunately, Judge Haggerty would not allow them to take Lillie McMaines' deposition. Having lost in court, Wegmann then sent another letter to McMaines' lawyer: Lillie McMaines' deposition was finally taken on June 24, 1968. Here is a transcript. Only one side showed up: Once again, Ms. McMaines denied being at the party with Perry Russo: McMaines picked up her baby from the Infirmary on September 20th and then moved to Mobile, Alabama to live with her current boyfriend. She only met David Ferrie in 1965: She never met Clay Shaw: Perry Russo never mentioned any of the names brought up in the Garrison investigation: Her description of their encounter with the men from Garrison's office was harrowing: Needless to say, Clay Shaw's defense was anxious for Lillie McMaines to come to New Orleans as a witness in his trial. However, she was scared: The only way she would go to New Orleans was with an offer of immunity, and a motion was heard on the first day of the Clay Shaw trial: The court then heard from James Alcock, Garrison's second-in-command: The court ruled against Shaw's attorneys and Lillie McMaines did not testify in the Shaw trial. At the trial, Perry Russo would not testify that Moffett was at the party: Yes, Perry Russo only said that Moffett was at the party because Irvin Dymond forced him to: So, how do the conspiracy books treat Sandra Moffett McMaines? Jim Garrison, in On the Trail of the Assassins, said that Sandra Moffett was at the party, but only "for a while." (page 152) He then complains about the lack of cooperation from other states in extraditing witnesses: (page 181) "This was the first time our office had ever failed in an extradition case, but unfortunately, as we continued to investigate the J.F.K. assassination, it would not be the last. Most of the extraditions I sought in this case were blocked as if a giant foot had stepped on my office. These included an attempt to extradite from Nebraska Perry Russo's ex-girl-friend Sandra Moffett, who had been at the party at David Ferrie's about which Russo had testified." Not one word about her consistent denial that she was ever at the party; and the fact that no one from his office showed up at her deposition. Not one word about Russo's changing testimony. Had he agreed with a protective order from the court, she could have testified. But her testimony would have been most unwelcome. James DiEugenio, in his book Destiny Betrayed, also says that Moffett was at the party but "both [Lefty Peterson as well] left early." (page 218) The only other mention of Moffett in his book relates to Garrison's extradition attempt. Not one word about her deposition, her denial of being at the party, and that fact that Russo had never mentioned to her the names of Oswald, Bertrand, or any other of the principals in the case. He ignores what Russo said about Moffett during hypnosis or in the preliminary hearing - that she was there for quite a bit of the party. Bill Davy, in his book Let Justice Be Done, doesn't mention Moffett at all. Joan Mellen is much the same in her book, And Justice For All, except that she does say, but only in a footnote, that Moffett "had met Ferrie only in 1965 ... so she could not have attended the party described by Russo." (page 529) Lille Mae McMaines deserves more than a footnote.

Oliver Stone derided for film about ‘modest’ former Kazakh president I'd rather stick knitting needles into my eyes than watch an eight-hour documentary on Nazarbayev. Eight-hour series about Nursultan Nazarbayev criticised for stoking cult of personality of 30-year ruler Andrew Roth in Moscow Sun 11 Jul 2021 10.13 BST Oliver Stone has interviewed Kazakhstan’s former president Nursultan Nazarbayev for a new eight-hour film series which has been attacked as a hagiography that contributes to the leader’s cult of personality. In the film, Qazaq: History of the Golden Man, Stone employs the same non-confrontational approach to interviewing autocrats that has made him a favourite of Vladimir Putin, Ukraine’s former president Viktor Yanukovych and others seeking to polish their reputations by sitting down with the Oscar-winning director of Platoon and JFK. “Call #Nazarbayev what you want – dictator, strongman, tyrant, founder,” Stone tweeted about his film. “You’ll find him to be a modest man explaining the #Soviet empire’s demise and his important country’s transition to an independent nation, including its disposal of its nuclear weaponry.” Modest is not a word often used to describe Nazarbayev, 81, who ruled Kazakhstan for three decades. He won elections in 2015 with 97.5% of the vote and has adopted the name elbasy, or father of the nation, and the capital city, airport, main university and high streets have been named after him. Two new statues of him have been unveiled in the past week alone. The film “is obviously part of his ongoing cult of personality”, said Joanna Lillis, a veteran reporter on the country and the author of Dark Shadows: Inside the Secret World of Kazakhstan. She noted similar efforts, such as a six-part biopic of Nazarbayev produced in Kazakhstan. “It can only be described as propaganda … this one though is obviously directed at a foreign audience to burnish his reputation and his legacy.” In a telephone interview from Nur-Sultan, the Kazakhstan capital renamed after Nazarbayev, Stone rejected questions about whether his film would be used as propaganda and whether he should have pressed Nazarbayev harder on his cult of personality. “I’m not going to come over and lecture these people about how to run their country and how to run a democracy,” said Stone, adding that he viewed Nazarbayev as something of a “tribal chief” managing a difficult country. “It doesn’t work. Democracy barely works in the US.” The film follows a series of documentary projects featuring Stone about Russia and Ukraine that reflect a strongly pro-Kremlin worldview, including glowing interviews with Putin and former Ukrainian officials such as Yanukovych and Viktor Medvedchuk, a confidante of the Russian president. Stone has noted that the films, which are strongly critical of the 2014 Euromaidan revolution and have been attacked as propaganda vehicles, are very popular in Russia. “What’s wrong with celebrating Nazarbayev for 30 years in office,” he said when asked if he was concerned the film would be used as propaganda. “Give him credit for building up the country and keeping the peace and not turning it into a trash heap like Ukraine.” With the new film, Stone has confirmed his credentials as a go-to western interviewer for current and former strongmen hoping to avoid prickly questions about democracy, and who prefer to discuss their historical and geopolitical missions in broad strokes. Stone “sounds a lot like the people managing the ideology in Kazakhstan,” said Vyacheslav Abramov, the founder of the independent Vlast.kz news site. “Nazarbayev of course has had successes, but Stone quite ably ignores what might be called the mistakes or problems that have arisen during his 30 years in power. “Of course Stone didn’t want to make an honest film about Kazakhstan. That wasn’t his goal, his desire. He’s a common, and I think, disgraceful, propagandist. At least, that is what he has turned into.” How much did Oliver Stone get paid to do this ridiculous film? Why else would anybody made an eight-hour documentary about such a human-rights violator? Here is an excerpt from the U.S. State Department's report on Kazakhstan: "Significant human rights issues included: unlawful or arbitrary killing by or on behalf of the government; torture by and on behalf of the government; political prisoners; problems with the independence of the judiciary; restrictions on free expression, the press, and the internet; interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; restrictions on political participation; corruption; trafficking in persons; and restrictions on workers’ freedom of association." A Kazakhstani filmmaker was not impressed: Assel Aushakimova is an independent Kazakhstani filmmaker based in Almaty. Her first feature film, WELCOME TO THE USA premiered last year — but only after she had funded production from her own savings. In an op-ed for The Calvert Journal, she explains how Oliver Stone’s most recent documentary, Qazaq: History of the Golden Man is just one part of a wider campaign to turn cinema into state propaganda — and how the move hurts both artists and activists. 15 July 2021 Text: Assel Aushakimova On 6 July, Kazakhstan celebrated an official state holiday: Capital City Day. The country’s capital has been renamed several times in its 190-year history, most recently in 2019, when it was transformed from Astana to Nur-Sultan. The change honoured one man: Kazakhstan’s former president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who ruled the country from 1990 to 2019. Capital City Day also just happens to coincide with Nazarbayev’s birthday. All Kazakhstanis know which event we are really celebrating. It is customary for city authorities to mark this day with pomp and ceremony. Even last year, when hospitals were struggling to cope with a second wave of the coronavirus, and pharmacies faced drug shortages, a large firework display was organised in the capital. The event caused so much indignation among ordinary Kazakhstanis that this year there were no fireworks. Instead, the country unveiled two new monuments to the former president, while the politician himself received a very special birthday gift: a new, eight-hour Nazarbayev documentary, produced by US filmmaker Oliver Stone, and directed by Igor Lopatenok. Named Qazaq: History of the Golden Man, the title references an ancient warrior figure found in Kazakhstan by archaeologists in 1969. It is not officially known how much this “gift” cost, or at whose expense it was made, although many speculate that it was financed either by officials or business interests close to the state. Found wearing armour wrought from precious metals, The Golden Man has become a symbol around which the Kazakh government has built its own identity. But the name is also intended to flatter Nazarbayev, whom the film almost exclusively focuses on — a new eternal figure to inspire the nation. The production company behind the documentary has kept its budget secret. But as an independent filmmaker in Kazakhstan, it is heartrending to see lavish sums spent on such films while my colleagues spend years hunting for the comparatively meagre funds they need to bring their works to life. The public system for financing films in Kazakhstan has never been transparent. In 2019, the State Film Fund was founded, taking over the job of bankrolling movie production. In that time, the fund’s top management had already been changed twice: 2020 saw the organisation rocked by numerous corruption scandals, while directors in 2021 haven’t even had a chance yet to pitch for funds. I am among those who applied for the 2021 cycle, but I am afraid I won’t be selected even to pitch (not due to excessive demands — the entire budget for my project is less than the scriptwriters’ fee for one of the films previously financed by the fund.) Qazaq: History of the Golden Man has only shown once again that the Kazakhstani government has its own agenda for filmmaking. The country already has its own “Nazarbayev universe” of biopic films about its former leader. Across six separate films, we follow Nazarbayev from birth to his “rightful place” at the head of the nation. At each step, we are shown Nazarbayev’s importance for the whole of Kazakhstan. Again, the budgets for each film (error in original) has not been made public, but all are state funded. The saga has seen several directors, one of whom now heads the country’s own state film studio. All of this is done with a set programme in mind. If you look at Kazakhstani movie posters from the last three or four years, you will see that many bear the emblem of a flying eagle and the inscription “Rukhani Zhangyru”, or “modernisation of public consciousness”. This is an official programme based on an article by Nazarbayev and aimed at reviving the “spiritual values” of Kazakhstanis. Our authorities believe that the people of the country simply need an official ideology, as in the days of the Soviet Union. All publicly financed films must comply with this programme. Generally, they are patriotic and propagandistic, with movies about athletes, historical figures, or the Second World War given priority. In this environment, private investors are only happy to finance comedies, which generally screen at local cinemas. They are not used to fund films that raise complex topics, rarely seen on Kazakhstani screens. It goes without saying that difficult struggles such as LGBTQ+ rights, or diversity, or satire, are certainly not seen as desirable spiritual values by the Kazakhstani government. It means that our country is losing out. Kazakhstani audiences deserve more complex, challenging films: they are tired of the propaganda that lacks diverse, real and complex characters. All of this pushes viewers to watch foreign films instead, where they can escape official ideology imposed by the authorities. But in doing so, Kazakhstani audiences miss seeing themselves on screen: their joys, their challenges, their desires. Kazakhstan is far more than just one person, even if that person ruled the country for three decades. All of the country deserves to take its place on the big screen. This year, I saw the applause for Oliver Stone at Cannes in a very different light. And I, like many other independent filmmakers, will continue to look for any opportunities to put the real Kazakhstan on screen. Oliver Stone's Greatest Hits Oliver Stone's Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez Is the director's latest film soft on Castro? Oliver Stone defends himself After Calling Russian Anti-LGBTQ Law ‘Sensible’ Hollywood Movie Director Oliver Stone praises Putin for Syria intervention on trip to Saudi Arabia Oliver Stone: Jewish Control of the Media is Preventing Free Holocaust Debate Oliver Stone's Latest Dictator Suckup Oliver Stone’s Latest Piece of Pro-Putin Propaganda May Be His Most Shameless Move Yet ‘The Putin Interviews’: Oliver Stone’s Wildly Irresponsible Love Letter to Vladimir Putin Has Oliver Stone Ever met a Dictator He Doesn't Admire? Oliver Stone's 'Empathy' for Hitler Iran's Fajr Film Festival grabs headlines with Oliver Stone

My series on Fletcher Prouty's interview with the ARRB consists of eight posts, and there is more to come. As you can see, Prouty was unable to corroborate any of the many allegations he made in his books and articles. Here is the overall ARRB conclusion about his testimony: "Fletcher Prouty was where he says he was during the period from 1955-1964. His position can be documented. Beyond documents verifying his position, however, the ARRB is unlikely to add to the record by following Prouty's allegations or statements. His statements, coming from someone who was verifiably in a position to know, sound plausible, and would appear to carry the credibility of an insider's knowledge. Under more careful analysis, it becomes clear that: a.) Prouty has no first hand knowledge of any activities involving Lee Harvey Oswald, a plot to assassinate the president, or any evidence of such a plot. b.) Prouty's allegations, while sounding authoritative, are based primarily on his interpretation of events. Furthermore, upon questioning, it seems clear that many of Prouty's allegations are not based on interpretations of actual events, but merely his feelings or general beliefs. Any follow-up action on his allegations would be an ineffectual use of ARRB time and resources. c.) Prouty, in his published work, makes allegations which point clearly to a high level conspiracy. Given the opportunity to document these allegations or in some other fashion uncover the truth, however, Prouty declined to do so, and often retreated from or contradicted his published claims. Two things should be emphasized: that this rejection of Prouty does not reflect a rejection or confirmation of any other conspiracy theories; and that the ARRB did not seek out Prouty for the purpose of discrediting him or theories. We had intended on hearing his story and trying to obtain suggestions from Prouty as to where we could find documents to add to the collection. In the face of numerous contradictions, unsupportable allegations, and assertions which we know to be incorrect, we have no choice but to conclude that there is nothing to be gained or added to the record from following up on anything he told us. No evidence was offered to substantiate any of the allegations Prouty has either published in the past or raised during the interview." I mentioned this ARRB document in my book, On the Trail of Delusion - Jim Garrison: The Great Accuser. James DiEugenio, in his critique of my book, discussed the ARRB interview with Prouty: "Which brings us to the ARRB appearance that Litwin likes to use against the man. Prouty understood from the first couple of questions what the agenda was. So he decided to play along and give them what they wanted. He then called Len [Osanic] and informed him about it." Let's have a look at "the first couple of questions." Here is the letter that the ARRB sent Prouty: And, here are the first five pages of the ARRB interview: All of the questions were friendly and routine. And Prouty is extremely talkative, no? The substantive questions start on page six and Prouty seems to be responding fully, without confusion. I encourage everybody to read the transcript for themselves, to see that the questioning was quite mild. On page eleven, Wray brings up Lansdale and Prouty talks at length. On page thirteen, Prouty pulls out a replica of the Christchurch newspaper. You can see how freely Prouty is talking on pages seventeen and eighteen. The point is very clear. The actual transcript does not support DiEugenio's claim that there was an agenda. DiEugenio went further on Facebook about the ARRB interview: So, let me get this straight - Prouty "played the ARRB" by pretending to be a doddering fabulist? This is 4D chess, right? DiEugenio had very little to say about my post on William McKinney, a reporter from Erie, Pennsylvania who called Prouty in the 1970s. Here is DiEugenio's reply to my post on Facebook: So, when did Prouty first write about the phone call from McKinney? The only reference, besides his books, was his article "The Guns of Dallas" in the October 1975 issue of Gallery Magazine. Here is the page from the article that mentions McKinney: It is most likely that McKinney's recollection of the date was a few years off. Remember his ARRB interview was in 1997, more than twenty years after the phone call. The call probably happened at some point between 1972 and 1975. Here is an excerpt from his ARRB interview: "Regarding Fletcher Prouty, McKinney did acknowledge telephonically contacting him after the assassination. However, it was in 1977 or 1978, and it was on a matter unrelated to the JFK assassination. By that time, McKinney was a newspaper reporter in Erie, PA. He was doing a story on a series of derailings which might have been caused by unsafe track conditions. He called "either Amtrak or Conrail, I can't remember which," and asked to speak to their PR person, and Fletcher Prouty got on the line. They talked for some time about the rail case, and then began conversing on other subjects. Prouty's interest in the assassination came up, and McKinney mentioned that he had been in the 316th. McKinney proceeded to tell Prouty the same story that he told us; i.e., that people in his unit wondered why they had been told they weren't needed, and that they could have provided extra security had they been asked. They discussed nothing classified, McKinney said, and this was the only occasion McKinney ever spoke to Prouty." Prouty was in his Public Affairs job at Amtrak as of 1972: "In 1971, Prouty accepted a position at AMTRAK where he was responsible for developing AMTRAK's government and military marketing division. Starting in 1972, he was Senior Director of Public Affairs for Amtrak, a position he held until his retirement in 1982." McKinney said he was writing a series on derailings. It just so happens that in March 1973 there was a major Amtrak derailing: "One man was killed and at least 19 persons were injured today when five cars of Amtrak's Broadway Limited, carrying 167 passengers, left the track in a heavy snowstorm. Four of the five derailed cars turned onto their sides, a witness said, splintering several utility poles and shearing off the front of a manufacturing company near the tracks. The cause of the derailment, which occurred in this community about 15 miles south of Youngstown, was under investigation. Henry Eckhart, chairman of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, said Penn Central officials told him that a previous accident might have damaged the track and caused the Amtrak accident." On December 30, 1974, another derailment, also within 250 miles of Erie: Penn Central officials say that, a split rail caused the derailment Saturday of the Broadway Limited, a 17‐car Amtrak passenger train, resulting in minor injuries to 56 persons. The train, with 435 passengers on board, was traveling from Chicago to New York when the mishap occurred about 40 miles northwest of Harrisburg. A railroad spokesman said that the top of a track section was split vertically, causing 13 cars to slip off the rail as it was rounding a curve. According to published reports, the Federal Railroad Administration says that train derailments are increasing, primarily because of poor track conditions. About 8,248 miles of Penn Central track is said to be in such poor condition that trains are under “slow orders,” which means that engineers must slow to below normal speeds. Spokesmen said that there were no such orders covering the stretch of track where the derailment occurred. So, an early 1975 phone call from McKinney to Amtrak, to discuss derailments, is quite plausible. There is one last issue regarding William McKinney. In Fletcher Prouty's testimony to the ARRB, he said that the phone call occurred in 1964 or 1965 (page 24 in the transcript). If it was in 1964, then why didn't Prouty call the FBI or the Warren Commission? If it was 1965, again, why not call the FBI? Why keep this all secret for ten years? Of course, as we know, Prouty destroyed his notes. DiEugenio says that Len Osanic saw the notes. But what was the date on the notes? In 1964 or 1965, there would have been absolutely no reason for McKinney to call Prouty; in 1974-1975, there were very good reasons to call. Fletcher Prouty could not substantiate any of his allegations during his interview with the ARRB. And conspiracy theorists aren't capable of substantiating them either. Previous Relevant Posts on Fletcher Prouty Fletcher Prouty Talks to the ARRB A summary document of his interview with the ARRB Transcript of Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB Fletcher Prouty and Army Intelligence in Dallas Another summary document from the ARRB about Prouty's allegations and army intelligence. Was Fletcher Prouty an Antisemite? Prouty had some very unsavory relationships with antisemitic groups. Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part One Was Fletcher Prouty's Trip to Antarctica Unusual? Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Two Regarding Christchurch, New Zealand and The Christchurch Star Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Three Regarding the 112th Intelligence Corps (INTC) Group and/or the 316th INTC Detachment Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Four Did Prouty Keep the notes from his supposed phone call about army intelligence? Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Five Prouty's experience with military presidential protection duties Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Six Flagrant failure by the Secret Service to take minimum precautions? Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Seven Did Lee Harvey Oswald participate in a covert program in Indonesia in 1958? Fletcher Prouty's Interview with the ARRB, Part Eight Was General Edward Lansdale in one of the pictures of the three tramps?