Kennedys and King Test Site

Category: John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Original essays treating the assassination of John F. Kennedy, its historical and political context and aftermath, and the investigations conducted.

  • Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK? – Part 1

    ABC follows in the footsteps of the Peter Jennings tradition from 2003, and Dan Rather in 1967. Somehow, the Warren Report is something that must be upheld, even 62 years later. No matter what the cost. And it ends up being pretty high. First of four parts

    Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK? – Part One

    On November 24th of this year, ABC broadcast a special on the John Kennedy assassination. It was entitled Truth and Lies: Who Killed JFK?. It was in the tradition of their 2003 show hosted by Peter Jennings and directed by Mark Obenhaus. One of the lead talking heads, and the one with the most speaking time, was author and animator Dale Myers, who was a featured speaker for Jennings. How obsequious is the show to the Warren Report? Later in the two-hour program, we see Myers adoringly gazing at and passing his hand over that report and its 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits. And during the show’s opening overture, Myers says that in all his years of research, there is no evidence to support a shot from the grassy knoll or the right front striking Kennedy. It would have been better to say that the agenda this program utilizes will curtail any evidence of that fact.

    Right after this, the program introduces two related themes that it will intercut throughout. The first declaration is that JFK was the first celebrity president. One could make that same statement about Franklin Roosevelt, who was only five years older when first elected, and was also handsome and witty and charming. But their resident historian, Tim Naftali, does not want to go there. This then leads into the adjunct theme that the John Kennedy assassination was the first national conspiracy theory. Again, some historians would say that the Lindbergh kidnapping or the Rosenberg case would also qualify. But again, that is not what this program is about.

    And make no mistake, this combination psychological thesis-that average Americans could not swallow that the handsome, charming president could be killed by one man, it had to be a plot– is clearly enunciated by Naftali very shortly into the show. In fact, right after showing Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.

    The program then cuts to Kennedy arriving in Dallas on November 22, 1963. We see films of the motorcade progressing from Love Field, while comments are made about the presidential limo having an open top, ignoring the fact that JFK did this a lot. For example, according to author David Sloan, he did it in Key West, Florida, after the missile crisis and then in Tampa the week before Dallas, when he knew there had been a threat on his life.

    The other fact that is ignored is the very odd Secret Service protection that was offered that day. Some examples being: an agent being called off the rear bumper of the car as it exits Love Field. (Vince Palamara, Honest Answers, p. 48) Or the strange motorcycle formation that was cut down to just two cycles on each side. (Doug Horne, Inside the ARRB, pp. 1402, 1404) Also, the lack of any requests for supplemental personnel to ensure against things like any open windows on the route. Or that the local authorities were alerted the night before Kennedy arrived that the route was altered; thus providing a near-perfect milieu for what military snipers call an L-shaped ambush. (Vince Palamara, Survivor’s Guilt, second edition, pp. 103-06) Authors like Doug Horne and Vince Palamara have written about these matters at length. There is also the fact that these failures should have resulted in strong subsequent disciplinary hearings and action. They did not. Somehow, the ABC program neglects to tell the viewer that the Warren Commission pretty much avoided all this negligence. When, in fact, the totality of this security collapse is what caused Kennedy’s death.

    II

    We now go to what happened in Dealey Plaza. Even though the program shows scenes of dozens of spectators running up the grassy knoll, Myers tells us that the first shot missed, and the next shot went through Kennedy and — of course both originated from behind. He later says the third shot is the headshot. But the infamous Z frame 313 is not shown, an issue we will return to later. Weirdly, someone on the soundtrack–who was nameless–says there was a 95% chance of four shots being fired and two assassins. This was the HSCA version, but again, that is not attributed or delved into.

    In a recurring motif, Washington Post reporter Mary Jordan—an inexplicable authority– now goes through a Who’s Who of possible suspects: FBI, CIA, Cuba, the USSR and the Mafia. And this becomes the occasion to introduce a second recurring motif: the labeling of those suspicious or critical of the official story as “conspiracy theorists”. As the late Lance DeHaven Smith showed, that phrase began to be used by the New York Times in 1964, and then it spread to the MSM in 1967. At the time of issue of the infamous CIA dispatch called “Countering the Critics”. (Click here https://www.kennedysandking.com/reviews/dehaven-smith-lance-conspiracy-theory-in-america)

    Now comes a truly desperate strophe in the show. Chris Connelly, an ESPN sports and entertainment reporter and producer —about as qualified as Mary Jordan—says that a man in the sixth-floor window ran down the stairs. How Connelly knows this is never explained. Since no one saw anyone run from the sixth to the second floor. And here comes the deus ex machina of the program: they rely on Howard Brennan to convict Oswald. We are to believe that no one associated with the show was familiar with the fact that Brennan had been torn to shreds all the way from 1966 (Edward Epstein, Inquest) to 2021 (Vince Palamara, Honest Answers).

    In Epstein’s book, it was revealed that not even the Commission lawyers, e.g., Joe Ball, wanted to use Brennan. (The Assassination Chronicles, p. 143) As Ball noted, when the Commission did a reconstruction with Brennan, he had problems identifying a figure in the window. Ball also noted that Brennan stated that the shooter was standing while firing. He then stepped down out of sight. (McKnight, p. 109) Yet this was not possible since photographs showed the window was not open high enough to do that, unless the assassin was firing through glass, and there was no shattered glass found. So the Commission had to conclude that the sniper was kneeling. (Epstein, p. 144, Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 83) But if that was the case, then how could Brennan give a description of height and weight? Which is what the program says happened.

    Then there was the chain of evidence in the Brennan case. How did Brennan’s testimony originate, and then how was it passed on to the Dallas Police to be broadcast? Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin wanted the FBI to provide this chain. But Director J. Edgar Hoover would not commit to any. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 109) Why? Because there was confusion about its origins. Brennan said that he gave his info to a policeman, neither identified nor called by the Commission, and he took him to Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels. But the problem was that Sorrels was not in Dealey Plaza at that time, which was about ten minutes after the shooting. He did not arrive back there for about half an hour. (Lane, p. 86)

    So then the onus for Brennan’s initial description fell to police Inspector Herbert Sawyer. Who could barely remember anything about Brennan, including his name and how he was dressed. Which is really something considering the fact that Brennan was wearing a hard hat. (Lane, p. 87). When Sorrels finally did talk to Brennan, another problem was created, actually two. First, the description on the police radio had already gone out. And second, Sawyer said he had a no clothing description; but Sorrels–who took Brennan to the Sheriff’s office– said he was given one by the witness, the suspect was wearing a light jacket. (Lane, p. 88)

    As Connelly notes, Brennan failed to identify Oswald at the first line-up he attended. Consider what ABC left out. Brennan told the FBI on the 23rd that he still could not be sure it was Oswald. (Commission Document 5, p. 12 ) But further, the late Ian Griggs surfaced fascinating information on this issue: namely, that he could not find Brennan’s name listed for any of the official line-ups. (No Case to Answer, pp. 85-90) Further, there were never more than four people in the lineups. But Brennan said there were six. Finally, Brennan could not recall if there was an African American among them. (Griggs, p. 91) This is Texas in 1963. In fact, Detective Will Fritz’s testimony on the matter suggests that Sorrels might have invented the line-up where Brennan made a positive ID after the fact. (ibid., p. 94)

    Finally, there is the following, as related by Vince Palamara. As noted above, Brennan told the FBI that he could not positively identify Oswald even after he had seen Oswald on TV. (Honest Answers, p. 186) Further, Brennan testified that he did not see the rifle discharge, or recoil or the muzzle flash. (ibid) And then there is this: Brenan’s job supervisor said they took Brennan away for three weeks. He came back a nervous wreck. He would not talk about the assassination after that: “He was scared to death. They made him say what they wanted him to say.” (ibid., p. 187)

    Later on, Brennan refused to talk to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) unless he was under subpoena. When the HSCA said they would do so, Brennan replied he would fight the subpoena. And if forced to appear, he would simply not say anything. In addition, he refused to sign any written statement. And even when offered immunity, he would not appear. (ibid., pp. 188-89)

    As Palamara concludes, “Are these the actions of a truthful man?” Yet this is what ABC relied upon to put Oswald on the sixth floor.

    III

    A rich piece of unintentional humor follows. Dale Myers intones that people who do not know what they are talking about are the ones making claims about someone up on the knoll. In other words, witnesses like Lee Bowers, Sam Holland, and Joe Smith are now ruled out in favor of the hapless Mr. Brennan–the man who refused to appear for the HSCA even when offered immunity.

    Let us just use one of those discarded as an example of the show’s–and Myers’– imbalance. Josiah Thompson’s 1967 volume, Six Seconds in Dallas, is considered a perennial in the field. One of its high points is Thompson’s interview with Holland. Holland—like at least six others– insisted he had seen smoke rise near the stockade fence, which would indicate a shot from the knoll area. (Thompson, p. 121) Holland heard four shots, not the Commission’s three; and the third and fourth were very close together, like a double shot. Which would tend to eliminate the Oswald thesis since the Commission said he had a manual bolt-action rifle. Holland added that the third shot had a different sound to it, like it was fired from another weapon. He also told friends that his Commission testimony had not been transcribed accurately. (Thompson, pp. 83-84)

    But further, Holland was so certain of the origins of the sound that he ran from the overpass over to the parking lot behind the picket fence behind the knoll. (Thompson, p. 122) When he got there, he saw footprints behind a station wagon (it had been raining that morning). And on the bumper of the car, there were muddy spots, as if someone had raked off their shoes, while standing there waiting. The prints did not extend further than the width of the car.

    As Thompson said about Holland, his testimony stood up, and he could find no flaws in the detail. That Myers and ABC valued Brennan over Holland is a flashing red flag as to how agenda-driven the show was.

    IV

    The program now shifts to two subjects: the evidence on the sixth floor, and the murder of policeman J. D. Tippit.

    Predictably, ABC retains the whole “sniper’s nest” idea: that Oswald built a shield of boxes behind him with the rifle resting on one in front. As researcher Alan Eaglesham proved with pictures, plus the testimony of Dallas photographer Tom Alyea, the boxes were moved by the police from their original position. Alyea was the first civilian photographer on the sixth floor, and he talked about this rearrangement in an interview he did with Tulsa World newspaper back in 2013. This rearrangement was done before letting the rest of the reporters into the crime scene area, and, according to the testimony of Officer J. C. Day, it was still being done for police pictures until the 25th. Also, Alyea said the shells were not scattered as the pictures portrayed. They were originally in the diameter of a hand towel. Which is not how they would have landed if ejected from a rifle. (James DiEugenio, JFK Revisited, pp. 145-46).

    Per the rifle, the program never brings up the identification problem. The rifle was first identified as being a Mauser rifle, and there were three reports in evidence that it was the German rifle and not the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano that was first found. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, by James DiEugenio, p. 81) Secondly, how could the envelope with the money order and coupon to pay for it be sent from Dallas on March 12, 1963, and arrive at the Kleins’ mail order house in Chicago–and be deposited at their bank–the next day? And why does the money order sent have no stamps on the back of it, like it never was passed through the Federal Reserve system? (ibid., p. 82)

    Fourth, the rifle in evidence is not the rifle that the Commission says Oswald ordered. The rifle in evidence is a short rifle that is 40.2 inches long and weighs about 8 lbs. with sling and sight. The one Oswald allegedly ordered is a carbine that is 36 inches long and has a weight of 5.5 lbs. (ibid., p. 83) Fifth, as former SWAT team member Brian Edwards said during Oliver Stone’s documentary, JFK Revisited, that Oswald could not have applied the screw on the butt end of the short rifle that is evidence today. And there is no evidence that someone did it at a rifle shop. (Op cit, JFK Revisited, p. 143)

    Needless to say, the program brings up none of these anomalies, and Myers simply says that the rifle in evidence was ordered by Oswald.

    The program then goes with the Sawyer/Brennan story as being the reason for a description going out on the police radio of a man 5’10” tall and 165 lbs., armed with a .30 caliber rifle. And this was used by Tippit to pull over Oswald. Myers then used that to say: Oswald killed Tippit, so that means Oswald killed Kennedy.

    To go through all the problems with Oswald being the assailant in the murder of Tippit would take much too long, since the show pretty much glides over that case. But suffice it to say the following: if Helen Markham is your chief witness, you are in trouble, since she might even be worse than Brennan. (Epstein, pp. 142-43) Secondly, it is highly problematic that Oswald could have negotiated the 9/10 of a mile walk to the Tippit scene at 1:08, the time he was likely killed. Third, the shells do not match the bullets, and the bullets do not match each other. Fourth, according to Tippit expert Joe McBride, the best witness to the shooting was Acquilla Clemmons, and she said there were two shooters, neither of whom was Oswald. (Click here, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium)

    When we go to Oswald’s capture at the Texas Theater, there is no mention of the two wallets problem. That is, Oswald had one on him, but there was also one found at the scene of Tippit’s murder. (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pp. 862-63) The show then gets unintentionally humorous with Oswald’s detention and interrogation. They say the police had no tape recorder, so we do not know what was actually said. The show’s scenario stops anyone from saying: why not go buy one? Or why not call in a stenographer?

    Click here to read part 2.

  • Review of “How Key West Killed JFK”

    David Sloan’s new book tries to further the research on a character who has lurked in the background of the JFK case for too long. That is Gilberto Lopez, who went from Tampa to Dallas, to Nuevo Laredo, to Mexico City, and then Havana right after the assassination.

    How Key West Killed JFK

    By David L. Sloan

    The title of David Sloan’s book suffers from hyperbole. And the subtitle, “The Island that changed the Course of History,’ even more so. Sloan was born in Texas, and he moved to Key West in 1996. He has written several books, the vast majority of them concentrating in some way on Key West and the Florida Keys.

    He begins the book by mentioning some of the presidents who have visited Key West, both in and out of office: Grover Cleveland, U. S. Grant, William Howard Taft, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, both Roosevelts and, after the Missile Crisis, John Kennedy. In a strophe that then foreshadows the book’s agenda, he then talks about how organized crime grew on the island, originally through the numbers rackets. (p. 27) And also through speakeasies during Prohibition. He then brings in how, geographically, the island and the adjoining ones, became important to men like Meyer Lansky and Santo Trafficante Sr. and Jr. as a connecting point to Cuba, which they were quite interested in as a business matter.

    Sloan writes about heroin incoming through the Florida Keys (p. 28). But in another article of his, I found he wrote that this was only suspected of happening. (Keys Weekly, June 11, 2020) He then mentions a man named Sam Hyman who moved to Miami Beach and then started buying hotels, and ended up purchasing land and constructing a dog track in Key West. Sloan says he was backed up by Jimmy Hoffa. (p. 45)

    Following in the legendary José Martí’s footsteps, Castro visited the island in December 1955. At that time, he was seeking funds and support for the overthrow of Fulgencio Batista. But the local sheriff was a Batista loyalist, and he cooked up a charge to have him arrested. Castro escaped by jumping bail. (pp. 50-51) Once Castro took power, many Cubans were disappointed with the result. Therefore, they escaped. A dropping off point was Key West, on their way to larger Florida cities like Miami.

    As many other authors have noted, Castro’s revolution had a disastrous effect on the Mob. Especially for men like Trafficante Jr. and Lansky who had invested heavily in casinos, resorts, drugs and prostitution. All of which Batista had not just allowed, but from which he was receiving kickbacks. (See Imperial State and Revolution, by Morris Morley, pp. 46-71). After Castro took power, Trafficante’s casinos were overrun, and he was arrested that summer of 1959 and detained at the Triscornia Detention Center.

    As Sloan notes, there is credible information that Trafficante paid bribes for special treatment. But, beyond that, he was visited there by Jack Ruby, who—at the least—was attempting to gain his release. (Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, pp. 455-56) Ruby was trying to facilitate this release through noted arms smuggler Robert McKeown. And since the offering price went up to $25,000, Ruby had to have third-party backing, which he said came from Las Vegas. (Benson, p. 269) This may have been through Trafficante’s pit manager, Lewis McWillie, whom Ruby idolized and who he visited in Cuba a few weeks before Trafficante was released. (Sloan, p. 61)

    Sloan has found an FBI report which states a witness observed that Ruby was operating gun-running operations in the Keys. (Sloan, p. 60) He also observes that Ruby was falsifying the record when he said he visited Cuba only once. The data in FBI files would indicate he was there as many as six times. He even mailed cards to his workers at his clubs from Havana. (ibid)

    Continuing in what would seem his Mob-oriented view of the JFK case, Sloan writes that organized crime had an influence in getting JFK elected in both the primaries, through West Virginia, and the general election, in the Chicago area. As I have noted, on the ground inquiries do not back this up. Professor John Binder in Public Choice proved that, in 1960, the voting data in the wards the mob controlled showed Kennedy got less of a turnout than Democrats usually did. Dan Fleming did a book-length examination of West Virginia. He notes in Kennedy vs. Humphrey, West Virginia, 1960, that no subsequent inquiry–of which there were three, one by Barry Goldwater–ever found anything illegal or any mob influence there. And neither could he, even though he interviewed 80 witnesses. (pp. 107-112; 170-71)

    In his discussion of the Bay of Pigs invasion, Sloan seems to abide by the mythology that Kennedy canceled the D Day air strike. (pp. 73, 75) As I have been at pains to show, this is not accurate. Declassified materials on that operation reveal that Kennedy determined the strike should only occur from a strip on the island. Since no beachhead was ever secured, this could not be done. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 45) As everyone knows, that operation ended in disaster.

    Sloan now comments on how, during the subsequent anti-Castro project, Operation Mongoose–the secret covert campaign against Cuba waged by the CIA–the Keys were often used as staging grounds. (p. 83) He dutifully mentions the No Name Key brigade led by Gerry Patrick Hemming. And the fact the location was only accessible by boat, with no land bridge, made it an ideal training spot for a secret brigade. He also mentions the training camp in the New Orleans area at which Lee Oswald was reportedly seen. He then adds that mob figures in Chicago recruited Cuban exiles for secret military training. (p. 92) I wish he had footnoted this last piece of data since I was not familiar with it.

    About halfway through the book, Sloan brings up the name of George Faraldo. Faraldo said that in the summer of 1963, he had seen Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald at the Key West Airport, which he managed at the time. They were part of a group of hippie-looking people who claimed to be with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and were going to go to Cuba to cut sugar cane. Oswald asked Ruby “Have you heard anything from the Big Bird yet?”(Sloan, p. 107)

    As related by investigator Gaeton Fonzi, Faraldo told him that when the Aerovia Q plane arrived, Oswald got on with the group. But he did not see Ruby get on. (The Last Investigation, p. 62)

    When Fonzi further checked this story out for the Church Committee, he found out that Aerovia had stopped its regular flights out of Key West in 1961. But Faraldo insisted that a plane could have been chartered just by submitting a flight plan to the FAA. (Fonzi, p. 63) The local newspaper photographer, whom Faraldo said had covered the incident, told Fonzi he could not recall it. Fonzi went to the public library to the Key West historian. She did not recall it and could find no info about it in her files. Though Faraldo said he kept a list of daily flight manifests in storage, again, Fonzi wrote, “I found nothing that resembled manifests.” Fonzi contacted the local TV news director for whom Faraldo had freelanced. He said that Faraldo had brought this up before, about the time of the Jim Garrison inquiry. He checked his files, and found nothing.

    It turned out that Faraldo had made many trips into Cuba. He hated Castro and liked Batista. He maintained an expensive photo lab which Fonzi estimated had to contain a hundred thousand dollars worth of sophisticated equipment. This included a large aerial camera. He said he had taken shots of the Russian missiles inside Cuba before President Kennedy discovered them. It turned out that Faraldo had worked for the United States Information Agency when he was doing that assignment. When Fonzi asked him: “Was it possible that he was really working for the CIA?”, he said: “Yes, I think so.” When Fonzi asked who paid for all the equipment, Faraldo said, “No comment.” (ibid, p. 65)

    I could not find any of this in Sloan’s book. Either he was not aware of it, or chose not to relate it.

    Sloan considers the prior plots to kill JFK as not actual scenarios to do away with him, but as test runs. (p. 129) This is a questionable thesis, especially since the attempt in Chicago so resembled the successful one in Dallas.

    The most valuable information in the book is the new data that Sloan has unearthed on Gilberto Lopez. To say the least, Lopez is an interesting character. There is little or no information about him in the Warren Report, or the volumes. But the HSCA did pay some attention to him.

    Lopez was born in Havana, in the Cerro district. He played baseball and served as an altar boy. At age 20, in 1960, he left Cuba for Key West. He told immigration officials he planned to stay permanently. He stayed with family who were already here and registered for the Selective Service. He lived with an uncle and worked at a bakery for his cousin. (Sloan, p. 118)

    Within two years, Lopez had a change of heart. He requested permission to return to Cuba; he was homesick. That request put him on the FBI radar in March of 1962. According to interviews Sloan did with family survivors, Lopez was a changed man upon his return. Prior to this he was quiet and apparently satisfied; but now he was a complainer about his job and did not get along with the bakery employees. He was terminated. (ibid, p. 119)

    In August of 1962, Lopez married Blanche Leon, who was an American woman with family ties in Key West and Tampa. Blanche practiced witchcraft. Lopez now developed epilepsy. Gilberto worked at a restaurant in Tampa under an assumed name. He would disappear for days and sometimes weeks. Blanche’s brother once saw him with a duffel bag stuffed with rifles. Blanche’s sister refused to let him put them in the apartment. (ibid, p. 120)

    By September, Lopez and his wife had separated. She left Tampa for Key West. (Sloan, p. 135) On November 17, 1963, Lopez was at the home of Mary Quist—a member of the Tampa FPCC. He was allegedly awaiting a call from Cuba. He was about to leave the USA again. (I should note that there is confusion about this date; some place it earlier, some later.)

    Lopez was in receipt of a tourist card in Tampa on November 20th. He left for Mexico after the assassination and crossed by car into that country from Laredo, Texas, to Nuevo Laredo on the 23rd. He then registered at the Roosevelt Hotel on the 25th. He then went to the Cuban embassy in Mexico City. (Benson, p. 256) On the night of the 27th, he boarded Cubana Airlines Flight 465 to Havana. He was the only passenger, amid a crew of nine. The FBI reports say that in the fall of 1964, he was still in Cuba and had only partly paid back the FPCC loan made to him for the flight to Havana. (Sloan, p. 179)

    Sloan found a daughter of Gilberto from his third marriage, since he married twice while in Cuba. Her name is Lisbette. She told Sloan that Gilberto faked epilepsy to dodge the draft in America. (Sloan, p. 183) He told her that he was in Dallas on the way to Mexico when Kennedy was shot. But he never said anything about being involved with the plot. (Sloan, p. 185) She concluded that her father had been used as a distraction, he was likely misled. When his new family left Havana, they went from Miami to Hialeah and settled in the exile community there. He developed Parkinson’s Disease, became mentally unstable, and she had him committed. He died on July 15, 2021.

    I should add, in addition to this new information, the book contains some rare photos of Lopez I had not seen before.

    The author makes a strained attempt to fit Lopez into the Trafficante orbit. He further strains by then saying that Carlos Marcello controlled Lee Oswald, Sam Giancana had John Rosselli and Lansky and Hoffa controlled Ruby. (Sloan p. 127) As many have stated, the HSCA’s attempt to make Oswald into a kind of Mafia pawn has, to say the least, not stood up: especially in light of the work of the late Phil Melanson and John Newman. As Lee Server, Rosselli’s biographer, has noted, Rosselli was on the West Coast at the time of the murder of JFK, navigating between Vegas and Los Angeles. As per Ruby, most students of the case connect Ruby’s killing of Oswald from Lewis McWillie to Trafficante. I could add other faults: Allen Dulles did not retire quietly after his service on the Warren Commission. (Sloan, p. 161) He hired Gordon Novel to infiltrate and disrupt the Jim Garrison probe. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, Second edition, pp. 232-35) I also wish the author had elucidated the story attributed to the Tampa Tribune about Vincent Lee, then Director of the FPCC, meeting Oswald in Tampa, Florida, in the fall of 1963. (p. 136)

    It’s a spotty book overall, but Sloan deserves credit for his work on attempting to close the circle on Gilberto Lopez.

  • Paul Bleau Interviewed by Tim Gardner of the Podcast Ciphered Past

    Tim Gardner of the podcast Ciphered Past interviews Paul Bleau. They discuss The JFK Assassination Chokeholds, which he co-authored. Subjects include: case linkage and the Pepe letters among others.

    Watch the podcast here.

  • In Memoriam: The Burial of Kennedy’s Foreign Policy

    On the 62nd anniversary of JFK’s murder, we outline how his foreign policy was systematically replaced by Johnson and Nixon; which provided the opening for the Neocon movement.

    In Memoriam: The Burial of Kennedy’s Foreign Policy

    Back in 2013, I did a speech at the late Cyril Wecht’s conference in Pittsburgh. The title of that address was “Kennedy’s Foreign Policy: A Motive for Murder”. By that time, I had done a lot of research on the topic, going beyond what anyone had done previously, including Jim Douglass. During that appearance, I noted the following. Many books about the assassination, and also many Kennedy biographies, noted the following three events:

    1. Kennedy’s refusal to escalate the invasion at the Bay of Pigs
    2. His decision in Vietnam to send advisors and no combat troops
    3. JFK’s refusal to bomb the silos during the Missile Crisis

    I added that although everyone describes these events, no one asks: Why did he decline those opportunities? It’s a significant question. Because we know that other presidents, before and after, would have done what he did not. For example, during the Bay of Pigs failure, Richard Nixon told JFK to declare a beachhead and send in the Marines. (Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days, p. 288) Everyone knows what President Johnson did in Vietnam.

    This question puzzled me for a long time. Then, one day in the little town of Julian, north of San Diego, I encountered the book JFK: Ordeal in Africa by Richard Mahoney. On the cover of that book is this picture:

    I had never seen this photo of Kennedy before. So I bought the book and literally consumed it over three days. For me, it was a revelation. I am reminded of Samuel Coleridge’s famous quote about watching the great actor Edmund Kean: “To see him act, is like reading Shakespeare by flashes of lightning.”

    The picture above was taken by White House photographer Jacques Lowe. Since Kennedy had been in office for less than a month, he was taking photos of Kennedy and his children for publicity purposes. While doing so, UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson called the president to tell him that Patrice Lumumba of Congo was dead. Which was true. But Lumumba had been killed almost a month before this February 15th phone call took place.

    There is another large difference illustrated by this picture. President Dwight Eisenhower had ordered CIA Director Allen Dulles to assassinate Lumumba. (Mahoney, p. 41) Which the Agency had tried to do in more than one way. For example, they had enlisted two killers, code-named QJ WIN and WI ROGUE, to go to the Congo and do the job. (ibid., pp. 52-53) After Kennedy was killed, President Johnson reversed his policy of support for a fledgling republic—which Lumumba wanted Congo to be—and united with the regressive forces to both wipe out the last of his followers, and back a dictatorship by Josef Mobutu. (Jonathan Kwitny, Endless Enemies, p. 84)

    Upon reading Mahoney’s book, I began to get a creeping suspicion about the whole field of Kennedy studies, both the biographies and the assassination. I began to wonder if Kennedy’s true foreign policy had been hidden by academia and the MSM to a more assiduous degree than the true circumstances of his assassination. I ended up concluding that such was the case. The reason being that it provided the reason d’etre for his assassination.

    In one way, Mahoney’s book—published in 1983– was a perfect complement to John Newman’s volume JFK and Vietnam, published in 1992. In my experience, I had read Newman’s book before Mahoney’s. Unlike Newman’s book, JFK: Ordeal in Africa did not have the good fortune to be released in conjunction with Oliver Stone’s multi-Oscar-nominated film JFK. But the effect of both was similar. A mythology about Kennedy being a Cold Warrior had been dispelled. Kennedy was not going into Vietnam, not in 1961 or 1962. In fact, by 1963, it was clear that Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam, that is, withdrawing the advisors.

    In Congo, Kennedy was trying to foster an independent, nationalistic movement emerging from the Third World and European colonialism. In that cause, he was going to back this man:

    In fact, not knowing he was dead, Kennedy’s plan was to release Lumumba from house arrest. But just three days before Kennedy was inaugurated, Lumumba was killed before a firing squad by his dreaded enemies in the breakaway state of Katanga. As author John Morton Blum noted in his book Years of Discord, that timing was not a coincidence. There are strong indications that Lumumba’s enemies—the CIA, the Belgian colonizers, Moise Tshombe of Katanga—knew JFK would support Lumumba. And Kennedy spent a large part of the next three years doing all he could, including employing the UN, to stop Katanga from seceding from Congo. If Lumumba had lived, the history of Congo as a failed state would likely have been different.

    One of the worst commentators in the MSM on both Vietnam and Congo was a darling of the MSM, the late David Halberstam. Halberstam worked for the New York Times, and under Kennedy, he was first stationed in Congo and then Vietnam. His reporting from both areas was remarkably superficial. He then wrote a book about Vietnam, The Best and the Brightest, which was worse than superficial; it was misleading. But it became a massive best-seller, so it was influential. It completely missed the importance of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to Kennedy’s withdrawal plan in 1962-63. Halberstam then said that there was nothing really important happening with Vietnam in 1964. Actually, a sea change was occurring. Lyndon Johnson was reversing Kennedy’s withdrawal plan and planning on American direct intervention in Indochina. (Click here https://www.kennedysandking.com/content/halberstam-david-the-best-and-the-brightest-part-1)

    In essence, what Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest achieved was creating a cover for what both Johnson and Richard Nixon did later. Halberstam insinuated that there was a continuous line between all three men and that Vietnam was inevitable. This is simply bizarre. And it’s hard to comprehend that Halberstam did not realize how wrong he was about it. Because in the Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers–which Halberstam said he read–there is a 40 page section labeled “Phased Withdrawal of US Forces: 1962-64”. In other words, Kennedy had begun a withdrawal program which was obstructed by LBJ.

    As Oliver Stone pointed out in his 4 hour documentary, JFK: Destiny Betrayed, Johnson changed Kennedy’s foreign policy in many places. And Nixon followed in that path. In a 1963 conversation with a Portuguese diplomat, the former Vice-President said that independence was “not necessarily the best thing for Africa or the Africans.” (Mahoney, p. 238) This was contrary to President Kennedy’s concept, which was: “ Africa for the Africans…” (Philip Muehlenbeck, Betting on the Africans, p. 45)

    But it was completely in keeping with a comment Nixon made during a 1960 NSC meeting under President Eisenhower. At that time, he said, “Some of the peoples of Africa have been out of the trees for only about fifty years.” (Ibid., p. 6). This was amply illustrated during a debate on a National Security Council study paper on Angola. Under the supervision of Henry Kissinger, the NSC developed a position called “the Tar Baby Option”:

    It concluded that the “Whites are here to stay and the only way constructive change can come about is through them. There is no hope for the blacks to gain the political rights they seek through violence…” (Mahoney, p. 243)

    This is one reason why Angola did not gain its independence until 1975, after Nixon’s resignation. Kennedy had advocated for Angola’s freedom from Portugal throughout his administration. He utilized a carrot and stick approach with Lisbon to gain Angolan independence. He used cuts in foreign grants and loans to Portugal and gave aid to rebel leader Holden Roberto’s Angolan nationalist group. (Muehlenbeck, p. 102)

    Let us use one more example. After the Suez Crisis of 1956, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles decided to oppose Gamal Abdel Nasser’s unique advocacy of Arab nationalism. As president of Egypt, Nasser not only advocated for nationalism, but Pan-Arabism. Dulles responded to this with an NSC paper that stated, “The drive toward Arab Unity, particularly as led by Nasser, is strongly inimical to our interests.” (Muelhenbeck, p. 14) Another reason Dulles opposed Nasser was his alignment with the Non-Aligned Movement. This was a group of Third World countries that–after Dulles had overthrown governments in Iran and Guatemala–wanted to exist outside the Cold War.

    That unabated Cold Warrior, Nixon, declared to the NSC that Nasser’s influence could supply inroads to communism throughout Africa. Sometimes, the Eisenhower administration could not decide if Nasser was pink or a fascist. Because Dulles commented that, “Although Nasser is not as dangerous as Hitler was, he relies on the same hero myth, and we must try to deflate that myth.” (ibid) So Dulles decided to use Saudi Arabia’s King Saud as a counterweight to Nasser. Eisenhower agreed: “If we could build Saud up as the individual to capture the imagination of the Arab world, Nasser would not last long.” (ibid)

    This showed a lack of understanding of Nasser’s appeal in the Arab world–which was huge. Because Nasser was almost diametrically opposed to Saudi Arabia. He was a secularist. While Saudi Arabia practiced an extreme form of Islam. In 1956 and 1965, Nasser overwhelmingly won two elections to office. Saudi Arabia was a monarchy. Nasser advocated for a Pan-Arab union, one reason being that he thought the oil underground in the Middle East belonged to all the Arabs. To put it mildly, the Saudi monarchy did not agree.

    But this is what made Nasser so wildly popular in the region. Some Arab historians place him as one of the three most influential leaders of the Arab world, along with Mohammed and Saladin. He offered the Middle East a choice between the Islamic fundamentalist past and abandoning it for a freer future. In fact, the shock troops for Saudi Arabia—the Muslim Brotherhood– opposed Nasser vehemently. After they tried to kill him in 1954, he ended up going to war with them. (Click here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZIqdrFeFBk)

    Unlike Foster Dulles and Eisenhower, Kennedy wanted to cooperate with Nasser. And unlike them, he also welcomed the Nonaligned Movement. He told National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy to explore ways to improve relations with Nasser. Robert Komer of the NSC felt that:

    …nationalism will remain the most dynamic force in the Arab world and Nasser will remain its foremost leader. His influence is likely to grow rather than decline. (Muelhenbeck, p. 125)

    Kennedy thought that the Dulles Third World policy was counterproductive. In fact, as with Nasser, it had provided ways for the USSR to make inroads there. (Robert Rakove, Kennedy, Johnson and the Nonaligned World, p. 40) Kennedy thought he could compete with Moscow in the Third World, and do so successfully. This is why he supported the Non-Aligned Meeting in Belgrade in 1961. (ibid., p. 76) Kennedy’s policies enforced that new position in Congo, Angola, and his intervention in Indonesia, where he had the Dutch surrender West Irian to Achmed Sukarno. In late 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy extended arms and ammunition to India to halt a Chinese incursion on the border.

    Kennedy’s new foreign policy, his break with Foster Dulles, perished with him in Dealey Plaza. Johnson had been personally friendly with Foster Dulles in the fifties. As Senate Majority Leader, he maintained a cooperative working relationship with the Secretary of State. In fact, when Dulles was in the hospital, about to pass on from cancer, Johnson sent him flowers. (Rakove, p. 55) Two powerful people cannot be that friendly unless they have some basic interest in common; and they did.

    Unlike what President Johnson said, he did not continue with JFK’s policies abroad. He switched back to Foster Dulles just about everywhere on the map: Congo, the Middle East, Indochina, Indonesia, and the Dominican Republic. These policies had much more in common with Richard Nixon than they did with Kennedy. As Robert Rakove notes, in just one year, Johnson’s disruptions had caused US libraries in Cairo and Jakarta to go up in flames. (Rakove, p. xviii)

    This path was continued by Nixon. In 1967, the year before he won the presidency, he made a speech at the Bohemian Grove. He recommended only giving aid to nations allied with America. Noting riots against America abroad, Nixon felt much of this was due to Kennedy’s tolerance of the non-aligned countries. Nixon instead held up the Shah of Iran as an example of his idea of a positive power in the Third World. And he particularly took umbrage with the fast decolonization of Africa. (Rakove, pp. 253-54)

    If one looks closely, one can see a bridge from Johnson/Nixon to what will happen with the rise of the neocon movement under the tutelage of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in 1975-76. That marked the undeclared end of hope for any revival of Kennedy’s ideas in foreign policy. When the neocons then took over under Ronald Reagan, that was the beginning of the neocon spread into the Democratic Party. Which resulted, for example, in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s toppling of Gaddafi in Libya and that country falling into failed state status. Also, her advocacy of an incursion into Syria. This neocon policy continued under President Biden and his endless aid to Ukraine, plus his celebration of the overthrow of Assad in Syria. Which has now led to the slaughter of the Alowites there. (Click here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7WkRKkm8vE&t=28s)

    Showing that there is little difference today between the two parties, President Trump met with the president of Syria, a former officer in Al Qaeda, Ahmad al-Sharaa. Trump then topped that with a White House meeting with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). The man whom Trump’s own intelligence agencies concluded had ordered the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The likely reason is that the reporter was a critic of Saudi Arabia’s extreme religious rigidity, and particularly the policies of MBS. Khashoggi advocated for greater freedom of speech, women’s rights, and a more secular approach to religious freedom. For that, he was killed in the Saudi Arabian embassy in Istanbul, and his body was dismembered.

    When asked about this, Trump replied, “Things happen.” (NY Times, 11/18/25, story by Shawn McCreesh) We have descended a long way from 1963.

  • Honor to John Kennedy: On the 62nd Anniversary of his Death

    Johnny Cairns writes that John and Robert Kennedy need to be remembered for what they both were and what they tried to accomplish. And, incidentally, as to what is missing from today’s political scene.

    Honor to John Kennedy: On the 62nd Anniversary of his Death

    By Johnny Cairns

     

    On November 22nd — a date etched into the conscience of a nation — John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, was slain beneath a Texan sky.

    Cairns JFKLookingDownHe had miles to go and promises to keep.

    But on Elm Street, the best of America was struck down by the worst of it.

    From that moment to this, a sea of words has been written about him. Men and women far greater than I have eulogised him in language that spans from Aeschylus to Shakespeare.

    What, then, can I possibly add to that sea? What right have I to offer my own eulogy for a man I never met, a man whose world and time stand generations apart from mine? And yet, despite that distance, the legacy of John Kennedy burns brightly in my heart.

    It is the values he embodied — the courage, compassion, and belief in the dignity of all humanity — that bind me to his life and compel me to write. This is not a historian’s analysis, nor a scholar’s account. It is simply one man’s tribute to a President who still speaks to his conscience.

    On reflection of his life, it is easy to gravitate toward the great accomplishments: the promise of his presidency, and the words that could summon nations—the Ask Nots, the Ich bin ein Berliner, We choose to go to the Moon.

    But the measure of the man was revealed earlier. Not in ovation, but in fire, salt water, and the black chaos of the Pacific night.

    After PT-109 was torn in two and slipped beneath the waves, Jack Kennedy and the surviving crew were left stranded in the open ocean. Engineer Patrick McMahon, burned and barely conscious, drifted in fuel-slicked water and was close to death. Kennedy, with his own back and health shattered, swam to him, took the belt strap of McMahon’s life jacket between his teeth, and began towing him through the darkness. Hour after hour, stroke after stroke, mile after mile, he refused to let go until they finally reached land.

    Only then, utterly spent, did Jack Kennedy collapse into the sand.

    Years later, when a boy in Ashland, Wisconsin, asked how he became a hero, Kennedy simply replied, “It was easy — they sank my boat.”

    But the truth is, Kennedy’s courage did not begin in the Pacific.

    It had been forged long before, across an ocean, in the narrow streets of Boston, where his grandparents arrived with little more than their faith and their name.

    His father grew up in a city where shop windows still carried the sign: “No Irish Need Apply.” And yet, two generations later, that same name — carried on that same faith — was spoken on the steps of the Capitol by the first Irish Catholic President of the United States.

    He did not seek office for wealth or comfort. Every salary he earned as a Congressman, Senator, and President, the equivalent of over five million dollars today, he donated to charity.

    He liked to quote Lord Tweedsmuir, one of his favourite authors: “Politics is still the greatest and most honourable adventure.” And he believed that adventure carried a cost. “Of those to whom much is given,” he would say, “much is required.”

    Nowhere was that truth tested more than in the West Virginia primary. Jack Kennedy was not a man unmoved by suffering, and here he saw its American face. He encountered the deprivation of his own country: miners thrown on the scrap heap, families who had lost all hope, children thin from hunger and living on surplus lard and cornmeal, towns where dignity had collapsed into despair. It humbled him. It angered him. And it convinced him that, “if a free society cannot save the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”

    There is an old saying: I complained that I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet. In these hills, Jack Kennedy met the America that had no feet — and he carried them with him for the rest of his life. He would say to an aide, shaken, “Just imagine — imagine kids who never drink milk.”

    Nothing on his road to the presidency changed him more as a man than the despair of those valleys. And so, in his first act as President, he signed an executive order doubling surplus food for the hungry — a national measure born from the memories of West Virginia, and a promise kept to the state that had first revealed to him the quiet anguish of his own country.

    From that same conviction flowed the Peace Corps, the Food for Peace program, and the Alliance for Progress.

    Jack Kennedy did not stand apart from the struggles of ordinary people. He was one of them. Like any of us, he was not free from sin or imperfection, and he never claimed to be. But by battling immense physical pain throughout his life, he became a symbol of resilience.

    Robert Kennedy once wrote of his brother: “At least one-half of the days that he spent on this earth were days of intense physical pain. He had scarlet fever when he was very young, and serious back trouble when he was older. In between, he had almost every other conceivable ailment. When we were growing up together, we used to laugh about the great risk a mosquito took in biting Jack Kennedy — with some of his blood the mosquito was almost sure to die. And yet, he never complained. He never suggested that God had dealt with him unjustly.”

    By the time of his inauguration, John Kennedy had been given the last rites of the Holy Roman Catholic Church on four occasions. Because he had suffered so much, he loved life intensely. That suffering deepened his compassion, and it guided his conscience in moments of moral and political crisis.

    “Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan,” he said of the Cuban disaster of April 1961. And though it would have been easy to blame the architects of that catastrophe, he chose instead to shoulder the blame in public himself.

    That pain, that sense of failure, stayed with him. So when the second Cuba came in October 1962, and the world stood closer to the edge than ever before or since, he faced it differently. Failure had taught him caution. But conscience guided what he did next. Beyond the accusations of appeasement and the cries for war, one vision tormented John Kennedy — the children who would inherit the ashes.

    As Robert Kennedy wrote, “the thought that disturbed him the most was the specter of the death of the children of this country and all the world — the young people who had no role, who had no say, but whose lives would be snuffed out like everyone else’s.”

    That same deep conscience drove him to seek a Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty — the first break in the nuclear arms race. He had learned that the ash of nuclear tests does not stay in the atmosphere; it falls with the rain, seeps into the soil, and enters the bones of children born and yet to be.

    “The loss of even one human life, or the malformation of even one baby — who may be born long after we are gone — should be of concern to us all,” John Kennedy said. He could imagine no greater failure of humanity. Against every cynic and every obstacle, he made that belief the law of nations.

    President Kennedy loved the story of Marshal Lyautey, who once asked his gardener to plant a tree that would not bloom for a hundred years. When the gardener objected — saying he’d never live to see it — Lyautey simply replied, “Then plant it this afternoon.”

    In many ways, the address at American University was Kennedy’s tree. He knew he might never see its branches stretch into the future, but he planted it anyway — a vision of peace rooted deeply in the American conscience. At its heart was a simple truth: that beyond borders and ideologies, beyond race or creed, we are bound together by our most basic common link, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children’s future, and we are all mortal.

    It was the voice of a man who understood the price of war but dared to speak of peace. But peace abroad meant little if injustice endured at home. President Kennedy’s address on civil rights was one of the defining moments of his presidency. It was not without cost.

    To speak so directly about civil rights was a political risk very few presidents would ever take. His advisers warned him he would lose the South — some even feared he might lose the White House itself. But Kennedy spoke out anyway, because he believed that “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

    It became the first major televised address on civil rights in American history. Not a speech of politics, but of conscience. Not since Lincoln had a President spoken of civil rights in such moral terms.

    He did not speak in abstractions. He spoke of the American who could fight for his country but not sit at a lunch counter; who could pay taxes but not send his child to a decent public school; who could be governed by laws, but not vote for the lawmakers. And then he asked:

    “Who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place?”

    Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., that thunderous moral force, wrote to him afterward: “It was one of the most eloquent, profound, and unequivocal pleas for justice and freedom of all men ever made by any President.”

    Pierre Salinger wrote that Jack “loved people and did not view the world and its problems in an abstract way. The campesino in Latin America, the small boy starving to death in an Indian village, the child born retarded — they were not statistics to him. They were people — to be helped, to be loved, and not to be forgotten.”

    It was this same compassion that led him, in the midst of his own anguish, to pause in a Boston hospital and write to the mother of a severely burned child. His own son, Patrick, was fighting for his life, yet he found the grace to comfort another, signing simply: “Keep up your courage. John F. Kennedy.”

    Hours later, that same man — the President of the United States — stood in a hospital boiler room, his face buried in his hands, inconsolable after Patrick’s death. Grief had walked beside John Kennedy for most of his forty-six years. It stitched itself into the fabric of his life. Joe Jr, Kathleen, Rosemary, Arabella, and now little Patrick were lost to him. Yet, his faith did not falter.

    “I know there is a God”, he once wrote, “and I see a storm coming. If he has a place for me, I believe I am ready.” But he could not know that its eye would fixate on Dallas.

    William Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet:

    There’s special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ’tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all.”

    And then, on Elm Street, it came.

    As Ted Sorensen once wrote, “They wept on the streets of Moscow. They prayed in the villages of Asia. They brought candles to the Wall in West Berlin. And those of us who knew him and served and loved him felt, as the Irish felt on the death of Owen Roe O’Neill, that we were lost and alone, we felt that the brightness has fallen from the air.

    And so they came from every corner of the earth on that solemn Monday, November 25th, to bear him to Arlington, where he shall rest forever beneath the watch of his flame. John Kennedy was gone, and with him went the America he had tried to shape. Vietnam became an American war, its turmoil reaching into the nation’s streets and deepening the divisions he had worked so hard to heal. Yet even in his absence, the people still believed in him.

    “In Watts, I didn’t see pictures of Malcolm X or Ron Karenga on the walls,” Pete Hamill wrote to Bobby Kennedy in 1968. “I saw pictures of JFK. It is your obligation to stay true to whatever it was that put those pictures on those walls.”

    Hamill was asking RFK to pick up the baton. He did, much to the chagrin of Jackie Kennedy, who thought he would be cut down like her husband.

    “I run for the presidency because I want the United States of America to stand for hope instead of despair, for reconciliation among men instead of the growing risk of world war.” Robert Kennedy said on March 16th, 1968.

    With that announcement, the grotesqueness of America would once again fall upon a Kennedy — this time in Los Angeles. As Paul Schrade told me some years ago, “We all lost again.”

    How could this have been allowed to happen again? America was stunned — shattered by grief, caught in a nightmarish loop that had begun in Dallas.

    Through the horror of November 1963, John Kennedy became legend — history and myth, memory and sacrifice, hope and tragedy, idealism and pain.

    Language, no matter how carefully we shape it, is always smaller than the thing it tries to hold. But that does not make the effort meaningless.

    In the end, it is because we fall short that the effort matters. We do not write to capture him perfectly; we write to keep something of his spirit alive in this world. To remind ourselves — and anyone still listening — that once in our history there stood a leader — an idealist without illusions, who believed that public life was a noble adventure.

    Words will always fall short of the man we are trying to honour.

    But silence would fall even shorter.

    “Men may die. Nations may rise and fall. But an ideal lives on.”

    Always.

  • The Depleted Patrols in Dallas on November 22, 1963

    Were the Dallas Police clearing the way for an escape route in advance of the JFK murder in Dealey Plaza?

    The Depleted Patrols in Dallas on November 22, 1963

    In my very first article for Kennedysandking, “The Tippit Tapes”, I set out how Officers JD Tippit (district 78) and Ron Nelson (district 87) were not dispatched from those home districts from far south Dallas at 12:45 pm to “Central Oak Cliff”. Yet Dallas Police patrol radio dispatcher Murray Jackson had claimed they were.

    Nelson said to CBS in 2013 that he was on the west side of the Commerce viaduct at 12:30 pm (the south side of the Trinity River, which is district 108). He said he heard the assassination shots and drove into Dealey Plaza within a minute to see people still cowering on the ground. Tippit was at the Gloco Gas Station (also district 108). Both men were thus several miles north of their home districts.

    Firstly, I must refute any inference that some researchers have drawn that Tippit patrolling on his own was unusual. There were three shifts in a day. The 4 pm to midnight, and midnight to 8:00 am patrols had pairs in a car due to night work being seen as more dangerous. On November 22, 1963, Tippit was working a day shift, where pairing was the exception, not the norm.

    What is new in this article is the extent to which southwest Dallas was depleted of patrol officers. The details for that are at the end of this article as an Appendix.

    Researcher and Warren Commission supporter Dale Myers interviewed Jackson and supported Jackson’s account. Which was that Jackson had called them away from their home districts because Oak Cliff was bereft of officers and Oak Cliff was a likely getaway area in light of the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

    But when Chief Jesse Curry testified to the Warren Commission on April 15, 1963 (WC IV p192), he confirmed Oak Cliff was a ‘center of activity’ at the time Tippit was sent there.

    Mr. MCCLOY. When Officer 78, that is Tippit, was directed to the Oak Cliff area that was simply because the Oak Cliff area was sort of a center of activity at that point?

    Mr. CURRY. At that time.

    Mr. MCCLOY. It wasn’t – it wasn’t because you were trying to or had any idea that the suspect might have been there?

    Mr. CURRY. Not from the Presidential shooting, but we were sure that the suspect in the Officer Tippit shooting was in the central area.

    Mr. MCCLOY. But Tippit was still alive on the first direction to go out there?

    Mr. CURRY. That was because some of the squad had been moved out of the Oak Cliff into the Dallas area. You see, this is across the river.

    Mr. MCCLOY. What is the Oak Cliff area?

    Mr. RANKIN. I think that ought to be clarified. Chief Curry.

    Having denied that a suspect from the Presidential assassination was the catalyst for sending Tippit there, Curry then said that the suspect who shot Tippit was suspected of being in that area. Hence, McCloy’s sarcastic interjection that Tippit must have been alive when he was sent there.

    Curry’s answers are remarkable. As I set out later, Oak Cliff was indeed a ‘center of activity’. It was packed with police officers before Tippit was shot.

    Jackson’s explanation falls over for at least three reasons, and I have not seen any adjustment of Myers’ conclusions in the light of all the emerging facts. A crucial point is what Nelson himself said in 2013, shortly before he died.

    Tippit and Nelson moved out of their districts off radio

    The time of movement aspect is not true, by the account of Nelson, nor the true position of Tippit, because they’d have had to have already left their own districts well before 12:45 pm to be where they were. Neither of those discrepancies came to the attention of the Warren Commission.

    Central Oak Cliff was the one place not short of officers

    The depletion aspect is not true either. Linked here and reproduced below is a map from the time. (The high resolution is needed to read the landmarks and streets separating districts.)

    My annotations show the significant lack of officers patrolling their allocated districts for southwest Dallas as a whole. There were 27 districts south of the Trinity River, being : 21-23 (Northwest Platoon command), 76-79, 81-89, 91-98 (Southwest Platoon command) and 108-109 (Downtown Platoon command). Due to the shape of the City of Dallas, there was no Southeast command.

    There were also four districts, 71-75, north of the river, which fell under the Southwest Platoon command. (That command being for the 70s, 80s and 90s sequences). Those 4 districts were also vacant of patrols as the relevant officers, Cox, Wise, and Sebastian, had been allocated motorcycle outrider duties for the motorcade.

    Therefore, only three officers were covering about 400 square miles, in six districts out of 31. (Dallas-Fort Worth is a huge metroplex covering almost 9,000 square miles.)

    The Trinity River is the purple/blue line.

    The three officers in their designated districts are shown as the light green figure of eight (two districts each). Mentzel’s district 91 is red.

    The yellow area is north of the river, but under SW Dallas platoon command (hence also under Sgt Hugh Davis). Again, with no overt officers. It contains Industrial Boulevard.

    Officer Mentzel and Central Oak Cliff

    WD Mentzel (districts 91 and 92 at the center of Oak Cliff) was said to be at lunch and incommunicado from 12:30 pm. Mentzel’s absence from – overt – service meant only six districts were overtly patrolled.

    I covered Mentzel’s inconsistent accounts in another K&K article, “The Missing Calls of Officer Mentzel”. He wasn’t incommunicado. That was a fiction maintained by not transcribing the radio calls he made.

    That left two unnamed officers patrolling the peripheral districts of 88/89/and 97/98, plus RW Walker in 85/85, which was south of the Santa Fe Railroad. Jackson, like Curry, was also wrong regarding Oak Cliff itself being depleted. It had officers – Tippit (78), Angell (81), Parker (56) and Lewis (35) – doing covert and unusual things, outside of their allocated districts. In the case of Parker and Lewis, they are on the wrong side of the river.

    Plus, there was Officer Mentzel with his dubious lunch story near the Texas Theater in his District 91. There was also off-duty officer Harry Olsen somewhere near Lansing and Eighth, also in district 91. Then there was Officer Charles T Walker, from the motor accident branch at the junction of E 10th and Jefferson at the southern edge of district 91.

    The ‘getaway’ zone – Jackson

    Nelson’s account from 2013 means his appearance in the third official transcript almost has to have been a faked call. It is not Nelson’s voice. By that measure, Tippit’s was likely faked, too, masking that he was at Gloco. That voice is also different. (See Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 425 for this issue; see also Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, pp. 262-63)

    But that call does use Jackson’s voice. By that, Jackson wasn’t merely covering up the real reasons for the movements of Tippit but was complicit in making that call, which was retrospectively added to the tape and the transcript of it. The question, therefore, arises whether he was also complicit in the pre-emptive draining of much of Southwest Dallas’ patrol cover.

    A further giveaway is that the obvious way to boost patrol cover in Oak Cliff would have been to call Mentzel from his supposed lunch. Mentzel was making calls on the patrol radio immediately after the assassination at 12:30 pm. But those calls were not transcribed, thus helping the story that he was incommunicado, despite the fact that he wasn’t. Half past noon can be lunchtime for a 9-to-5 job. But the day shift that day was 7:00 am to 3 pm. No other officer was having lunch from 12:30 pm.

    But even if Mentzel were to have been back on duty at 1:00 pm, he would be off lunch by the time Nelson and Tippit could arrive; had they really been in their home districts when supposedly called at 12:45 pm. Whichever way one looks at it, either Nelson in 2013, or Jackson in 1963/64 were untruthful. None of the evidence vindicates Jackson’s story.

    Jackson said he sent Nelson and Tippit –which we know he didn’t–as Oak Cliff was a likely getaway area. That is strategically correct, and I believe that can be played against him, as I set out later.

    Researcher Dale Myers – “Move Downtown”

    I have used the same sources as Myers CE2645, plus Captain Charles Talbert’s FBI statement (page 50) of June 2, 1964, and DPD patrol tapes and transcripts. To his credit, Myers does agree that a call at 12:47 pm of “87. ON, south end of Houston Street viaduct” was Nelson (87), not Officer Bass (101).

    The mistranscription of Nelson to Bass occurred before the third transcript. Without the faked call, a question would arise as to how Nelson had managed to be there within 2 minutes of being told to go to Oak Cliff from District 87. But the faked 12:45 pm call location – Marsalis at RL Thornton – gives a superficial appearance that Nelson could just about have covered the distance in 2-3 minutes. As perhaps Myers realized in having no qualms about revealing that the tape was mistranscribed for that call.

    One would expect, in the light of such a serious mistranscription, that Myers would have subjected all of the tape to such scrutiny for other cases of that occurring. I do not see evidence of his doing that. Instead, he gives latitude to police versions of events that still do not stand up.

    For example. I have not seen Myers mention the mistranscription of this significant command at 12:44 pm from Jackson. The transcripts state (my underlines):

    “Attention all squads, report to downtown area, Code 3 (Emergency – red lights and sirens) to Elm and Houston, with caution.”

    But what is actually very clear on the tape is:

    “Attention all squads in the downtown area: Code 3 to Elm and Houston with caution.”

    The distinction between phrases ‘report to” and ‘in the’ is important. The mistranscription provides a reason for a mass exodus of officers from far-flung parts of Dallas to Dealey Plaza. The true command, which only applied to those officers already downtown, does not.

    Further, if Myers was able to determine that the 12:47 pm was Nelson’s and not Bass’s voice, why has he not identified that the 12:45 pm call is not Nelson’s young-sounding Texan voice either? The age –older man–and accent are different. Nelson’s voice is pleasant-sounding. The voice on the tape at 12:45 pm is not.

    The essence of detective work is looking for inconsistencies in what suspects say. In the case of Dallas on November 22, 1963, the inconsistencies are in what certain police officers did and said.

    Industrial Boulevard – Officer Angell

    As set out earlier, with districts 71-75 free of officers, there was no patrol coverage of the industrial zones north of the Trinity River. There is a call from Jackson as the Dispatcher ordering all emergency vehicles to stay off Industrial Boulevard (now called South Riverfront Boulevard) at 12:36 pm. That is included in District 73.

    “Attention all emergency equipment. Attention all emergency equipment. Do not use Industrial Boulevard. Do not use Industrial Boulevard.”

    There is then this at 12:45 pm 81 (JL Angell) “ We’re going north on Industrial from Corinth”.”

    Thus, Angell appears to have disobeyed orders. The tape puts someone in the car with him. But it was transcribed in CE 1974 as “I’ll be going north on Industrial from Corinth”.

    As I cover later, this is not a one-off discrepancy so far as Angell is concerned.

    Was Industrial Boulevard a getaway route for shooters? Angell went there circuitously.

    Angell’s zig-zag route

    Angell at 12:42 pm (untranscribed and mistranscribed by Shearer as ‘ Corinth and Eighth’), said “we’re still at Lansing and Eighth”. That is the same place Tippit’s last call was at 12:53 pm (in that case, transcribed as Lancaster and Eighth).

    Angell’s districts (81 and 82 ) were also south of the Santa Fe Railroad between Zang and Corinth. Taking account of the railroad, the normal grid of streets is broken. From west to east, only Zang, Beckley, Marsalis, Ewing, Moore, and Corinth cross it.

    With the Trinity River providing another barrier, then if Angell was heading – on instruction or of his own accord – from districts 81/82 to Dealey Plaza, then, if he was westwards, anywhere near Zang, Beckley or Marsalis, his route would then be over Houston St or Commerce viaducts (only Houston viaduct if he was on Marsalis). If he were eastwards near Corinth, then the Corinth viaduct would be the route. 

    The irregularities abound

    Firstly, Angell was not just passing by Lansing and Eighth as he said he was “still” at that place.  Then he moved east to the Corinth Street viaduct. But the direct route to Dealey Plaza from Lansing Street (one block west of Marsalis) would be over the Houston Street viaduct. He then used Industrial Boulevard despite the command for emergency vehicles not to use it. The route he took was almost twice the distance.

    None of that was questioned by Jackson as the dispatcher. Despite Angell saying “still”, Jackson was not surprised Angell was there. Nor did Jackson query why Angell had zig-zagged to Corinth. Nor did Jackson query why Angell was using Industrial Boulevard. Just as Jackson did not challenge why Nelson was on the south end of the Houston Street viaduct. Just as Jackson did not recall Mentzel from ‘lunch’.

    The leaving out of the transcripts the fact that Angell was at Lansing and Eighth gives the impression he was moving from his district 81 along Corinth. It also covers up the fact that Angell at 12:42 pm was in the same place that Tippit was at 12:53 pm, his last call before being shot.

    Mistranscriptions do not appear to be mistakes, as they have the effect of making the irregularities appear less obvious.

    The command and control of Dallas patrols

    In my K&K article “The Death of Tippit,” I set out how the command of the SW Dallas Platoon had been changed on November 22, 1963.

    Lieutenant Fulgham was sent to traffic school at Northwestern University, Illinois. His role was taken over that day by Sergeant Bud Owens. One of the three Sergeants, Don Steele, was off duty. That left Sergeant Hugh Davis in charge of the 80s and 90s districts. Sgt. Bud Owens was in charge of the 70s districts but said to the Warren Commission that control over Tippit passed to the same Sergeant as Angell (81), which makes it Davis. Owens said he could not furnish a reason. Owens had been sent to the depository.

    The standing down of Owens across lunchtime meant that Davis (80) was supervising control of half of Dallas, with a depleted number of officers. But despite that, he makes just two appearances on patrol radio at 12:38 pm and 12:43 pm when he said, “80 Clear” and then “80 Code 5”. He remained silent thereafter, even though one of his officers was shot dead. 

    CE2645 states that Davis, too, had been sent to the Depository, which is itself extraordinary, given there were only three officers left in the whole of southwest Dallas. But the question arises: Where was Davis in fact? Owens had been at the Depository until the call that Tippit had been shot came over the patrol radio. At 1:42 pm, Owens asked where Davis was, as Tippit’s wife needs to be told he is dead. Owens seems to have been in the dark. Nothing was forthcoming.

    As well as the question ‘Where was Davis?’, the question arises: Who was not in the dark as to what was going on in southwest Dallas?

    To answer that question, one needs to look in part at Captain Cecil E Talbert. Three Captains, Talbert, Souter and Williams were in charge of all patrols on a rotating basis, as there were three shifts in a day.

    Talbert’s FBI statement, page 59, is the basis of much of CE2645. Talbert only testified concerning the events of Sunday, November 11, the murder of Oswald by Jack Ruby. It’s not, therefore, possible to deduce anything from him or about him firsthand, other than the contents of his FBI statement and CE2645.

    But amongst the gross irregularities I have identified in this article, one stands out. Talbert failed to refer to Owens’ relinquished command, and we only know of that because of what Owens said in giving testimony.

    Talbert was an early arrival at the Depository and is hands on the radio regularly throughout the events. He drove to the Tippit murder scene and then the Texas Theater. Chief Jesse Curry testified on April 15, 1964 (WC Vol XII, p25) and confirmed that Talbert was also in charge of the protection of Oswald in the basement when he was shot by Jack Ruby.

    Given what was going on on November 22 and November 24th, and given the misleading accounts afterwards, it is logical to suggest that Talbert was an active participant in the nefarious activities. Any competent and honest commander should have been able to see then what is apparent now.

    Dale Myers also claims to have written the definitive book on the shooting of Tippit. I therefore find it peculiar that he does not mention that the command over the subject of his book changed over lunchtime on November 22, from Owens to Davis.

    What might depletion of a getaway area achieve?

    The depletion could achieve these things:

    Provide cover for any officers acting covertly in Oak Cliff in the run-up to and immediately after the assassination.

    That means no regular officer would intrude on whatever Mentzel, Tippit and others were up to in District 91. District 91 includes the Texas Theater, 1026 N Beckley, E10th, as well as Olsen’s location near Lansing and Eighth. Tippit and Angell went there too.

    I do not believe that Davis was at the Depository. No one answered the question of Owens as to where Davis was. If Jackson knew, he should have said. If Jackson didn’t know, he should have asked. Jackson likely knew but wouldn’t say.

    On the basis of my previous research, something shortly after the assassination caused Tippit to behave erratically and head to Lansing and Eighth. One possible conclusion is that he went there to meet his command, Davis, and something in that interaction caused the ambush and elimination of Tippit. It is inexplicable as to why Davis–the person in covert control of Tippit at the time Tippit was murdered– filed no report and was not put forward to testify.

    The Industrial Boulevard area (73-74) would be free of officers. 

    Industrial Boulevard, and the road to Houston, headed southeast, would be free of patrols. Parkland and the airport, being in NW Dallas, are in the opposite direction. One would not expect pre-planned getaways to go in the direction of legitimate assassination response activity.

    Depleting the adjacent districts before 1:00 pm would limit the first responders in the vicinity of the Texas Theater.

    Only Mentzel, Tippit, CT Walker and RW Walker had proximity. Therefore, any planned assault on the Texas Theater (district 91) to deal with Oswald could be controlled with only the desired officers arriving as first responders. RW Walker was districts 85/86. It is not possible to determine what he was doing until after the Tippit shooting announcement was made. By the patrol radio, he was on Jefferson approximately three minutes after Bowley’s first call of approximately 1:12 pm, declaring the shooting at 410 E 10th near the corner with Patton. Dispatch then put out conflicting locations of the shooting (telephone calls were also coming in), and Walker said: “85: I don’t see anything on Jefferson yet”.

    Given his home districts were on the other side of the Santa Fe Railroad, he could only have left his districts via Zang, Beckley or Marsalis. His travel time to Jefferson could have been three minutes. He was then immediately asked by dispatch to “check 501 East Tenth at Denver.” However, Jackson then immediately announced, “Suspect just passed 401 East Jefferson”. That is the Ballew gas station at the corner of Crawford and E Jefferson. One block from Patton and two from Crawford

    Within a minute of that, Walker then announced, “We have a description on this suspect over here on Jefferson. Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He’s a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing a white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks”.

    He made that announcement in the minute before the arrival at the Tippit murder scene at 410 E 10th of Officers Jez and Poe (105) and then Owens (19), seconds apart: at approximately 1:16 pm.

    That is consistent with Walker approaching E10th and Patton from the south rather than then encountering Warren Reynolds, who, from the 500 block of Jefferson, had heard the shots, seen the fugitive running and followed him along the 400 block to Ballew, a distance of approximately 400 yards. Whereas cars 105 and 19 had arrived from downtown in the north. From the announcements on the tape and the times on the tape, RW Walker did not have time to go, nor did he say he went, to 410 E. 10th until after having dealt with the scene at Ballew.

    That scenario stacks up with Warren Reynolds’ statement, as well as Mary Brock at Bellew. Mary Brock said that the first officer told her that the shooting was of a police officer. That is rational given Bowley’s call and four subsequent calls had made clear the victim was a police officer. One of which said the officer was dead.

    I cannot conclude whether RW Walker was left in his districts so as to be a desirable first responder for planned action at the Texas Theater. He does not seem to have entered the Theater, though he arrived there quickly after the first radio announcement that someone had entered the Texas Theater. And he was at 2:00 pm, sent to 2400 East Ledbetter, hence back in service for his home districts 10 minutes after the arrest of Oswald.

    However, Talbert’s reasoning for officer placings says:

    CE2645 RW Walker. Districts 85-85, Car 127. Assigned to remain in district to answer calls in regard to suspects.

    That begs the question as to why Walker was assigned to answer “calls in regard to suspects”. What suspects? There are no relevant calls on the tapes for Walker. How could that have been predicted, and why was that a reason given that all other near districts had been depleted of officers?

    Just as Jesse Curry couldn’t give a credible answer to McCloy as to why Tippit was sent to Oak Cliff, Talbert’s explanation regarding RW Walker isn’t clear either.

    Conclusion

    What I have set out above is based on circumstantial evidence. But it is based on corrected evidence that has erstwhile been misrepresented by various parties, including by the Dallas Police Department to the Warren Commission.

    Appendix – movement of officers

    District

    		  

    Officer/s

    		  

    Reason for leaving district

    21

     

    D.P. Tucker and C.R. Graham

     

    TSBD

    22

     

    LL Hill

     

    TSBD

    23

     

    BE Barnes

     

    Parkland
             

    70s to 90s

    		  

    Lt. Fulgham

    		  

    Out of State

    70s

    		  

    Sgt. CB Owens*

    		  

    TSBD

    71-75

     

    Wise, Cox and Sebastian

     

    Allocated bike duties

    76

     

    HH Horn

     

    TSBD

    77

     

    WE Smith

     

    TSBD

    78

     

    JD Tippit

     

    In 108 and 91

    79

     

    BW Anglin

     

    TSBD

    80s & 90s

     

    Sgt. HF Davis

     

    Open question

    81-82

     

    JL Angell

     

    In 91

    83-84

     

    RL Gross

     

    Went to Trade Mart

    85-86

     

    RW Walker

     

    Remained

    87

     

    RC Nelson

     

    In 108

    88-89

     

    Not known

     

    Not known

    91-92

     

    WD Mentzel

     

    In 91

    93-94

     

    HM Ashcraft

     

    TSBD

    95-96

     

    MN McDonald/TR Gregory

     

    TSBD

    97-98

     

    Not known

     

    Not known

    108-109

     

    OH Ludwig

     

    Allocated to guard hotel

    *Owens lost command of Tippit over lunch break to Davis.

  • Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat – The Tragedy of Patrice Lumumba

    Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat is a gripping, powerful film on the demise of a free Congo led by Patrice Lumumba. The USA had a major role in his fall; and this film shows how it happened and the protests against it.

    Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat:

    The Tragedy of Patrice Lumumba

     

    One of the most sorrowful stories of the post-World War II decolonization era is that of Patrice Lumumba and the Congo. It is a tale that I first discovered almost thirty years ago and wrote about for Probe magazine. But last year, there was a new documentary film made on the subject. Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat was directed by Johann Grimonprez and was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature Film at this year’s ceremony. It is worth seeing.

    Patrice Lumumba was the first prime minister of the newly independent state of the former Belgian Congo. He died at the age of 35, after Congo had been independent for about seven months. He was killed by a firing squad in the breakaway state of Katanga under the supervision and auspices of Belgium, but with the aid of the United States. America had previously tried to kill him more than once through the CIA. Lumumba was an articulate and charismatic leader who, contrary to what he was depicted to be, was not a communist. But he fiercely believed in the independence of Congo, as well as the decolonization of Africa and also the Pan African movement. To some in those Cold War years, this made for a serious problem.

    In and of itself, this is a quite gripping and moving story. In fact, there have been several books written on the subject. In 2000, there was a biographical feature film made by director Raoul Peck. The truly remarkable aspect of the story is that Lumumba’s government was a freely elected republic. Yet both Belgium and America set out to undo it just about immediately after it was installed. So much for fostering democracy.

    Although I thought I knew this material fairly well, there were some new things in the film for me. Such being the case, they will be new for most of our readers. But on top of that, this film has a twist that is related to its title. The story is framed through an original concept. Which is the utilization by the American government of African-American musicians and singers to serve as goodwill ambassadors to Africa. This is at a time when the American South is living under Jim Crow laws. Some of the personages involved are Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington, Nina Simone, Louis Armstrong and Miriam Makeba.

    Makeba was born in South Africa. She moved permanently to the USA after being exiled and became a successful singer. But she was placed under surveillance by both the FBI and CIA. While traveling abroad, her visa was revoked. Therefore, she moved to Guinea with her husband, Stokely Carmichael. And she stayed in Africa for the next 15 years. Gillespie ran for president in 1964 in order to raise funds for civil rights causes. Some of the things he promised were to recognize China, terminate the FBI and send a black astronaut to the moon. Knowing that Moscow used racism against the USA, Armstrong told the State Department that he would not go to Russia unless America straightened out its problems with segregation in the South.

    In the case of Nina Simone, she was tricked. She was sent on a tour of Nigeria in 1961 by something called the American Society of African Culture. This turned out to be a CIA front. She ended up quite upset about the episode, and after Martin Luther King was killed, she moved abroad and spat upon the USA, calling it “the United Snakes of America”. (Article by Jeff Heer, The Nation, 5/29/20)

    II

    But the film is built around the Lumumba story—and as we shall see—this musical background provides the thematic climax of the picture. Some of the interviews interspersed in the narrative are exceptional. For example, there is one with Larry Devlin, who was the CIA station chief in Leopoldville during the entire Lumumba episode. There is another one with Daphne Park, the longtime MI6 officer who was in Leopoldville at the same time. Park explains that part of the intel strategy there was to pit one group against the other. The film does not include her near-death confession that she helped organize the plot to kill Lumumba. (See London Review of Books, Letters section, 4/11/13) Devlin says that CIA chemist and poisoner Sydney Gottlieb arrived in Leopoldville and told him that Lumumba was to be terminated. And this was on the orders of President Eisenhower. Which means that CIA Director Allen Dulles must have told Gottlieb this, since according to the Church Committee—which the film quotes—Eisenhower told Dulles he wanted Lumumba eliminated. (See also John Newman, Countdown to Darkness, p. 227)

    But here I wish the film had included the fact that it was Devlin’s memo to Washington that likely started the plot in motion. His hyperbolic memo said that Congo was experiencing a classic communist takeover, and there was little time at hand to avoid another Cuba. (ibid, p. 223) Plus, Gottlieb was not the only option Devlin used to terminate Lumumba. There were also two CIA-hired killers, codenamed QJ WIN and WI ROGUE. (ibid, p. 268). This was the beginning of the CIA’s ZR/Rifle program under officer William Harvey. (ibid, p. 290)

    One of the most interesting parts of the film is what it postulates about a central motive for the termination of Lumumba on the American side. The film’s premise on this is that lurking in the background was the issue of uranium. Much of that element used in the Manhattan Project was garnered from the Congo. It specifically came from the Shinkolobwe mine in Belgian Congo owned by the company Union Miniere. I can’t help but wonder if this is not owing to the fascinating 2016 book by Susan Williams, Spies in the Congo, where she unearthed much of this material. For instance, it was Albert Einstein who first alerted Franklin Roosevelt to the danger of letting Germany build such a bomb first. And he also told Roosevelt that there were plentiful uranium deposits in Congo. (Article by Richard Norton-Taylor, 9/17/16, The Guardian.)

    But the film is not just limited to Congo. In its expansiveness, it extends into the attempt at a Non-Aligned nation alliance, and also the movement by African leaders to create a United States of Africa. The prime proponent of the former was Achmed Sukarno of Indonesia. For the latter, it was Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana. As the film shows, Lumumba had planned on joining a confederacy between Ghana, Guinea and Mali. Nkrumah always considered Lumumba’s death a serious blow to this union. These two groups place Lumumba in the proper context of the Third World emerging from colonialism and trying to be non-aligned and allied with similar emerging states.

    III

    A major character in the film, who, to be frank, I had never read about before, is Andree Blouin. Blouin was raised in an orphanage in Brazzaville until she was 17. She ran away and had a son with a Frenchman. The child fell ill with malaria, but the mother was denied quinine since it was only for Europeans. Her son died. She decided to move to France and was later divorced.

    It was the death of her son that politically radicalized her. She joined the Guinean Democratic Party to fight for freedom from France. She was so prominent in this movement that she was later expelled from Guinea by Charles de Gaulle. It was that expulsion which drove her to the Belgian Congo to organize their fight for independence. Again, she was quite effective, especially in organizing women.

    As the film notes, this brought her to Lumumba’s attention. She became a speechwriter for him and also served as a liaison to European governments like France. She always suspected that Belgium was not really going to leave Congo and that the mother country’s true aim was to set up a puppet government. She was correct in this. And she became a strong spokeswoman against the eventual dictator, Josef Mobutu. Always suspected of being a communist—which she insisted she was not—after Lumumba was assassinated, she came into Mobutu’s crosshairs. She fled to Paris, where she stayed until her death. (Article by Annette Joseph-Gabriel, africasacountry.com, 4/9/19) Retrieving Blouin from the memory hole and bringing her to the attention of the contemporary public is another feather in the cap for this film.

    As noted, Blouin was correct about Belgium not intending to leave the Congo. As many scholars have shown, the plan was to abandon the country so abruptly that the shock would throw Congo into chaos. Further, as Lumumba discovered, Belgium had sacked the treasury before they left. (Newman, p.155) Third, Belgium had allied itself with France and England to carve out an independent state in the province of Katanga. In mineral resources, Katanga was the richest area in Congo. If Lumumba could not stop its succession, then Congo could not succeed as a state. Especially since Belgium had dropped paratroopers into the area for the ostensible reason of protecting their citizens who were still there.

    IV

    In watching this picture’s remarkable film archive, the political personage who comes off the best is Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev. With all that we know today, and with what has happened since, Khrushchev was correct about all the circumstances and the probable impact. He wanted foreign troops and mercenaries out of Congo. In the battle between Lumumba and President Joseph Kasavubu—remember what Daphne Park said about pitting one against another—Khrushchev wanted Lumumba represented at the UN, not Kasavubu. Third, he wanted the UN to condemn colonialism outright and completely. And he did this all in New York, much of it in person. Further, he criticized Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold for moving too slowly and negotiating with Moshe Tshombe of Katanga, which he believed to be an ersatz state—which it was.

    Khrushchev was so effective on his two motions—against Kasavubu and condemning colonialism—that he attracted other Third World leaders to the UN, like Gamal Abdel Nasser, Fidel Castro and Achmed Sukarno. He also caused President Eisenhower to appear. And this is one of the most memorable moments in the film. In his address, the president said Congo should be free of any outside interference and be able to pursue peace and freedom without intervention by others. This was after he had given the order to eliminate Lumumba, and three days before Gottlieb flew from Paris to meet with Devlin. Ike’s hypocrisy, shrouded in secrecy, is more than a bit sickening.

    Khrushchev won the condemnation vote. He ended up losing the tally on seating Lumumba over Kasavubu. As the film shows, there was much maneuvering behind the scenes in order to attain that latter vote. This was done by the CIA and the ambassador to Congo, Clare Timberlake. And, as most commentators agree, it was this seating of Kasavubu that caused the ultimate tragedy—the death by firing squad of Patrice Lumumba.

    V

    Mobutu had dismissed Parliament and was clearly aligning himself with Kasavubu and even Tshombe. So Hammarskjold had placed Lumumba under house arrest for his own safety. Ironically, Louis Armstrong played a concert within a mile of Lumumba’s house arrest. Both Devlin and Timberlake were in attendance. Tshombe also arrived — for a payoff. Armstrong got so angry about this that he threatened to renounce his citizenship and move to Ghana.

    It was this UN vote that provoked Lumumba into breaking his house arrest and attempting to escape to his base in Stanleyville. The new CIA strategy was not to actually murder him. They would aid his foes in that aim. To further it, Devlin helped Mobutu cut off all possible routes to Stanleyville, thus making his flight harder and more time-consuming. This caused him to be captured, imprisoned and transferred to his dreaded enemies in Katanga. There, Lumumba was executed by firing squad. His body was soaked in sulphuric acid. When the acid ran out, his corpse was incinerated. (Newman, pp. 295-96)

    No one has summed up the unsettling, disturbing nature of what happened to Lumumba and the Congo better than the late Jonathan Kwitny:

    The democratic experiment had no example in Africa, and badly needed one. So perhaps the sorriest, and the most unnecessary, blight on the record of this new era is that the precedent for it all, the very first coup in postcolonial African history, the very first political assassination, and the very first junking of a legally constituted democratic system, all took place in a major country, and were all instigated by the United State of America. (Endless Enemies, p. 75)

    The crowning achievement of the film is its presentation of what happened at the UN when representative Adlai Stevenson announced that Lumumba had been killed. The CIA knew Lumumba had been murdered on January 17, 1961. And there is evidence that his killing had been hurried along so that John Kennedy would not be president while he was still alive. (John Morton Blum, Years of Discord, p. 23) The Agency knew that Kennedy was going to reverse policy and support the restoration of Lumumba. They achieved their aim in three days. But it was not until almost another month that Kennedy’s UN ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, found out about his death. He told Kennedy and then he announced it in session in New York.

    Something remarkable happened at this time. Actress/singer Abbey Lincoln, drummer Max Roach, and a young Maya Angelou got tickets for the UN. Joined by many others, they literally invaded the Security Council chambers, screaming “Murderers” “Assassins”. The representatives sat in shock while the security forces tried to subdue and expel the intruders. I had never seen this event before, and it is riveting to watch. Talk about speaking truth to power.

    Soundtrack to a Coup d’Etat is a well-done, intelligent and eloquent film on an important historical subject. Therefore, it is a rarity in the world of cinema today. I would advise all interested parties to see it. You will not be disappointed.

  • Jim DiEugenio on “Jason Olbourne’s 51st State” 10-23-25

    Jim DiEugenio speaks with Jason on how Kennedy’s foreign policy was changed immediately after his assassination, how Lyndon Johnson intimidated Earl Warren into the Lone Gunmen thesis, and who Oswald really was.

    Watch the podcast here.

  • The Missile Crisis Plot to Kill JFK

    Paul Bleau examines a phony trail of psy war Black Letters both before and after the JFK murder, linking the plot to Cuba.  It turns out that every credible examination, including Cuban G2, concluded they were phony, designed to produce a false trail.

    The Missile Crisis Plot to Kill JFK

    By Paul Bleau

    Introduction

    Comparative Case Analysis (‘CCA’), also known as ‘Similar Fact Analysis’, is a technique used in criminal intelligence analysis to identify similarities and support decision making (Dominik Sacha et al, 2017, originally published at The Eurographics Association).

    Cases can be linked in CCA through any of the following:

    a) Modus Operandi (or tactics, techniques, procedures)
    b) Signatures and patterns
    c) Forensic evidence
    d) Intelligence

    CCA is also a perpetrator profiling technique. By comparing seemingly similar cases, crime scenes, tactics, language, weapons, injuries, people of interest, and backdrops, templates can be defined and suspects identified.

    CCA was never performed for the JFK assassination.

    By comparing elements of what occurred in and around the murder of JFK and a November 1962 plot involving the use of incriminating letters purportedly sent from Havana by a Jose Pepe Menendez almost one year before the successful attempt, we will present compelling evidence of not only a conspiracy, but key parts of an m.o. and the identification of persons of interest.

    Ask yourself the question: If it can be established that there is a clear connection between two plots to kill JFK, the successful one and another that occurred a year earlier, can one solve the murder by solving the preliminary plot?

    Readers will be able to find all letters referred to by clicking here.

    Summary

    Near the end of November 1962, when the tensions around JFK’s handling of the Missile Crisis were at their highest and military hawks were opposed to their Commander in Chief, three letters from Cuba were intercepted. These letters, all bearing the signature Pepe, were fabrications designed to provide a paper trail that would frame potential patsies in the murder of JFK as leftists who were in league with Cuban agents.

    As we will see later, their interception was made easy by design: The intended recipients could easily be portrayed as pro-Castro and were not even connected to the addresses on the letters. Those who picked up the letters in their place were CIA-friendly and certain to pass the information on to their intelligence contacts who were part of the JMWAVE network, controlled by CIA officer William Harvey. The FBI and the Secret Service considered these letters to be serious. They suspected that their interception was intended, and called the alleged sender of the letter, Pxepe Menendez, a suspect. This case was never solved and was closed on November 21, 1963, one day before the assassination.

    In October 1963, Oswald and/or an imposter contacted Valeriy Kostikov, a KGB officer in the Russian Embassy in Mexico City, whom the CIA believed was in charge of executive action in the Western Hemisphere. After Kennedy was killed, at least three assets answering to CIA officer David Phillips offered false testimonies to link Oswald to Cuban agents.

    Between the Mexico City incident and the assassination six weeks later, Oswald was linked to Kostikov and the Cubans in six incriminatory letters that were strikingly similar to the Pepe Letters in terms of style, content, phrasing, and propaganda strategy.

    It is the similarity between the 1962 and 1963 false flag operation templates that renders the Pepe Letters affair so significant.

    The Pepe Letters

    In the process of reviewing the recent Latin American intel files at the Mary Ferrell Foundation, a series of them pertained to a prior plot that involved the use of incriminating letters to set up a patsy who would be blamed for the assassination of JFK and made to look as if he were a Cuban asset.

    The first letter I analyzed was very telling.

    1. It was sent from Cuba to “Bernardo Morales” at a post office box in Miami owned by an anti-Castro propaganda unit called Radio Libertad, La Voz Anti-Communista de America. The alleged sender was Jose Menendez, and the letter was signed Pepe. Morales was unknown to those who handled the letter and who eventually forwarded it to a CIA contact linked to the JMWAVE station in Miami.
    2. The sender’s full name is Jose Menendez Ramos. He was nicknamed Pepe. Menendez and his wife Carrie Hernandez had been described by an informant as members of the Tampa FPCC. Menendez got a “top Job” in the Cuban Government after his return. He and his wife were said to be extremely pro-Castro.
    3. Olga Duque de Heredia de Lopez and Aida Mayo Coetara, Miami Representatives for Radio Libertad (linked to anti-Castro DRE operatives), handled the mail. Lopez handed the letter to Cesar Gajate, whom she described as an anti-Communist fighter. Mayo is the wife of Humberto Lopez Perez, the director of Radio Libertad in Venezuela.
    4. Gajate was an AMOT contact. AMOT is a cryptonym for a network of Cubans trained by David Morales at JMWAVE during 1960-61. He passed on the information to his contact (likely CIA officer Tony Sforza or David Morales, who answered to William Harvey).
    5. This was an elaborate hoax to push the “Cubans plan to kill JFK” narrative. One of the people pushing it – CIA’s Bill Finch, worked with Bill Harvey.
    6. The information was sent to the Secret Service, the FBI, and the Department of State on Dec. 8, and later to the INS by Rufus Horn of Task Force W and is signed by him as Liaison and in lieu of William Harvey.
    7. The INS identified a Morales who entered the U.S. using a fake visa.
    8. Radio Libertad was CIA-sponsored (which was also the case for Voice of America) and operated out of Venezuela. It had an antenna office in Miami.
    9. The letter is postmarked November 29, 1962, a month after JFK’s peaceful resolution of the Missile Crisis.
    10. It reveals a network of conspirators based in Miami, Washington, and Cuba.
    11. It lamely suggests that by sending the letter to the right-wing Radio Libertad, it would not be intercepted.
    12. It crudely links “Fidel” to a plot to kill JFK.
    13. It does not mince words and is self-incriminating: “if we are able to kill President Kennedy,” “It would be a great success, super extraordinary, for Fidel,” “Marxist-Leninists 90 miles from the U.S.,” “paralyze imperialism completely,” “terrorize capitalism”, “get in contact with your Friends”, “You are an artist”: all very similar to the 1963 letters we will discuss later.

    The second letter, which was postmarked November 14, was sent to Antonio Rodriguez–a student at Georgetown’s foreign service school and the son of a Venezuelan diplomat–who was a chauffeur for Colonel Hugo Trejo. Trejo was a suspected intelligence contact from Venezuela and a Venezuelan military officer and politician who led the first attempt at a military rebellion against the president of Venezuela, Marcos Pérez Jiménez. Improperly addressed, Trejo advised the FBI about the letter.

    Trejo said that the letter arrived at a Venezuelan Delegation office in Washington. The Secret Service, tipped off by an informant suspecting an assassination plot involving Trejo, questioned members of the delegation, including Trejo, Rodriguez, and others, about the letter.

    “Antonio Rodriguez Jones’ address was crossed out in red ink and emerged from the Dead Letter Section with the address Antonio Rodriguez Gil, “2335 Ashmead Place NW, Washington, DC.   The Secret Service eventually found “this was in error”. 

    This address was the base for the office of the Venezuelan delegation of the Inter-American Defense Board, an OAS institution, where Antonio Rodriguez Gil was a chauffeur.  

    The ostensible reason for the operation against foreign service student Antonio Rodriguez Jones was because his father was Antonio Rodriguez Echazabal, also a diplomat by trade.   He was Cuba’s ambassador to Haiti as recently as 1959 before he defected in place in Haiti.   He identified as anti-Communist but was not involved with any anti-Castro opposition group. In November 1962, Echazabal was living in Washington, DC and planning to defect to the United States.   Echazabal was believed to secretly be a communist.   When Echazabal was arrested and deported in August 1963, the “Cuban plot against the President” file was ostensibly closed, but new files kept going inside it.” (Bill Simpich email to Paul Bleau, Sept 6, 2025)

    The letter refers to the assassination Cuba-linked plot in a similar fashion to the first Pepe letter discussed above, and was deemed to have been written by the same sender (Menendez) following FBI handwriting analysis.

    Intelligence forces attempted to link Rodriguez to an alleged Cuban Terrorist named Pino Machado:

    Who or what was the seed of the “Cuban plot? Perhaps Pino Machado, who was yet another diplomat, and formerly the alternate ambassador to Carlos Lechuga at the United Nations.  The Secret Service believed Pino Machado would be near JFK at an April 1961 UN event, and his profile was described as dangerous because he might be armed and had a history of violence.   

    His crimes?  A member of the July 26th Movement and imprisoned by Batista for sabotage activities until his fall.   The anti-Castroites had accused Pino Machado of being involved in JFK’s death since the very beginning.  

    The FBI’s Chief of National Intelligence, Ray Wannall, noted here that a “Secret Service informant” (#3-11-48) claimed on 11/27/63 that Pino Machado was involved in “terrorism” in Washington, DC, back in April 1961. And that if there was an “international plot”, then Pino Machado was the “intellectual director” of Oswald’s activities in Mexico City.  His subordinate Lambert Anderson had been monitoring both Oswald and the FPCC for months before 11/22/63.   

    Wannall accused Pino Machado of being in Mexico City in 1963, being involved in a plot to assassinate an anti-Castro leader at JFK’s dinner in Miami on 11/18/63, and the assassination of JFK himself.  All of this bogus information–and much more over the months–was passed on to Miami Secret Service officer Ernest Aragon and his boss, John Marshall.  JM/Wave’s Ted Shackley and Harvey had been studying Aragon as early as November 1962.  By early December 1963, Aragon knew that a Pedro Charles letter was a fake. This was allegedly sent after the JFK murder from Cuba to Oswald, discussing the “affair” and Oswald’s marksmanship. Unfortunately, the man (FBI informant) I call “the other Ernest Aragon/it may have been an alias” working for the Cuban Revolutionary Council, who also served as Secret Service informant 3-11-14, turned it over to Bill Finch of the Miami CIA’s security division (who worked for William Harvey). This offers some understanding as to why Aragon reported security lapses and Marshall twice told the HSCA that he was concerned that the Secret Service might be involved in the assassination of JFK.” (Bill Simpich email to Paul Bleau, Sept 7, 2025)

    The third Pepe letter was sent to: SEÑOR MINISTRO DE REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA in Guatemala. It does not refer to the assassination plot. It does attempt to link Cuba to clandestine revolutionary activities in the country. It made its way to the CIA.

    The FBI suspected subterfuge around the flagrant errors in addressing all three letters.

    (HSCA Report Volume 3 page 431)

    Even Secret Service inspector Thomas Kelley admitted the letters were apparently “meant to be intercepted“.

    The links with the 1963 letters and William Harvey (a person of extreme interest in the assassination) are most notable. 

    The 1963 forged letters

    “Oswald’s” letter to the Russian Embassy on November 9, 1963

    This uncharacteristically typed letter, purportedly written by Oswald, was intercepted by the FBI (as they did with all mail going to the embassy). This letter incriminated Oswald and foreign confederates and was corroborative of the Mexico City charade. It denigrates the “notorious FBI” and refers to Kostikov as “comrade Kostin.”

    The Warren Commission accepted this letter as authentic and explained it as an awkward appeal by Oswald for help from the Soviet Embassy. In fact, the content and the timing of the letter suggest that it was part of the same stratagem designed by those behind the Mexico City set-up.

    The fact that this letter was sent to Tovarich Nikolai Reznichenko at the embassy was a source of concern, even if the Oswalds corresponded with him several times in 1963. An FBI report (HSCA Record 180-10110-10104) clearly refers to him as “the man in the Soviet Embassy (Washington’s) in charge of assassinations.” In 1970, researcher Paul Scott had described him as “one of the top members of the Soviet Secret Police (KGB) in the United States.” (Paul Scott article)

    Incriminatory letters from Cuba- 1963

    Five letters from Cuba, all postmarked shortly after the assassination, one of which was destined for Oswald, were part of the Castro false flag operation and were also used to incriminate Oswald with unidentified Cuban agents, and Fidel Castro himself. These letters were addressed to recipients (Oswald, RFK, The Voice of America–a CIA propaganda asset), which guaranteed their interception or their being simply handed over to intelligence agencies.

    They also corroborate the Mexico City fabrication, which very few people would have known about at this time. The FBI dismissed these letters as a hoax, which they were. But they were a hoax with a purpose: to blame JFK’s murder on the Russians and the Cubans. Their content and timing revealed the same tactics being used by the planners.

    Letters from Cuba to Oswald—proof of pre-knowledge of the assassination

    In JFK: The Cuba Files, Cuban G2 officer Fabian Escalante presents a thorough analysis of five bizarre letters that were written before the assassination in order to position Oswald as a Castro asset. It is difficult to sidestep them the way the FBI did. The FBI argued that they were all typed from the same typewriter, yet supposedly sent by different people. This indicated to them that it was a hoax, perhaps perpetrated by Cubans wanting to encourage a U.S. invasion.

    However, the content of the letters and timeline proves something far more sinister, according to Cuban intelligence. The following is how John Simkin summarizes the evidence:

    The G-2 had a letter, signed by Jorge that had been sent from Havana to Lee Harvey Oswald on 14th November, 1963. It had been found when a fire broke out on 23rd November in a sorting office. After the fire, an employee who was checking the mail in order to offer, where possible, apologies to the addressees of destroyed mail, and to forward the rest, found an envelope addressed to Lee Harvey Oswald. It is franked on the day Oswald was arrested and the writer refers to Oswald’s travels to Mexico, Houston and Florida …, which would have been impossible to know about at that time!

    It incriminates Oswald in the following passage: “I am informing you that the matter you talked to me about the last time that I was in Mexico would be a perfect plan and would weaken the politics of that braggart Kennedy, although much discretion is needed because you know that there are counter-revolutionaries over there who are working for the CIA.”

    Escalante informed the House Select Committee on Assassinations about this letter. When he did this, he discovered that they had four similar letters that had been sent to Oswald. Four of the letters were postmarked “Havana”. It could not be determined where the fifth letter was posted. Four of the letters were signed: Jorge, Pedro Charles, Miguel Galvan Lopez and Mario del Rosario Molina. Two of the letters (Charles & Jorge) are dated before the assassination (10th and 14th November). A third, by Lopez, is dated 27th November, 1963. The other two are undated.

    Cuba is linked to the assassination in all the letters. In two of them, an alleged Cuban agent is clearly implicated in having planned the crime. However, the content of the letters, written before the assassination, suggested that the authors were either “a person linked to Oswald or involved in the conspiracy to execute the crime.”

    This included knowledge about Oswald’s links to Dallas, Houston, Miami and Mexico City. The text of the Jorge letter “shows a weak grasp of the Spanish language on the part of its author. It would thus seem to have been written in English and then translated.”

    Escalante adds: “It is proven that Oswald was not maintaining correspondence, or any other kind of relations, with anyone in Cuba. Furthermore, those letters arrived at their destination at a precise moment and with a conveniently incriminating message, including that sent to his postal address in Dallas, Texas …. The existence of the letters in 1963 was not publicized or duly investigated, and the FBI argued before the Warren Commission to reject them.”

    Escalante argues: “The letters were fabricated before the assassination occurred and by somebody who was aware of the development of the plot, who could ensure that they arrived at the opportune moment and who had a clandestine base in Cuba from which to undertake the action. Considering the history of the last 40 years, we suppose that only the CIA had such capabilities in Cuba.”

    The first letter addressed to Oswald includes: “close the business,” “money I gave you,” “recommend much to the chief,” “I told him (Castro) you could put out a candle at fifty meters,” “when you come to Habana.” Letter four specifies $7000 given to Oswald, which is close to what a Phillips-connected false witness claimed he saw being given to Oswald in Mexico City in the Cuban embassy. It also states that a Cuban agent named Pedro Charles “became a close friend of former Marine and expert shooter Lee H. Oswald in Mexico.”

    Black Ops: ZRRIFLE and Black Letters

    File 178-10004-10148 (released in 2025), from the Rockefeller Commission, discusses the use of this type of psy-war propaganda. This strongly indicates what all the letters discussed in this article are: Black Letters, i.e., forged incriminatory letters designed to create a phony paper trail to set up a foe:

    Partial file content:

    The Pepe Letters are too similar to the six 1963 incriminatory letters for this to all be happenstance. The tone, wording, and content, as well as the designed-to-be-intercepted expedition of all nine letters, incrimination targets, nature of the recipients, and the timing, can only be interpreted one way. These were Black Letters. They are the workings of specialized strategists who began plotting by November 1962 or earlier against JFK. They used psych-ops techniques, such as black letters. The letters supplemented other tactics that were in tune with the following part of Harvey’s ZRRIFLE: It also contemplates the need for false documentation within CIA files to protect the operation from exposure: “Cover: planning should include provision for blaming Czechs or Sovs in case of blow” and “Should have phony 201 in RI to backstop this, documentation therein forged and backdated. Should look like a CE [Counterespionage] file.”

    Case Linkage

    The assassination and the “Pepe” plot are not the only cases that should have been compared for clues that would help profile the plotters. On their own, they already provide compelling evidence of central coordination. Oswald’s opening of a Fair Play for Cuba Committee branch in New Orleans is already considered very suspicious by many in the research community. The Menendez links to the FPCC should set off alarm bells for all. This author’s chronicle of other potential patsies that were linked to this dying outfit–deemed to be Castro’s network in the U.S. by the House Committee on Un-American Activities–exceeded several in number. The newly found Menendez link is the topping on the cake.

    Conclusion

    At this point, the reader is encouraged to read the letters discussed in this article and peruse the other sources that can be found in the bibliography. If one concludes that the 1962 and 63 incidents are linked, then there is most likely a conspiracy involving central planning by those capable of implementing such tactics. Just as importantly, these events should be added to the growing body of evidence around CIA officers William Harvey and David Phillips, making them persons of even greater interest. Already suspected by some government investigation insiders, the proximity of Harvey to the Pepe Letters and Phillips’ links to Mexico City and the FPCC should not go unexplored. These letters have been for too long unexplored, but they are powerful evidence of a pre-existing plot against JFK.

     

    Acknowledgements

    I would like to thank Bill Simpich and Doug Campbell, who were the first to see the significance of the Pepe Letters. They, along with Dave Boylan, have provided valuable input to me regarding this still-developing story.

    References

    The PEPE Letters at Kennedysandking (all nine black letters are in the appendices) 25 January 2025

    Exposing the FPCC, Parts 1, 2 and 3 at Kennedysandking.com,

    The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK at Kennedysandking.com, 18 November 2016

    The CIA and Mafia’s “Cuban American Mechanism” and the JFK Assassination at Kennedysandking.com, 12 April 2018

    Oswald’s Last Letter: The Scorching Hot Potato at Kennedysandking.com, 17 December 2019

    Paul Bleau: “On the Trail of the Plotters” (Conference at UK Dealey Plaza)

    Doug Campbell Lancer presentation 2020

    Bill Simpich Education Forum 2025 My Summary of the Pepe Letters 

    The Following Files are at the Mary Ferrell Foundation:

    104-10012-10022 Kostikov

    104-10308-10249 PLOTS TO ASSASSINATE THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S- Menendez, Gajate, FPCC

    104-10506-10037 SURFACING OF LETTER DATED 27 NOV 1963 RE POSSIBLE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE PRESIDENT KENNEDY- 1976 distancing of Menedez

    104-10308-10001 100-300-12 PLOTS TO ASSASSINATE THE PRES OF THE US

    104-10506-10008 ROUTING SHEET AND DISPATCH: BERNARDO MORALES; THREATENING LETTER RE PRESIDENT KENNEDY

    104-10506-10016 TRANSMITTAL SLIP AND MEMO: INFORMATION CONCERNING POSSIBLE PLOT TO ASSASSINATE PRESIDENT KENNEDY- William Harvey sender

    104-10308-10272 Lt. Ramos: friendly with Fidel

    104-10506-10003 GAJATE PUIG AS INTERMEDIARY

    178-10004-10148 Description of how CIA uses Covert Black letters

    104-10506-10015 This sheet confirms Gajate is an AMOT contact : ROUTING SHEET AND GREEN LIST NAME CHECK REQUESTS/RESULTS

    180-10108-10017: ANTONIO GUILLERMO ROGRIGUEZ JONES.

    124-10279-10069: No Title Hugo Trejo

    HSCA Report, Volume III, Starting on Page 399: Analysis of the Pepe Letters

  • Review of James Douglass’s New Book – Pt 3

    Jim DiEugenio concludes his three-part review of James Douglass’s important new book with a discussion of the final and culminating murder of the sixties: the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

    Martyrs to the Unspeakable – Pt. 3

    By James W. Douglass

     

    Because James Douglass wrote an entire volume about the presidency and the assassination of John Kennedy, it is that case which gets the least attention in Martyrs to the Unspeakable. Which is a justifiable decision.

    But, having said that, Douglass still does deal with JFK. He brings up the case first in its relation to our current troubles: That is, President Kennedy’s dispute with David Ben Gurion and Israel. (p. 10) This important issue is finally getting the attention it deserves through writers like Rick Stirling, Ken McCarthy, and Monica Wiesak. Douglass shows that, quite early, Kennedy was aware of the need for America to come to the aid of the Palestinians who had been impacted by the Nakba. He addressed the problem in 1951. (p. 10). Later on, the author shows that Kennedy never stopped supporting that cause. He was trying to pass a UN resolution to grant relief on November 20, 1963– one which Israel vociferously objected to. (pp. 64-67)

    As Kennedy was about to enter the White House, he was alerted by the outgoing Secretary of State, Christian Herter, that there were rumors that Israel might be trying to build an atomic bomb. The problem mushroomed as Douglass notes, because “No American president was more concerned with the danger of nuclear proliferation than John Fitzgerald Kennedy.” (p. 11). The conflict between Kennedy and Prime Minister Ben Gurion began at their first, and only, head of state, face-to-face meeting at the Waldorf Astoria in New York in late May of 1961. At this meeting, Kennedy expressed his curiosity about the size of the atomic reactor at the Dimona site, but Ben Gurion insisted that it was only for desalination. Which, of course, was false.

    Kennedy’s interest was in not starting an atomic arms race in the Middle East. (p. 14). Specifically, he thought the possibility existed that if Israel developed a bomb, the Russians would aid Egypt in doing the same. As Douglass notes, this canard by Ben Gurion would mushroom two years later into a direct confrontation, which would result in Ben Gurion’s resignation.

    Douglass notes an important conversation that JFK had with Amos Elon, an American reporter for Haaretz. As early as 1961, Kennedy was realizing that the American/Israeli relationship was more useful to Tel Aviv than Washington. And he specifically said, “We sometimes find ourselves in difficulty due to our close relations with Israel.” The president said that the important thing was that the Israelis get along with the Arabs. And if that meant Israel adopting a neutralist stance, he would consider it. As long as there would be an Israeli/Arab settlement. (pp. 16-17)

    Douglass now goes to another complicating factor in the Middle East equation. This was Kennedy’s attempt to forge a relationship with Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. Before his meeting with Ben Gurion, Kennedy wrote to Nasser about a peaceful settlement to the Arab/Israeli conflict and also a viable solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, based on repatriation or compensation. (p. 17) This, as JFK knew, was very important to Nasser.

    Ben Gurion was worried about Kennedy’s aim of regular inspection at Dimona. He even encouraged the prominent Jewish lobbyist Abe Feinberg to discourage Kennedy from insisting on this. But Feinberg reported back that Kennedy would not be thwarted. Therefore, as related by former Mossad chief Rafael Eitan, the Israelis built a phony control center over the real one at Dimona, “with fake control panels and computer-lined gauges.” The goal was to make it look like a desalination plant. To top it off, none of the American inspectors spoke Hebrew, which made it easier to conceal the camouflage. (p. 20)

    This all escalated until May of 1963 when Kennedy insisted on scheduling full, unfettered and biannual inspections. And if these were denied, he was threatening to pull funding for Israel. After an exchange of four letters, Ben Gurion resigned. This allowed a delay to take place while a new prime minister was chosen. Two months later, the same ultimatum was issued to Levi Eshkol. Eshkol stalled on Kennedy’s request before agreeing to it. But Kennedy’s assassination then occurred, and, as in many other areas, Lyndon Johnson curtailed, stopped and then reversed Kennedy’s policy on both Dimona and the Palestinian refugee dilemma.

    In fact, as Douglass writes later, there is evidence that CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton actually helped Israel produce its first bomb. Angleton ran the Israeli desk at the CIA. He helped by referring an English scientist named Wilfred Mann to the Israelis. But Angleton denied ever being involved with shipping fissionable materials. In other words, he wanted no part of the NUMEC scandal out of the Pittsburgh area. (p. 58; click here for that story https://consortiumnews.com/2020/08/05/25-years-of-cn-how-israel-stole-the-bomb-sept-11-2016/)

    II

    Bobby Kennedy did not forget his brother’s devotion to nuclear non-proliferation. He noted it prominently in his maiden speech in the Senate. In that speech, he specifically mentioned how Israel was a problem in this regard. Although they were little noted in the USA, the comments were noted prominently in Israel. Mainly because of RFK’s support of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which did inspections of nuclear plants. (p. 61) These types of professionals would likely have unearthed the Israeli ruse about Dimona. Tel Aviv wanted no part of that.

    From here, Douglass shifts the focus to Sirhan Bishara Sirhan. Specifically to the lengthy—150 hours– hypnotic sessions sponsored by the legal team of William Pepper and Laurie Dusek. The late Harvard psychologist, Dr. Daniel Brown, concluded that Sirhan was one of the most susceptible hypnosis subjects he had ever encountered. Brown concluded that he was “…the perfect candidate.”(p. 69)

    Sirhan had two disturbing events happen to him in rather close proximity to each other. The first was the death of his sister, who died of leukemia when he was 21. The second event was when he fell off a horse at Granja Vista Del Rio Horse Farm. Sirhan was treated at the Corona Community Hospital emergency room by a Dr. Nelson. He was discharged four hours later. But according to his brother, he was gone for two weeks. (Lisa Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail, p. 434). Yet he only received four stitches over one eye. Both his mother and a friend tried to find out where he was. (Douglass, p. 73)

    With Sirhan under hypnosis, Brown discovered that he was in a ward with no windows and with about seven other patients, all with head injuries. Doctors would approach him each day with clipboards, taking urine samples, and asking him how he felt. When he did return, those close to him detected a personality change; he was more reserved and argumentative. (Douglass, p. 74) But further, you only visit a doctor once to get four stitches removed. So why did Sirhan then visit a doctor 13 more times over the next year, from 1966 to December of 1967? (Pease, p. 435)

    III

    From here, Douglass goes into the RFK career and his murder. In my view, this was a real highlight of the book. For the Bobby Kennedy of 1968 was probably the most radical candidate for president since Henry Wallace. Douglass goes into RFK’s disputes with President Johnson on civil rights and Vietnam. For example, Marian Wright of the NAACP wanted to attract political attention to Mississippi, since so many African/American children were suffering from hunger. Bobby Kennedy did go down as part of a small sub-committee on poverty. He was greatly impacted by what he saw and wanted Johnson to declare a state of emergency–which he would not. From there, he went to Indian reservations, Appalachia and New York City ghettoes. He wanted to see firsthand what Michael Harrington called the Other America. (Douglass, p. 88)

    When LBJ would not act on this issue, even after the riots of the summer of 1967, RFK decided that the man who could act was King. He told Marian Wright to tell King to bring the poor to Washington. So while in Atlanta, she did just that. And as she later said, “Out of that, the Poor People’s Campaign was born.” And King decided that this was then going to be the prime focus of his career. (Douglass, p. 91)

    But, as Douglass points out, it was not just this joint opposition to poverty that was worrisome to the Powers That Be. It was also their mutual opposition to the Vietnam War. Kennedy had made a speech against that war in the Senate on March 3, 1967. Almost exactly one month later, on April 4th, King delivered his polemic at Riverside Church in New York.

    Most people in this field are aware of President Kennedy’s conversation with Charles de Gaulle about the Vietnam War. What most people do not know is that the French president had a very similar conversation with Bobby Kennedy about the same subject. And Douglass describes it in detail in this book. (pp. 392-94) RFK took a European tour in late January and early February of 1967.

    He had two important topics he wished to discuss with some of the leaders he met: atomic weapons and the Vietnam War. He quickly found out that each one of the emissaries he met with thought Johnson’s war policy in Vietnam was so misguided as to be termed mad. When RFK met with de Gaulle, they talked for over one hour. And the exclusive subject was Vietnam. The president reminded Bobby of the advice he had given his brother, namely that the USA should not go into Vietnam. He then said that by directly entering that conflict, America’s special place in the world—one of respect and admiration—had been torn to tatters:

    The United States is in the process of destroying a country and a people. America says it is fighting Communism. But by what right does it fight Communism in another people’s country and against their will…. History is the force at work in Vietnam. The United States will not prevail against it. (p. 394)

    When they walked to the door, with the 6’4” de Gaulle hovering over the 5’10” Kennedy, the French president gave the senator some sage advice:

    Do not become embroiled in this difficulty in Vietnam. Then you can survive its outcome. Those who are involved will be badly hurt, because your country will tear itself apart over it. A great leader will be needed to put it back together and lead it to its destiny…. You must be that leader. (ibid)

    How could anyone not be impacted by someone like this? De Gaulle was the man who risked his own life, many times, to get France out of Algeria. Something JFK had advised France to do back in 1957. Douglass had done us all a favor in describing this little-known meeting.

    IV

    Kennedy’s visit to France had some big blowback when he got back to the USA. There was an article in Newsweek saying that he had received a “peace feeler” from Hanoi while in Paris. The senator did not understand what the report was about, and he told his press secretary that. (p. 409)

    What had happened is that on the same day that he had met with de Gaulle, he had a meeting with the Far East desk officer in the French Foreign Office. Kennedy was accompanied by a translator from the American embassy. The desk officer said that North Vietnam was willing to enter negotiations in return for an unconditional bombing halt. The senator did not think this was very important. But the translator did. He cabled his superiors in Washington about the story. And that is how it got in Newsweek. And from there it spread to the MSM, including TV.

    President Johnson was quite offended by this story, as he took almost everything RFK did as a personal affront. He thought that Bobby had leaked the story in order to promote himself as a peacemaker. But it was even worse than that. Because Johnson–under the influence of his Vietnam overall commander, William Westmoreland—thought that he was on the verge of winning in Indochina.

    When RFK got word of this MSM story, he wanted to straighten things out with the president. So he went to see Johnson. This was a mistake. Instantly, LBJ accused him of leaking the story. Kennedy replied with, “I didn’t leak it. I didn’t even know there was a peace feeler. I think the leak came from somebody in your State Department” (Douglass, p. 410)

    Johnson took this reply badly. He said it was not his State Department. It was Bobby’s. Meaning that it was still filled with Kennedy loyalists.

    Kennedy tried to change the subject. He offered him what his plan would be to settle in Vietnam: stop the bombing, go to the negotiating table, do a staged cease-fire and create a coalition government governed by an international commission to hold elections as a final solution.

    About a year from Tet, Johnson was not in a state of mind to listen to any peace agreement. He made no bones about it either. He began with “There’s not a chance in hell I’ll do that.” Then it got worse:

    I’m going to destroy you in six months. We’re going to win in Vietnam by the summer. By July or August the war will be over. You and every one of your dove friends will be dead politically in six months. You guys will be destroyed.

    What is really kind of bizarre about this is that it appears that Johnson believed it. He really thought that General Westmoreland was giving him the right info and predicting the correct outcome. RFK had finally gotten a glimpse into Johnson’s real psyche about the most divisive conflict since the Civil War. He appropriately walked out. He now understood de Gaulle’s advice. There was only one way to end the war. Even if it meant the end of him.

    V

    I would like to close with two sterling episodes from the book.

    The first is another conversation I had never seen before. This was between Bobby Kennedy and Giorgi Bolshakov in May of 1961. (pp. 469-70) Bobby called him in and told the Russian spy that his brother thought there could be a lot more cooperation between their two countries. But Jack was taking over from a former general, namely Eisenhower, as president. Therefore, he was stuck with people like Lyman Lemnitzer as chair of the Joint Chiefs and Allen Dulles as Director of the CIA.

    Now recall, this was after RFK’s duty on the Taylor Commission investigating the Bay of Pigs. He understood how that debacle had occurred. He knew the CIA had deceived the president, and the Joint Chiefs had approved the operation. So he now delivered the punchline: His brother had made a mistake in not firing Dulles and Lemnitzer right away!

    Again, I had never seen this quote before. If you ever wondered where Bobby Kennedy’s later radicalism came from, here it is. He would have gotten rid of Lemnitzer and Dulles on day one. He then expanded on this point:

    These men make outdated recommendations and suggestions which are out of keeping with the president’s new course. My brother has been compelled to go by their mistaken judgments in decision making. Cuba has changed all our foreign policy concepts. For us, the events in the Bay of Pigs are not a flop, but the best lesson we have ever learned. So we are no longer going to repeat our past mistakes. (Douglass, p. 469)

    RFK knew that this attitude by his brother would put a target on the president’s back: “They can put him away any moment. Therefore, he must tread carefully in certain matters and never push his way through.” This remarkable discussion—four hours’ worth– went on until nightfall. When RFK gave Bolshakov a lift home–at or after 10 PM, the Russian could barely sleep. The next morning, he cabled his summary to Moscow. This is what began the secret communications between JFK and Khrushchev. So intricately described in JFK and the Unspeakable.

    If anyone has any knowledge of something similar to this happening since, I would like to hear it. I know nothing like it occurred during the Truman or Eisenhower administrations. It might have been possible under Gorbachev, but Reagan blew that opportunity. Thus paving the way for him to be deposed.

    VI

    As most of us know, the so-called Bobby Kennedy open and shut murder case was not open and shut. But there were signals at the start that the game was going to be rigged. For instance, as Roger LaJaunesse of the local FBI told Bill Turner, both he and the regular command of the LAPD were shoved aside almost immediately. The LAPD Chief of Detectives, Robert Houghton, installed an elite team of his own officers to run that investigation. It was called Special Unit Senator. And the two men who were in charge were Lt. Manny Pena and Sgt. Hank Hernandez. Both of them had ties to the CIA. And they did their best to keep that angle out of the trial and to censor any exculpatory material to the defense.

    But it was actually even worse than that. Thomas Noguchi was the man who performed the autopsy on the senator. He wrote a 62-page report on his findings. The late pathologist Cyril Wecht once called it the finest piece of medico-legal reportage he had ever read. For whatever reason, Noguchi was the last person to testify for the prosecution. In his testimony, both his report and some photographs were admitted into evidence. As Noguchi was beginning to describe the damage to Robert Kennedy’s skull that was revealed during his examination, the lead defense lawyer objected. Grant Cooper said the following:

    Pardon me, Your Honor. Is all of this detail necessary? I would object on the ground of immateriality. I hardly think that this testimony of the doctor is necessary in dealing with the cause of the man’s death. I am not suggesting, Your Honor please…this witness may certainly testify to the cause of death, but I don’t think it is necessary to go into details. I think he can express an opinion that death was due to a gunshot wound. (p. 377)

    This is astonishing. Because it is Noguchi’s findings that exculpate Sirhan as the killer of Robert Kennedy. And here was Sirhan’s defense attorney handing the prosecution their guilty verdict on a silver platter. As anyone who has read some of the better books on the RFK case should know, all the projectiles that entered the senator were from behind, at upward angles, and at very close range. The wound that Noguchi was about to describe was at contact range, about 3 inches away. (Douglass, p. 388) Which means the gun was so close to the head that expelled particles had nowhere to escape into the air. So they created a tattoo ring on the rear of Kennedy’s skull. (Douglass, p. 387) Sirhan was never behind the senator, and no one ever said that his gun arm was aimed upward or that he was in point contact with the rear of Kennedy’s head.

    So why would Grant Cooper object to having the best witness he could have testify to those particular elements of the crime scene?

    The answer is simple: Johnny Rosselli. Cooper was serving as attorney for a cohort of Rosselli’s in the Friars Club case right before he took on the RFK case. Maurice Friedman was a Las Vegas frontman for the mob’s casino ownership. Both Friedman and Rosselli ran a card cheating ring at the club, which was frequented by some high rollers from the entertainment industry, like Phil Silvers. Because of the sophisticated cheating apparatus, Friedman won hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rosselli got a cut since it was on his mob turf. (Douglass, pp. 400-401)

    But on July 20, 1967, the FBI raided the club. The ring was exposed, and Rosselli and Friedman were indicted. They were worried about being convicted, so they bribed a court reporter for the grand jury minutes in their case. A copy of Phil Silvers’ grand jury testimony was found on Cooper’s desk during the trial. At first, Cooper lied and said he had no idea where it came from. (Douglass, p. 404)

    Cooper eventually came clean about what had happened. And it was clear he was facing an indictment. But the inter-agency task force on the Sirhan case was told that this decision would not be made until after the RFK trial. Well, after his less-than-zealous performance for Sirhan, Cooper ended up not being indicted. Defended by a member of the Warren Commission, Joseph Ball, Cooper got off with a slap on the wrist. And a mild one at that. He was fined a thousand dollars. (Click here for the decision https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1827338.html)

    It is quite difficult not to see this in tandem with his horrendous performance in defense of Sirhan. Where he actually stipulated to the prosecution’s evidence.

    Jim Douglass has done a fine job in describing and then defining the epochal impact of the four high-level murders of the sixties. They were not the result of aimless violence by disturbed assassins. They were all cleverly worked out plots, and the net result was a large diversion of American history. Which does not get into textbooks. This book is a worthy successor to JFK and the Unspeakable.

    The book is available here. Editor’s note: An advance copy was provided for this review. The prior link may also be used for preordering, with an expected release date of Oct 28.

    Click here to read part 1.