External
Comments On This Course
Here are the external comments on this course that have been submitted by
E-mail.
22 January 1999
From Jack White, long-time photoresearcher in the case:
Dear Prof. Rahn...
I visited your website and found it interesting. It is good
that a course such as yours is being undertaken on the JFK assassination. For
too long academia has looked on the event as studied only by conspiracy kooks.
People like you can help overcome that bias. The French Revolution, the Russian
Revolution and the Lincoln Assassination are common college courses. Maybe some
day the Coup of 1963 will be common in college catalogs.
I hope you course and seminar are very successful. Keep us
updated.
Sorry I cannot attend the seminar. Give George Michael my
regards.
Jack White <jwjfk@flash.net>
************
From Syd Rubenhold:
Dear Dr Rahn:
Thanks for the info on the JFK assassination course. I have
been a student of this event since 1964. I do not know if you will be discussing
the following subject but I feel it is could be useful to do so. I believe it
can be shown that the shot that struck JFK in the back and allegedly passed
through to hit Gov Connally could not have come from the TSBD. By using an
aerial view of Dealy Plaza and placing the presidential limousine at the exact
location location on the road when the shot struck JFK's back, one can see by
drawing a line from the impact point to the location of the 6th floor window
that the lateral angle is too large to allow the bullet to have passed through
JFK to hit the governor's right shoulder without a major deflection or mid
course maneuver. I have made a diagram supporting this conclusion but have not
seen a similar one in any of the books I have read.
Sincerely,
Syd Rubenhold <sydpds@earthlink.net>
***********
From Anthony Marsh, Somerville, Mass.:
Documents, you need documents. I will try to scan a few
for you. I have several on my web site and am in the process of sending many to
Deanie Richards out in Akron. You also need to guide the students through the
FOIA and proceedures for getting documents from the National Archives. Remember
that each student is allowed up to 100 free pages of documents from the National
Archives.
Anthony Marsh <amarsh@quik.com>
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
*********
From Connie Kritzberg, Dallas, JFK author:
Sounds interesting. Although your readings are set, you
may want to look at our new book, "November Patriots,": fiction and
fact, available at The Last Hurrah, JFK-Lancer and from me. It is close to Gary
Cornwell's "Real Answers."
Connie Kritzberg <CKritzberg@compuserve.com>
********
From Stuart Wexler:
Hello,
I applaud you for offering this class. I hope you'll make an
effort to be balanced.
I believe that Crossfire is a poor choice of books for use in
the class. I believe it contains many factual errors as well as unreliable
analysis. As someone who believes in a conspiracy, I think the Anthony Summer's
most recent work "Not in your Lifetime" as follow-up to
"Conspiracy" is the best overview work; closely following would be
Thompson's "Six Seconds in Dallas". On the other side, as someone who
has read many LN books as well, I think that the recent work "Live By the
Sword" and David Belin's "You Are The Jury" are more condensed,
better articulated "Oswald acted alone" books, although the former is
iffy as to whether or not Oswald was put up to the crime.
I have many, many more suggestions when it comes to books
that deal with specific areas. On the scientific and reasoning front, a
soon-to-be-out article from physicist Art Snyder and his wife Margaret will be
groundbreaking.
-Stuart Wexler <Stugrad98@aol.com>
23 January 1999
From Tom Blackwell:
This is very interesting. I hope you will continue to send
EMail. I took Jim Marrs' course at UT-Arlington when he was teaching it from a
large loose leaf notebook. That notebook later became the book
"Crossfire." I provided a photo of the acoustics tests on Dealy Plaza
from 1979. The issue I illustrated was explained very well in Oliver Stone's
movie.
<radio@airmail.net>
*********
From Roger S. Peterson:
Ken, thanks for your invitation. I see Chas Drago is
working with you so I know you are in good hands. One aspect of this case is the
treatment of the issue by the media. Dan Rather once confided that "we blew
it on the JFK assassination" but he/they do nothing to make up for it.
Example: On Nov 22, 1998, I was one of several people to spoke at the JFK
Memorial and then Dealey Plaza. I was on a mic that shook windows in downtown
Dallas. At Dealey Plaze, there were approx 300-400 people in front of me. AP
claimed no one showed up, as usual, at Dealey Plaza. CNN reported that this (99)
was the first year that nothing happened at Dealey Plaza.
Make sure you students get the important article Carl
Bernstein wrote for Rolling Stone in 78 about the arrangement the CIA has always
had with the major media owners. With Watergate, it was about following the
money. With JFK,it is about following the arrangements, alliances, gentlemen's
agreements as well as the money. Good luck.
Roger S. Peterson <peterson@garlic.com>
*********
From Bob Vernon:
Present this: http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/9747
<kershaws@ecis.com>
My reply the next day:
Bob:
Would you mind telling me a bit more about yourself? Do you
want to be placed on my JFK mailing list?
Ken Rahn
His reply (the 24th):
Professor Rahn:
In response to your questions in your email, I am a producer.
My partner is the late Joe West. We have uncovered three actual participants in
the murder and are working oon the fourth. We are going for a grand jury.
You are welcome to place me on your mailing list.
I have only one goal and that should be the goal of your
students: the truth.
The truth is on the website I sent you. I notice you linked
it in.
Suggest you focus on Mr. Files and the two other
participants. You will see much more on the fourth person that we just located.
Bob Vernon
*******
24 January 1999
From Joel Grant, Seattle long-time JFK researcher:
I was very pleased to run across your course's web page.
Jean Davison posted the information on the internet newsgroup
alt.assassination.jfk. I would recommend following, and even participating in
this moderated newsgroup.
Judging from your list of course materials, the syllabus,
your overall approach, and from what I know of your approach to this case, I can
only wish I were able to take the course myself. I have been studying the case
since November 22, 1963 and I am still learning.
I will be following your assignments on the web and I hope to
be able to make a "critical" comment or two as time allows.
Best regards,
Joel Grant <JGrant3919@aol.com>
*************
From James Hackerott:
You might want to include JFKResearch, http://www.mtexchange.com/jfk/forum.html,
in your list of web sites. It is a fairly active and growing website, with
leanings toward study of the photographic evidence. Good luck, and please keep
us updated with your findings.
James Hackerott <hackjama@wt.net>
(It was already there—KAR)
*****************************
From James Crary, Pittsburgh
Dear Prof. Rahn,
I am very interested in your course, and would be able to
follow developments from here in Pittsburgh.
Let it be.
James M. Crary <deafjim@webtv.net>
www.inergy.com/crary : deafjim (james macryland crary)
Reply to Crary (same day)
Dear James:
Welcome! I look forward to getting comments from you along
the way. Do not hesitate to write.
Ken Rahn
****************************
27 January 1999
From James Crary:
At the Community College of Allegheny County, I guest
lectured for the history department twice a semester for several years on the
subject of the Kennedy Assassination. During that time I received only one
letter from an established researcher, that was from Jim Marrs, who was teaching
a full length course. He was very pleased, as were most of the students. I spoke
once with Cyril Wecht at the college, a coroner who has been in the center of
this controversy. While I cannot present myself as an expert, I do understand
the broad outlines of the plot that killed Kennedy and many of the arguments
presented by both sides. I also can recognize unlikely ideas and genuinely new
or interesting ideas, although such judgements are often a matter of conjecture
or opinion. When I don't know the answer, I generally know the direction in
which to look and have quite a bit of exposure to researchers and debates, as
well as many years experience working as a clerk with librarians in a college
library. If any of your students are interested in discussing these issues with
me, I am contactable via email at deafjim@webTV.net. The name of the professor
who enlisted me at CCAC was Alice Greller, who faught for the truth about the
assassination of JFK during the dark age before Oliver Stone's film. It was for
many years a thankless task she performed.
www.inergy.com/crary : deafjim (james macryland crary)
Again from James Crary:
Dear Prof. Rahn:
I am glad that you contacted me because I wanted to ask you
if your students contact me would you like me to remove my website signature in
my responses to them? I don't want to confuse the issues you are raising in your
class with my own affairs. For your assurance, it is all true and worse. I was
kidnapped, and tortured horribly as a child and went through this injury alone.
I went into traumatic shock and amnesia for many years after my mother was
forced to sell her house and get me out of the neighborhood where I was in grade
school and subject to great trauma.
When I saught help for shock over a decade later, my dossier
had long been falsified and my credibility knocked down by group of people I
have identified. This is a brief, as is my website, but the consequence was that
persons I saught assistance from actively assaulted me, and saught with great
malignancy to prove me some kind of detestible fraud and liar. It was as though
they were trying to balance some truly imbalanced mind by attacking me. Foremost
among those who led this very cruel and invasive assault was artist Peter
Gabriel.
How I survived I cannot say. I thought I was lost when I went
into convulsive arrests. The Olga Havel Foundation Committee of Good Will in
Czech Republic, founded in the name of the deceased wife of former dissident and
present Czech leader and President Vaclav Havel, wrote me many times, with great
concern and comfort. A man named Don Timmerman, who runs a homeless shelter
called Casa Maria, part of the Catholic Worker system wrote to Amnesty
International in protest, and connected me with groups who process torture
survivors, who also aided me a little.
A great deal of credit goes to the Pittsburgh Hearing Speech
and Deaf Services, a deaf girl named Jeannie Tamburro and my personal counselor
Howard Dobrushin vigorously intervened in my family situation and through the
courts to bring me into their care for therapy, volunteer work, friendship and
rehabilitation. I am indeed still in chronic pain, suffering spasms in my face
and optical nerves and muscles, but time has released me from much of the pain,
and therapy has given me a chance to talk through and write about experiences,
some of which, a kidnapping incident in particular, during which I was gassed,
THAT I DID NOT EVEN KNOW HAD HAPPENED TO ME, until after the seizures restored
memories. My eyes almost separated, it was that bad.
Dick Cress, who runs the Dignity of Victims Everywhere
website also helped me, with cool and rock solid advice about my writing. He
supported my counselor's wisdom time and again, making it harder and harder for
people interested in derailing my rehabilitation to succeed.
Finally, there was Angie Dorman, who appears in my website.
Angie, like Don Timmerman, believes me. I can't tell you how liberating it is to
be believed.
www.inergy.com/crary : deafjim (james macryland crary)
*******************************
A brief addendum from James Crary:
I did indeed lose 91% of my hearing during the ordeal of
childhood. I speak very clearly, however, which can be confusing at times.
www.inergy.com/crary : deafjim (james macryland crary)
*******************************
5 February 1999
From Enid Gray
Dear Prof. Rahn,
Thank you so much for sending the information regarding the
Providence conference, but alas as I live in Australia it will be impossible for
me to attend. However, the J.F.K. course is something that I could participate
in.
So, could I begin with a contribution which should interest
any of your students who are still embroiled in the question of whether it was
the real Oswald or an imposter who travelled to Mexico City. They may be
interested to learn that I have spoken to Patricia Winston, who was one of the
Australian ladies who travelled on the same bus to Mexico as Oswald. This very
important witness, who spoke to Oswald for hours, is still convinced that the
person she met was the real Oswald and not an imposter. I will be happy to email
further details to any of your students who are researching this area of the
assassination.
I wish you a succesfull conference.
From Enid Gray
My reply the same day
Dear Enid:
Thanks for your reply and your interest in our course. I'm
sure that our students would like to see further details on Oswald and Mexico
City. Why not send the information to me, and I will post it so that all can
view it?
Sorry you can't make the conference!
Ken Rahn
******************************
12 February 1999
From David Mollering
Kenneth,
My name's David Mollering, I'm an Illustrator working for the
San Diego Union-Tribune. I've been into the assassination since highschool, the
early 70's. In 1994 I had the chance to meet one of the so-called tramps, the
older tramp, otherwise known as the third tramp, Chauncey Holt. The three men
photographed being escorted by police through Dealy Plaza. We became great
friends and had lunch weekly for the next three and a half years. Not only was
he a contract agent, but he worked for big business and the mob for thirty
years. Starting after WWII working for Meyer Lansky as an accountant, among
other things. He was a skilled assassin taking part in most of the Central
American black operation for the company, starting with Guatemala and continuing
through Chile. We filmed him the week before he died in June 1997. The one thing
we have that noboby else has are the documents and letters he kept. Linking Big
business the mob and the agency. Soon you'll be able to see for yourself what
went on during those times. I always felt I was going to lunch each week with
the unspoken history of 50's 60's and 70's.
I think it's a great idea getting students involved in the
subject, seeing the times at such a distance should bring a clearer eye.
If any of your students would like to write and inquire about
what I learned from Chauncey, I'd be more than happy to tell what I know. If you
have any reservations about my story, please write James H. Fetzer, PHD,
University of Minn @ Duluth. (jfetzer@d.unm.edu) He is very familar with
Chauncey's story, and a good friend.
sincerly David Mollering
dmolring@cts.com
My reply
Dear David:
Thanks for your note of earlier today. I have taken the
liberty of posting it on the "External comments" section of the
course's web page so that all the students can see it. I hope that some will
write to you.
Chauncey Holt wrote to me a few years ago. As I recall, it
was because he disagreed with something I had written and wanted to register his
opinion. I believe he was living in The Artists' Colony in Lemon Grove, CA, if
memory serves. It seems to me that his letter was pretty feisty--he was
basically chewing me out. I think I still have it somewhere.
I have one question for you--did you make any effort to check
any of the things that he told you? If so, what did you find?
Would you mind telling me a bit more about yourself? Do you
want to be placed on my JFK mailing list?
Would you like to be put on our mailing list for the course
and the conference?
Thanks in advance.
Sincerely, Ken
His reply
Kenneth,
Thanks for returning my mail so soon. The mention of Chauncey
writing you and chewing you out made me laugh. HE made a career writing letters
to the Union-Tribune and LA Times. He wasn't shy about expressing his opinion.
Yes, after he died we spent the next 6 months or so researching the people and
places he mentions. Not once did we find a discrepancy, and most of the time we
discovered he under played his role.
I not sure if your aware, but Chauncey's underworld life goes
all the way back to Bugsy Siegal. He often spoke about flying with Meyer Lansky
out to Vegas and LA to check on the money Siegal was spending. I'm also sure you
arn't aware of his career in the circus. He had some relatives who owned a
circus and each summer starting when he was still in grade school, he'd perform
on the highwire. He later used the circus to smuggle arms into Cuba after Castro
took over. This tape is also not just Dallas, he also was in New Orleans that
summer. In fact those photos of Oswald on the street corner are croped. In full
frame you clearly see Chauncey comming out of the Trade Mart. We have the photos
and letters pertaining to that. His superiors were not pleased he was
photographed.
You can sign me up, but I'm not sure I can afford to attend.
sincerly David Mollering
P.S. E-mail me your shirt size, I've made Chauncey Holt Memorial T-shirts and
I'll send you one.
My reply
Dear David:
I actually know very little about Chauncey other than that he
berated me once. Are you sure that he was one of the tramps? If so, how?
Thanks for the offer of the T-shirt. I wear them very seldom,
so if you wish, you may save mine for someone else. If you insist, though, my
size is something like medium (38-40).
Ken
Second message
Kenneth,
Is there a chance I could make a presentation on Chauncey to
your conference. If I could bring some documents would that help?
- David Mollering
My reply
David:
Thanks very much for your stimulating suggestion. I'm meeting
with my cochairman Charlie Drago on Monday afternoon to discuss things like
this. While we are trying to keep most of the presentations general*, the
subject of Chauncey might be so interesting that we couldn't turn it down. But
I'm warning you to be ready for some serious questioning.
*I, for example, will probably offer a new JFK epistemology
(logical system of dealing with evidence and reasoning). I didn't develop it;
I'm just the messenger of centuries of classical practice.
Sincerely, Ken
****************************
13 February 1999
Correspondence with Brian LeCloux
Dear Prof. Rahn:
I found your materials for your course to be most
interesting. In general I like your approach though I would disagree with
some of your conclusions. I've been most impressed with
the work of three individuals on the JFK case. Howard Roffman
and his book, Presumed Guilty. If there is an alibi for LHO
its in his chapter where he shows that based on the eyewitness
testimony from the Warren Commission Oswald to have been
the sixth floor assassin would have arrived at the Coke machine
AFTER Truly and Baker. You simply have to read this chapter
and the accompanying exhibits to understand the simplicity
of the solid alibi. Again based only the official evidence and testimony.
Second, Weisberg. He is still the man when it comes to research.
No one knows the facts or case like him. His knowledge of the
official record is unparalleled. If ones disagrees with his
stridency, tough. Finally, David R. Wrone. His 1979 massive
bibliography compiled with Delloyd J. Guth is a treasure, especially
the 30 page intro where Wrone takes apart the Warren Commission's
and the House Committee's case piece by piece using their own evidence, till nothing is left but conspiracy. And Wrone's
review of Posner's book is the best as well. He notes the numerous
factual errors Posner makes; not of interpretation but of simple fact, like the names of people, where a bullet struck, etc.
I like what Weisberg once said and I'm paraphrasing: There's
two things I know for sure, the official
story is not true and those who issued it
knew it wasn't true. There's another thing I know, the crime was beyond the capability of Lee Harvey Oswald or anyone else.
I agree.
Brian LeCloux, Richland Center, WI <blecloux@mwt.net>
(Disclosure: I'm a former student of Prof. David R. Wrone at UW-Stevens Point)
My reply
Dear Brian:
Thank you for your message of general comment just now. This
is exactly the kind of response I had in mind when I decided to put the course
onto the web. Although I have Howard Roffman's book, I sense that arguments of
the sort he makes are inherently weaker than much of the other evidence
available to us. (And by the way, I agree that we cannot put Oswald's finger on
the trigger, even though we can come fart closer than we can with anybody else.)
I also respect Harold Weisberg's deep knowledge of the case. My concern with his
stridency is not just the stridency, but when it is coupled with his complete
inability to find a better explanation for any of the deficiencies of evidence
that he criticizes so. It's as though human organizations should never show the
imperfections of being human. Furthermore, I can state with authority that when
he entered one area that I know about, the chemical analysis of the bullets and
fragments, he was completely off base.
I don't have anything by David Wrone. Would you be willing to
send me that 30 pages of dissection that you referred to? I would very much like
to examine it. I would also like to distribute copies of it to the class. Thanks
in advance.
As to the crime being beyond the capability of anybody, I
believe we could have a serious discussion about that, since somebody obviously
did it. It's always risky to state with certainty that nobody could do
something, because we might not yet have all the relevant facts concerning the
act. The dilemma becomes even more acute when seen in the light of the chemical
and ballistic evidence that ties all the bullet fragments back to Lee Harvey
Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles. This is one of those
unpleasant hard facts that we all have to deal with. I hope you will stay with
the class and offer additional comments. We are moving into patterns of thinking
critically and evaluating evidence. I look forward to your comments on the five
essays that are the subjects of the most recent homework assignments (the last
assignment of which will be posted in a couple days).
Sincerely, Ken Rahn
His reply
Thanks for your reply:
1. I have a different view of Roffman. I've seen his
impressive presentation given at UW-SP in Nov. 1976 at Wrone's Assassination
Symposium (included James Lesar and Harold Weisberg; what a group! probably the
best four ever assembled)
2. Your comments about the bullet evidence don't and cannot
link any specific person to the shots. Correct?
3. When you have the time reread Roffman's superb analysis of
the Warren Commission evidence and testimony from Chapter 8 pp. 201-225 The
Alibi: Oswald's Actions after the Shots. Review the figures on pp. 218 and 219
and the related analysis. Convinces me.
4. Also I am going to compare what you say on bullet evidence
with what I have and get back to you.
5. On David R. Wrone
a. his comments on the release of the
Z-film are at: www.uwsp.edu/news/webpages/tmwrone.htm
b. his review of Seymour Hersh:
"Shame on you, Sy for that awful book on JFK" is at: http://thecapitaltimes.com/jfkbook.htm
c. his review of Posner is at: www.assassinationscience.com/wrone.html
(this is Fetzer's site; by the way, when asked by a caller on Wisconsin Public
Radio what he thought of Fetzer's book he was very abrupt and criticized
everything in the book--I have a copy of the hour long broadcast with Wrone's
historical view on many aspects of the JFK case if you're interested)
Also some comments on Posner to get you interested:
i. "Massive numbers of factual errors
suffuse the book"
ii. "Posner often presentst the
opposite of what the evidence says."
iii. "No credible evidence connects
Oswald to the murder."
iv. "...for example, 100 percent of
the witness testimony and physical evidence exclude Oswald from carrying teh
rifle to work that day disguised as curtain rods. Posner manipulates with words
to concoct a case against as Oswald as with Linnie Mae Randle, who swore the
package, as Oswald allegedly carried it, was twenty-eight inches long, far too
short to have carried a rifle. He grasped its end, and it hung from his swinging
arm to almost touch the ground. Posner converts this to "tucked under his
armpit, and the other end did not quite touch the ground." (p. 225)
v. "The rifle was heavily oiled, but
the paper sack discovered on the sixth floor had not a trace of oil. Posner
excludes this vital fact."
vi. This might interest you Professor: on
the curb shot Wrone comments about Posner, "He asserts proof of a core hit
because FBI analysis revealed "traces of (sic per reviewer) lead with a
trace of antimony" (p. 325) in the damage. What he omits destroys his
theory. He does not explain that a bullet core has several other metallic
fragments in its composition, not two, rendering his conclusion false.
He further neglects to inform the reader that by May 1964 the
damage had been covertly patched with a concrete paste and that in August, not
July, 1964, the FBI tested the scrapings of the paste, not the damage, which
gave the two metal results." And this is why anyone who says there were
only three shots fired is theorizing. We don't have test results for that curb
shot. We don't know what bullet or core hit there. Any investigation is
incomplete without those results and as Wrone shows we don't have them.
vii. Wrone sums up: "Posner fails. I believe that
irrefutable evidence shows conspirators, none of them Oswald, killed JFK."
e. Wrone also did a great review of historian Michael Kurtz's
book Crime of the Century for The Journal of Southern History, May 1983 pp.
332-333. He didn't like the book. He credits Kurtz with some good analysis but
he says Kurtz "accepts many key documents with little question. He also
notes that "Errors of fact suffuse the text." same thing he said about
Posner. Kurtz believes there was a conspiracy. Wrone concludes in this review,
"No credible evidence connects any group or individual, including Oswald,
to the murder."
Now you know why we don't see Prof. Wrone on Nightline or
Larry King or Geraldo. If you haven't got a theory to sell the mainstream media
is providing a microphone, camera, or its print.
f. You've got something on your site about the Kennedy
Lincoln connections: guess what? Wrone gave the 37th Annual Meeting of the
Lincoln Fellowship of Wisconsin Address on April 13, 1980. The topic? Two
Assassinations: Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy in which he knocks down all
connections as not factually supported. I have a copy would you like?
g. Finally his excellent Introduction to the 1980 edition of
The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical and Legal
Bibliography, 1963-1979, 542 pages! and compiled with DeLloyd J. Guth makes
several important points:
i. First he devastates the conspiracy arguments which name shooters or
groups.
ii. Second, he undermines the official theory by using their own evidence
against their theory.
iii. Third, he shows how the HSCA had as its main function that of supporting
the Warren conclusions (this was directly told to him by members of the
committee) only stumbling onto the infamous tapes near the end of the
investigation. The HSCA doesn't even mention a victim, James T. Tague in its
Final Report! No bullet went through Kennedy's collar (Weisberg had already
done the work of retrieving the FBI evidence on this and published it in Post
Mortem)--a key part of the single bullet theory on which the Warren Commission
Theory stands. Live oaks trees blocked a shot from the sixth floor window
between frames 170 and 210 though HSCA says JFK was hit "at about frames
188-191". Then, there is the mishandling of the Carolyn Arnold
statements. Taken together, the two support her later claims that she saw LHO
on the first floor at 12:25; making it unlikely that he went up five flights
of stairs and ran over to the window to shoot JFK. In her hand written
statement she told the FBI she saw LHO "at about 12:25 PM" (Weisberg
Post Mortem, p. 333 citing Commission Document 706(d)). The FBI retyped her
statement to read that she LHO "a few minutes before 12:15 PM"
(Roffman, p. 185, citing CD 5:4l). On page 276 Roffman notes the dishonestly
of the Warren Report which claimed "that it knew of no Book Depository
employee who claimed to have seen Oswald between 11:55 and 12:30 on the day of
the assassination." It's because of significant examples such as this
that the Warren Commission's Report is not to be believed. You can probably
order the Wrone/Guth Bibliography from amazon or barnes and noble but if it's
not available I could send you a copy of the introduction if you respond back.
Finally, Wrone wrote The Assassination of John Fitzgerald
Kennedy: An Annotated Bibliography for the Wisconsin Magazine of History in
November 1976. He criticizes among others Mark Lane, David Belin and William
Manchester for straying from the documentary evidence. He praises Sylvia Meagher
and Weisberg. That's all for now. Sorry for the length. Wish I was in your
class.
By the way I teach high school American Government, Social
Problems, and Psychology here in Richland Center, WI. I also have a slide show
on JFK's assassination that I've shown to high schools where I've taught.
Admission: I take the Wrone-Weisberg- Meagher-Lesar-Roffman approach to this
case (I guess throw Gerald McKnight in there too). I view them as being in the
same camp in between the Warren Commission-Posner-Max Holland-entire mainstream
media on one side and the crazies on the other (Lane, Livingston, Fetzer,
Groden, Torbitt document, Judge, etc.)
Brian LeCloux
My reply
Dear Brian:
Thanks VERY much for your long message. I appreciate the time
and effort it required. I hope you will not object to posting our
correspondence; I'm sure the students will be intrigued by it. I will try to
order the Wrone/Guth bibliography and let you know how I did.
This is not the time for a detailed reply to your comments.
For now, let me offer only one general comment of what I understand of Wrone's
"ultraneutralist" stance: I have a very hard time with the idea that
there is as little evidence connecting LHO to the crime as there is connecting
any other individual or group to it. This kind of statement is just not true,
given at the minimum that it was Oswald's rifle that did it. Granted that we
don't know whose finger was on the trigger. But if we are forced to point the
finger, we would clearly point at Oswald.
Thanks again.
Sincerely, Ken Rahn
***************************************
14 February 1999
Brian LeCloux replies
Thanks, Prof. Rahn!
No problem with the post.
I'm sending you some things I didn't note in my e-mail by
Wrone from some Wisconsin newspapers on the case, Posner, Oswald, the conspiracy
and Oswald's exhumation.
By the way, I'd call Wrone's approach "scholarly"
and I wouldn't apply that to many others.
Thanks again,
Brian LeCloux
My reply the same day
Brian:
Thanks in advance for your materials.
Ken
Brian's next reply the same day
And I just found in my Wrone files his review of the PBS
November 1993 broadcast from the Journal of American History, December 1994:
some tidbits:
"In portraying Oswald as Marxist, PBS excises contrary facts."
Wrone then goes on to list many.
"all credible evidence establishes that Oswald did not carry a rifle to
work that morning."
"The scenes linking Oswald to the Tippit murder are fantasy. PBS, like
the Warren Commission, chose to render invisible key witnesses like T.F.
Bowley, who reported the murder ten minutes before Oswald could have
arrived." (Here Wrone is referring to David Belin's time reconstruction
which shows that LHO cannot have been at the Tippit murder scene in time to
commit the murder: I know why is Belin credible here when his own book is so
full of errors. We just have to submit everything to critical analysis. What
doesn't hold up must be discarded. So,it's not the source of the evidence but
it's integrity.)
"It gives a false picture of the bizarre and exculpating ballistics. The
casings stressed as clinching proof, as being from Oswald's pistol and thus
showing his guilt, are not valid evidence. They actually dribbled into the FBI
from odd desk drawers with markings different from those recorded at the
scene. Similar gross irregularities characterize them."
Sorry to continue quoting this stuff when you don't have
it front of you. I am just reminded of good his analysis. And his command of the
facts. I'm just sick of reading either Posner or Livingston; so Wrone is
refreshing whenever I return to his work.
Oh, one more thing, in his 1976 symposium Wrone gave seven
suggestions for how to read assassination literature:
1. Common sense: does the argument make sense to you?
2. achem's razor: take the simpler explanation over the complicated
3. forced/false connections: be wary when one individual or group is
"connected" with another. So, just because Clay Shaw may have had
intelligence associations doesn't mean he was CIA and that therefore the CIA
was involved.
4. unsubstantiated assertions: is what asserted documented? and is first hand,
second hand, or further down the line? This is why a David Belin can be
credible on one piece and not another. Same with Wesley Liebeler, etc.
5. devil theories: be wary of those who fit the assassination into their
theory of how the world works, so liberals blame fascists, conservatives blame
communists, Holland blames Oswald because it fits his theory of U.S.-Cuban
relations (ditto for Cockburn), Parenti blames the government because it fits
his theory, etc.
6. procrustean bed: making the facts fit your theory: Posner is good at this.
so are Lane and Holland (Holland seems to be trying out a new interpretation
of the Russell papers; Russell did not believe the Warren Report in several
key areas and encouraged Weisberg to continue his research in the late
1960s--see Whitewash IV; now Holland seems to be trying to reinterpret his
dissenting views or spin them to fit his political world view: don't get me
wrong I like Max Holland's work in The Nation on many topics, but again, stop
trying to make the facts fit your theory if they don't fit; with Holland they
don't fit.)
7. reliance on one fact
I'll send you a copy of this list and explanation and the
other things. Out in the mail tomorrow and to you by later in the week.
Brian LeCloux
***************************************
15 February 1999
Message from Paul Beaver
Incredible great course!!
We will be following the Course via the Web down here in
Dallas.
Again, great job. Maybe some of us can come up to RI in the
Spring.
Paul Beaver <pbeaver1@sprynet.com>
My two brief replies
Dear Paul:
You have made me curious. Could you tell me something about
yourself and who "some of us" might be? Thanks.
Ken Rahn
********
Paul:
Let me add that we would be pleased to have some folks from
Dallas attend our Providence conference, largely because we had not expected
people to come from that kind of distance. We hope to be able to send out a
second announcement around the end of this week.
Ken Rahn
******************************************
16 February 1999
Message from Stuart Wexler
The latter half of your evidence sheets give me grave
concern that your class is going to focus on "propping up" a number of
straw man—"this large group did it"—arguments when their are
plenty of researchers, me among them, who reject that characterization. Please
emphasize that many researchers believe:
1) That Oswald was involved
2) That Oswald fired shots
3) That Oswald attempted to kill General Walker
4) That Oswald killed Tippit
And that, in the final analysis, NONE of these things mean that there wasn't
a conspiracy. Articulating a conspiracy that:
1) Assumes that all conspiracy theorists believe that whoever covered up
the crime was involved
2) Assumes that all the conspiracy theorists think the conspirators were
competent
3) Assumes that all the conspiracy theorists think that the Oswald was framed
*by the conspirators*
4) Assumes that all conspiracy theorists think the conspirators didn't want it
to be known that there was a conspiracy
5) Assumes that the conspiracy was large or well-placed
are all straw-men. They are charicatures of what a conspiracy theorist can
believe, but not what he/she HAS to believe.
I hope you will also deal with the inconsistencies in the the
LNers OWN way of thinking. For instance, I hope you will know that for decades,
LNers thought there was "strong" evidence for a SBT shot at 190. I can
present this evidence to you and your students in a way that is very convincing.
What is important to know is that when faced with a potential shot at JBC in the
223-4 range—the majority of LNers I know did *not* change their minds. Instead
they completely forgot about the very evidence that they found convincing for a
decade. They let the SBT *lead* them to a conclusion rather than let the
evidence *lead* them to the SBT. The best example of this is the Vince Bugliosi
1986 mock trial of Oswald, which presented it's SBT based on a 190 hit. Wait
until Bugliosi comes out with his new book and see if he explains any credible
reason why he changed his mind.
Thank you,
Stuart Wexler
Stugrad98@aol.com
My reply, same evening
Stuart:
Thank you for your comments on our evidence sheets. I have
posted them and will discuss them in class tomorrow. In the meantime, I have a
couple questions and a request for you.
1. Is there anything specific that leads you to think that our class would
not consider the possibility of a low-level conspiracy?
2. Do you have any specific evidence for that kind of conspiracy?
3. When you say that "many" researchers believe that Oswald could
have done items 1-4 and still have been part of a conspiracy, what do you mean
by "many"? I have always sensed that this kind of position was in
the minority of conspiracy researchers.
4. Please send me your presentation of strong evidence for a SBT shot at Z190
and how you see it paralleling evidence for a hit to JBC at Z223-224.
Thanks in advance for your answers. They will be very
helpful to our class.
Ken Rahn
Stuart's reply, same evening (His replies in italics)
In a message dated 99-02-16 20:37:10 EST, you write:
<< Subj: Re: Your "evidence sheets" concern me
Date: 99-02-16 20:37:10 EST
From: krahn@gsosun1.gso.uri.edu (Kenneth A. Rahn)
To: Stugrad98@aol.com
Stuart:
Thank you for your comments on our evidence sheets. I have
posted them and will discuss them in class tomorrow. In the meantime, I have a
couple questions and a request for you.
1. Is there anything specific that leads you to think that
our class would not consider the possibility of a low-level conspiracy?
A. Your evidence sheet, which is quite thorough, doesn't
mention the possibility anywhere. Only large groups like the CIA, FBI, etc.
2. Do you have any specific evidence for that kind of
conspiracy?
A. I have specific evidence for a conspiracy; I have
specific evidence that the only people in contact with Oswald were people of
the low-level variety. Neither Oswald, nor the people who he was in contact
with, were exactly the type with a personal phone line to J. Edgar Hoover.
3. When you say that "many" researchers
believe that Oswald could have done items 1-4 and still have been part of a
conspiracy, what do you mean by "many"? I have always sensed that
this kind of position was in the minority of conspiracy researchers.
I believe Tink Thompson, Barb Junkarinnen, Bill Hamley,
Tony Summers and others are willing to consider or eliminate every assumption
that I am talking about.
4. Please send me your presentation of strong evidence
for a SBT shot at Z190 and how you see it paralleling evidence for a hit to
JBC at Z223-224.
Give me some time. Just remember that what you seem to
discuss-- a smoking gun-- is not available. What is, in fact, available is a
series of circumstantial events all occuring that convinces not only me, but
convince LNers for a decade, that a shot was fired at 190. If you present to
your class, for instance, the notion that a shot was fired at 160, I can
present to them evidence of better quality and far more of it for a shot at
190. It is a very good circumstantial case.
Thanks in advance for your answers. They will be very
helpful to our class.
They will be coming shortly
Ken Rahn >>
***********************************
22 February 1999
Message to Brian LeCloux
Brian:
I just received your package of Wrone materials. Thanks. (But I haven't had a
chance to read it yet!)
Ken
Reply from Brian (same day)
Prof Rahn:
Wrone would probably talk to you if you had any follow up about his work.
Brian LeCloux
23 February 1999
Message to Brian LeCloux
Brian:
How would I contact him?
Ken
Reply (same day)
Or, How about trying this? Don't know if Wrone's at this
location anymore...
Brian LeCloux
(Gives web addresses for UW Stevens Point)
Reply to Brian (same day)
Brian:
I found Dr. Wrone very easily. He is listed in the College of Professional
Studies Building, 1901 Fourth Ave, Room 428. His E-mail address is dwrone@uwsp.edu
and his telephone is (715) 346-4496. Do you think I should contact him directly
(after reading his stuff, of course), or would you like to go first?
Ken
Reply (same day)
Prof. Rahn:
I would just contact him directly if I were you. I haven't had him as an
instructor since the early 80s; haven't even talked to him since I saw him at a
UW-Oshkosh talk he gave around 1987 when I was visiting a friend there who
taught education and history courses. Obviously, though, I've kept up with his
writings on the case which have a consistent approach since his earliest
writings in the early 1970s: relentless comparisons of the claims of all to the
documentary evidentiary base (as he might put it) careful examination of the
chain of evidence (this trips up both conspiracists and official theory
advocates) which exposes the Mark Lanes and Gerald Posners who posit theories
that fall apart when their main pieces lack an anchor in documented fact. The
mainstream media has no places for the David Wrones because they don't support
the official theory (Time, Newsweek, US News, NY Times, LA Times, WP, WSJ, ABC,
NBC, CBS, and CNN all support the official claims) and they don't make
outlandish conspiracy claims (Lane, Stone, Groden, Livingston) that can easily
be knocked down.
So, Prof. Rahn, just call him; tell him what you're doing;
that you've read his stuff, etc. I know he likes to talk about the case. That's
what I did when I called Weisberg (who I now understand his not doing to well).
I just told him who I was and would he talk about the case and he answered my
questions. My understanding with Weisberg is that he does that alot. I don't
know that many people call Wrone. He was quoted by George Lardner in a WP piece
on the Z film in June of 1998. To me he's an under utilized resource.
One final comment: have you seen the video Reasonable Doubt
by Chip Selby? What a masterful assault on the single bullet theory. It's 48
minutes that completely destroys the Warren Report. Wrone and Weisberg are
featured prominently along with Dr. Robert Shaw and Dr. Joseph Dolce. Dolce did
the studies for the Army that proved with experiments that the single bullet
theory is not true. He was the expert that was called in when an dignatary was
killed. He met with the Warren Commission and Arlen Specter. He specifically
told them point blank, your theory is false. It's all documented in the
Commission memorandums. They took MC ammo, 100 bullets and showed how the theory
is false. So, what do you do when your own experts prove your pet theory wrong?
Don't call them as witnesses and don't include their reports. But the memos are
there.
And Dolce is awesome on this video. No doubt he's the
government expert. Authoritative. So you have to ignore him. Check Posner's
book. Dolce's not in there. You cannot write a book called Case Closed and not
even deal with Dolce. If you do, you're out of the game as far as I'm concerned.
Dolce was the Army's chief consultant on wound ballistics. What better to not
include him as a witness. He's not even listed in the Warren Report index. What
he told Selby was what he told Specter and would have told the Commission:
"I feel that Governor Connally was hit by two bullets..." These
are the kind of witnesses that should have framed the debate all these years;
not the crazies out the Garrison trial. These are the folks who should have
been on Nightline, Larry King, 48 Hours and so forth. And these are the types
of witnesses the Posner's and the rest of the mainstream ignore as they must
to posit their lone gunman scenario.
Dolce mocked the HSCA tests. He took photos of the test bullets he fired and
they were deformed. Specter deliberately did not show them to witnesses who did
testify. A photo appears in Roffman's book. This whole episode of official
failure to get the facts on the record is documented in Weisberg's Never Again!
Chapter 27.
Also, again, Dolce is on video in Reasonable Doubt.
Sorry for the length...
Brian
Reply to Brian (same day)
Dear Brian:
Again, thanks for your long message. I find communications such as that one to
be invaluable because they often reveal a person's inner workings, which is a
prerequisite to any meaningful dialog. I cannot right now reply to your points
in any great detail, but let me briefly cut to what is perhaps the most
important point--the results of the neutron-activation tests on the various lead
fragments. The value of these tests, once understood, is truly enormous. They
provide evidence to a very high probability (which is hard to specify precisely
but is somewhere around 90%, and perhaps well above that) that the lead
fragments recovered from Connally's wrist are indistinguishable from the base of
CE399 from which they reputedly came BUT distinguishable from the other sets of
fragments, all of which group into a set related to the head shot. Thus to all
the arguments abut why CE399 could not have damaged the wrist, the NAA says loud
and clear that it did. The long part is looking carefully into the negative
claims and seeing where they are weak. I don't have time right now to do this,
but I assure you that it is eminently doable. I will try to give a good
accounting of these argments within a week or so. In the meantime, I will send
an E-mail message to Prof. Wrone and see if he wants to chat a bit. Maybe this
could lead to a good discussion of some fundamental issues.
Thanks again.
Ken
Reply from Brian (same day)
Prof. Rahn:
Wrone would be the guy to talk to on this stuff. My initial guess on this is
that these fragments lack a chain of evidence. I'm not so sure that there is any
material missing from 399. Several pieces were removed for testing. Some might
have been lost in firing. FBI Agent Frazier testified that if 399 had struck
course cloth or leather he would have expected there to be markings on it and he
said there were none. What evidence do we have that 399 can be physically linked
to Connally, besides the fragments which I suspect have questionable links. Why
weren't these tests released when they were first done (Weisberg pointed this
out in Post Mortem)? I read a pretty good analysis by Kurtz discounting the
fragment analysis of HSCA. I'd check out his study in his book.
Other points: even if 399 can be linked to Connally's wrist
wound, that doesn't mean it went through Kennedy.
There were other fragments that were washed out of Connally's
wrist that were never tested. Doctors stated that more metal was in his wrist
and washed out than was missing from the bullet. Granted their not experts, but
we should not dismiss physicians who had experience with many shooting victims.
Also, x-rays revealed a fragment in Kennedy that would also
have had to come from 399. This was referred to by the Clark panel and is often
overlooked.
Finally, I'm real skeptical of any ballistic evidence NOW,
given that all this testing was done as Weisberg has shown from his 20 Freedom
of Information Act lawsuits by the FBI or other agencies at the Commission's
request. They never the released the data they had or destroyed it in some
cases. Fact: the Commission never released and legitimate spectrography or any
other kind of ballistic evidence directly linking LHO's rifle to the all the
wounds of all the victims or the curbstone. They did do the tests. Why didn't
they leak the results in 1964? I think the question answers itself.
Finally, LHO, based on what we know was on the 2nd floor
about 5 minutes before the assassination (Carolyn Arnold's FBI statements):
a. How did he get up to the 6th, put the rifle together, etc. and fire
within 5 minutes?
b. Why didn't the police swab the rifle barrel? An obvious test. So many basic
questions. It's tough to describe the elephant today when the authorities only
had their hands on the tail and a couple of feet.
Brian
Reply to Brian (same day)
Brian:
I'm afraid we really part company on your last message--I disagree with nearly
everything in it. But my response must wait for another day because I have two
classes tomorrow morning to prepare for. I'll write soon.
Ken
****************************************
24 February 1999
Brian LeCloux replies
Prof. Rahn:
Read the section where Griffith dissects Dr. Guinn's research. Question: where's
the chain of evidence for fragments from
Connally linked to 399? Question: where's
the evidence 399 struck ANY object? (it's
striations are not disturbed; there are no microscopic markings indicating it struck
anything as FBI's Frazier says must exist)
What about Nurse Henchliffe's claim that more
metal was washed out and thrown away than is
missing from 399? So many questions.
Brian L.
(Here Brian included the text of an article by Michael T. Griffith entitled
"Five Myths About the JFK Assassination." Rather than have it
occupying a great deal of space in this area, which is reserved for shorted
communications, I have posted it under "Handouts."—KAR)
**************************************
27 February 1999
From Bill Cheslock, Chatham, MA
Dear Mr. Rahn,
My name is Bill Cheslock, Chatham High School history teacher, which is located
on Cape Cod, MA. Your Jfk assassination course interested me because I teach a
similar course at both the high school and adult education levels.
I will take up your invitation to get involved with your
course via the web link you provide. I am, at the moment, half through my course
this year. Last year, I had a phone conference hook up with Ed Hoffman in Texas
with his interpretator, Ron Friedrich. I don't know if you heard, but Ed had a
major heart attack recently, but survived and has a long recovery timetable
ahead of him. The members of my class had a very enlightening hour and a half
with Mr. Hoffman, asking questions directly to an eyewitness.
Mr. Rahn, have you heard that David Belin died a few weeks
ago, due to a fall in a Minnesota hotel room? It's too bad, because I would've
like Mr. Belin to have remarked on certain pieces of evidence which is being
declassified, via the ARRB releases.
Good luck with your course, and I hope you have time to e-mail back and say
hello. I can be reached at the high school, via bilches@hotmail.com. Say hello
to Prof. Evica for me. We were on a panel together a few years ago, in New
Hampshire. Francis X O'Neill was the third panelist at Franklin Pierce Law
School that night. I hope to see you at the Providence Conference later this
year in April.
Sincerely,
Bill Cheslock <bches@massed.net>
History Faculty, Chatham High School
Reply to Bill (same day)
Dear Bill:
I was very pleased to receive your message today. I am delighted that you will
become involved with our JFK course at URI. We are just over one-third of the
way through it, and entering a section that will expose the students to the
various conspiracy theories and will allow then to test each theory against the
principles of critical thinking and dealing with evidence that we have just
finished. For the major conspiracy theories, we will be using Jim Marrs's
"Crossfire", Stewart Galanor's "Cover-up," and Oliver
Stone's "JFK" and its annotated screenplay. Last Monday, we had
Charlie Drago, of Providence, speak to the class. (Note that the preliminary
schedule has been revised considerably.) As you could probably gather from the
syllabus and the collection of essays, I believe that how we think about the
assassination is as important, if not more important, than the particular set of
facts we have at our disposal. I also believe that the great majority of
evidence put forward so far is not particularly helpful, and maybe even harmful
to the extent that quantity begins to replace quality. So I will welcome your
comments on the course in general and any of the materials in particular.
I also hope that you will be able to join us at the
Providence conference in April. We expect a thorough exchange of views. I will
be presenting an epistemology of the JFK assassination that will challenge
everyone to their core.
I am curious about how you heard about the course and the
conference.
Sincerely, Ken Rahn
***********************************************
15 February 1999—Cumulative correspondence with Bill Kelly of New Jersey
Introductory note: Since February 1st, Bill Kelly and I have
exchanged a few messages on the assassination and Bill's possibly attending our
conference. He recently requested that I post these messages even though they
were not in direct response to doings in the course. I am happy to comply. Mr.
Kelly, much like Charlie Drago, is not interested in "debating the
issues," but in solving the case. He believes that he and others are close
to doing that.
1 February 1999
From Bill Kelly, Ocean City, New Jersey
Dear Dr. K. Rahn,
Read your abstracts and articles regarding logic and reasoning and researchers
and found them interesting. As a journalist, founder of COPA since its
beginnings, and a co-founder with John Judge of the Committee for an Open
Archives, I have done years of research into various lines of inquiry. I have
come to the conclusion that even if Oswald was the lone assassin, and the single
bullet theory is valad, especially if that is so, the assassination was still a
domestic covert intelligence operation.
I am not interested in debating the issues, but rather, am
attempting to get additional witnesses and suspects deposed under oath, gather
evidence and to attempt to get Grand Jury indictments against those responsible
for crimes related to the assassination - obstruction of justice, perjury,
destruction of evidence, Smith Act, etc. I have not concentrated my research on
the scientific areas, but would like to know why the scientific community has
not taken up the work on the acoustics?
I too was perplexed by the UFO phenom among JFK assassination
research - and was not surpised to learn that A.F. General Charles Cabell, bro
of the Dallas mayor, was in charge of Project Bluebook, that UFOs were used to
protect the U2 and were used in psychological warfare operations. The 1947
Seatle, Washington sightings were first reported by Fred Crisman, believed to be
one of the Tramps and a Jim Garrison suspect.
What really threw me however, was when I tracked down Arthur
Young, shortly before he died. Young is Michael Paine's step-father, and
inventor of the Bell Helicopter. As I interviewed him for two hours, with tape
recorder running, he figured out my astrology chart and asked me if I was an
alien! He thought I was from the Pleadies, and showed me a book written by a
retired AF officer from Arizona that had photos of aliens from the Pleadies.
When I got home I called the author of the book, who did not have any more
copies to sell (limited edition), but confirmed that he had worked at Wright-Pat
AFB in Dayton, Ohio and was assigned to Project Bluebook under General Cabell.
Well, in any case, I am tired of conventions and social
functions and do not want to rehash the case or argue with those who don't
believe in conspiracy. Those who believe Oswald did it alone can not attribute
to him a motive, and that is because he was under the control of a case officer
who directed his movements as part of an intelligence network. The assassin of
Medgar Evers was finally convicted 30 years after the murder, and those
responsible for crimes related to the assassination of JFK should be brought to
justice in this century.
Thanks for your time and consideration in this matter,
Bill Kelly
819 Wesley Ave.
Ocean City, New Jersey, 08226
(609) 814-0258
billkell@bellatlantic.net
My reply, same day
Dear Bill:
Thanks for your long note. I am sorry that you are no longer interested in
attending conferences or debating the main issues, especially since you are
nearby. Let me dash off a couple quick answers and then add a few questions of
my own.
I consider your question about why so few scientists have
taken on the acoustical question to be a subset of the larger question of why so
few scientists are working on the assassination. I believe the answers are (1)
their peers regard it as lower intellectually than their professional field; (2)
there is no research money in it; and (3) it will not help advance their
careers. I don't worry about any of these objections.
My questions for you: (1) Who did you work for in journalism?
(I'm always interested in how journalists get involved in the case.) (2) Who was
Oswald's case officer? (3) How do you know the assassination was a conspiracy?
(4) How do you know it was a domestic covert intelligence operation? (5) Why do
you think that Oswald's motive is s important? Isn't it more important to first
determine whether he really did it? (6) In general do you agree with me about
distinguishing belief and proof? (When someone asks me what I believe, I reply
that the only important thing is what I can prove.) Thanks in advance. Short
answers would be fine.
Sincerely, Ken
2 February 1999
Bill's reply
Dear Ken,
Thanks for the quick and timely response. It's not that I'm not interested in
conferences anymore, it's just that I want to focus on the research and evidence
and make a move on it legally, rather than particpate in an endless debate.
I believe, with the release of the files, and a follow up
deposition of witnesses, we can solve the case within a year or so.
I'm not interested in debating anyone over ballistics.
In answer to your questions:
1) I am a freelance writer—strictly journalist (no poetry
or fiction), who has written a number of books, 300 Years at the Point—A
History of Somers Point, New Jersey, Birth of the Birdie—100 Years of Golf at
Atlantic City Country Club and am currently working on a history of the Flander
Hotel in Ocean City, New Jersey.
Two unpublished manuscripts are The Mystery of Goldeneye—James
Bond & Ian Flemling—the Men & the Myth and my JFK Assassination
research that I have been working on since I was a freshman at the University of
Dayton, Ohio in 1969, focusing on the Cuban connections. My most recently
published article is about Grace Kelly, a cover story in the January issue of
Atlantic City Magazine.
2) I don't know who Oswald's case officer was, but I imagine
that in his service in the Marines, defection to USSR, taking a pot shot a
Walker, FPCC in New Orleans, sidetrips to Clinton, La. and Mexico City and seven
weeks in Dallas, it was under different case officers, probably Tracy Barnes
(USSR), David A. Phillips (Mexico City) and whoever had JFK killed.
3) The only way that I know it was a conspiracy is that it
has all the hallmarks of a standard covert operation, complete with cover story
(Castro did it) issued before the fact, persons with foreknowlege (Dr. Jose
Rivera), use of need to know operational procedures, as well as Oswald's
background as an agent - alias, cryptonames, use of codes and cyphers,
interogation techniques, minox camera, association with intelligence trained
personel, etc.
4) Although I recognize the crime as a covert operation, I do
not ascribe it to any specific agency - CIA, ONI, KGB, Cuban G2, Mafia, etc.,
because you cannot indicte organizations for murder, only individuals, which is
my goal. It could even have been a privately financed covert operation, although
the techniques at the time (pre-Watergate) were not known to the general public
and held primarily by the military. It was definately a domestic, anti-communist
operation because they fingered Castro as the culpret before the fact, and if it
really was Castro, the KGB or the Mafia, the government would not have covered
up the fact, but would have went after them with vengence.
5) As for the importance of Oswald's motive, my father was a
homicide detective (47 years police service, Camden, N.J.), and my approach to
the assassination is that of a normal homicide detective - with the realization
that for conviction of murder you need to convince a jury of the suspect having
the means, MOTIVE and opportunity to commit the crime, and Oswald had no motive,
denied doing it and only lied about items that were involved in his covert,
clandestine activities.
6) Yes, I enjoyed reading your abstracts and analysis
although I must say that I failed to appreciate your COPA and LANCER
presentations on the jet affect, because I don't think it matters if there was
one gun or two or what direction the shots came from, except to convince a jury,
in which case it will probably only confuse them, as it confuses me.
The belief-and-proof stuff (excuse my crude Camden street
talk), is very important. Have you read: History Will Not Avsolve Us - by E.
Martin Schotz. He goes into the whole idea of the difference between believing
and knowing of a conspiracy, although I disagree with him on the concept of just
putting all domestic covert operations onto the CIA. I'm after the guys who did
it, want to confront them in person, and have them tell me why they did it.
In any case, I think there is a need for a symposium on what
is revealed in the recently released files, an analysis of what the ARRB failed
to release, and a concerted move to get sworn depositions from witnesses and
suspects as soon as possible.
If you are futher interested in my work, I will send you
along some attachments to the email of some of my old (Collins Radio
Connections) and most recent work. My COPA abstract on Bottlefed by Oswald's
NANA - the North American Newspaper Alliance and Covert Ops 1938-1998 and
Thursday Nite at the CABANA lounge are both available on the internet at JFK
PLACE, my report from 1998 COPA is at Steamshovel (back issues) and I am
currently working on the Quaker Connection and Dr. (Col.) Jose Rivera—Adelle
Edison's story, all of which support my covert operation hypothesis.
In addition, are you familiar with the Thresher sub
connections to the JFK assassination - JFCOTT? There's some oceanographic Woods
Hole links to Ruth Paine there as well, all in your neighborhood. Other
academics in your neck of the woods who should support you are Jerry Rose
(Fourth Decade), George M. Evica and Phil Melanson (Spy Saga).
Perhaps I will submit an abstract and attend your conference
if it seems you are serious about solving the crime rather than debating it.
Thanks for your time and consideration in this matter, which
I believe is very important, and good luck with your conference, which could be
a good thing. All the best,
Bill Kelly
My reply, same day
Dear Bill:
Sorry to be brief this time.
(1) I would like to see some of your stuff. Please send as
attachments.
(2) Charlie Drago thinks along lines similar to yours.
Consider contacting him directly. Your possible presentation would fit very well
into his part of the meeting, it seems to me.
(3) I think it may be unfair to ask if someone is interested
in solving the case. The appropriate first question is finding out how close we
can come to solving it. Second question is who did it. The two are very
different.
Ken
15 February 1999
A reminder to Bill from me
Bill:
Some time ago, you indicated that you would send me some of
your work as attachments, but I have not received them yet. I am still
interested. Please send copies to Charlie Drago, too. Also, we would be pleased
to receive an abstract from you on how you would like to go about solving the
crime. As to your lack of interest in simply continuing to debate the crime
rather than solving it, I would like to think that few or no JFK researchers are
in it just to get experience in debating, i.e., for a debating society. Rather,
I hope that they realize that discussion and debate are a necessary first step
toward solving it. Charlie and I met today, and I expect he will be sending you
a more-detailed note.
Ken
Bill's reply, same day
Dear Ken A. Rahn,
Sorry I didn't get back to you, although I have been
discussing your conference with others and am anxious to participate as a
platform for beginning a legal resolution to the case.
Enclosed as attachments are two lines of inquiry I have been
working on most recently, though by the time the conference is held, I hope
these are out-of-date and we are closer to resolution than we are now, as things
are moving quickly on many fronts.
In any case, I recieved an email from Vince Palamara, who
listed your man Charles Drago as #1 on his list, and me last, and tried to email
Drago a possible abstract, but got it back in the mail. We will hook up soon, I
am sure.
I was glad to learn that George M. Evica will be the
moderator, as I have the utmost respect for him and his work, and frequently use
his book We Are All Mortal as a reference.
As someone involved in Ocean research, you must be familiar
with the Woods Hole operation, as well as the Thresher sub sinking. Are you also
familiar with their association with the assassination of JFK?
For one, Ruth Forbes Paine's family home on Nashoun (sp.?)
island is just off Woods Hole, where sub research is conducted and where Ruth
Hyde Paine visted before picking up Marina Oswald in New Orleans and taking her
(and the assassination rifle) to Texas on Sept. 24, 1963.
John Gooch, an independent researcher from New Orleans has
traced the Ricky White-C. Bower of ONI teletypes to those teletypes used to
communicate with the nuke sub Thresher and has id C. Bowers as Lt. Cycil Bowers
UNR, of New Orleans. In addition, there was a group, JFCOTT- Justice For the
Crew Of The Thresher, involved in preassassination operations similar to those
experienced by Syliva Odio and the Cubans.
Also take note that Oswald was introduced to former nuke sub
commander Adml. Chetser Bruton, of Collins Radio, in an attempt to get Oswald a
job at Collins, and that Clay Shaw wrote a play about a submarine that was sunk
with all hands.
As someone involved in ocean research, I would hope you would
be interested in these lines of inquiry.
In any case, I am preparing an abstract for delivery at your
symposium, and look forward to discussing it with Charles Drago before hand.
The attachments are still works-in-progress, but give you an
idea of the type of research I am engagned in. You may share them with anyone
you think would be interested.
Nor am I against debate, to set the record straight, just
don't want to waste time.
I believe you want the truth and will help you acquire it any
way I can.
All the best, Bill Kelly.
******************
PHILADELPHIA QUAKERS—WITH OSWALD IN MEXICO CITY
By Bill Kelly
Of the many Philadelphia connections to the assassination of President
Kennedy, few stand out as interesting and suspicious as Lee Harvey Oswald's
Quaker connections in Mexico City.
As the story filtered back to the FBI, it was alledged that
Oswald was seen at a restaurant in Mexico City with an American affiliated with
the Quaker camp Casa De Los Amigos, who also wanted to go to Cuba. This source
further related later that this same American may have been given Oswald a ride
to the Cuban and Russian embassies on the back of a motorcycle. This American
was later identified as "Larry Kennan," a "Quaker from
Philadelphia."
The first part of this story came to the FBI's attention thru
the fiance of one Homobono Alcaraz Aragon, and the trail of information
contained in FBI reports is somewhat confusing, so I defer to Professor Jerry
Rose as he first published first part of the story in the Fourth Decade (Volume
5 #4, May, 1998).
Rose wrote about the FBI's investigation of The Casa De Los
Amigos, whose residents apparantly had knowledge of Lee Harvey Oswald's
activities. Rose wrote: "Given the Bureau's propensity to try to associate
Oswald with Friends groups like the New Orleans Council for Peaceful
Alternatives, this 'information' aroused the intense interest of headquarters,
which conveyed this information along with directives to interview [Alcaraz] and
give the appropriate attention to the matter in view of the fact that, 'Mrs.
Ruth Paine of irving Texas, who has befriended Oswald and wife, has been
prominently associated with the activities of the Friend's organization.'"
The Mexico City Quaker connection was first developed by the
San Francisco Bureau of the FBI, whose undercover informant Judith Gordon,
notified them on January 15, 1964 that Barrie Milliman, a female student at the
University of Califorinia (Berkeley), learned of some of Oswalds movements and
contacts while visiting her fiance Homobono Amo Alcaraz Aragon in Mexico City.
Before they got to Alcaraz however, the FBI interviewed the
Acting Director of the Casa del Los Amigos, Von Peacock, who speculated that the
"unknown American" may have been Robert Kaffke of San Francisco, who
had been one of 58 students who made an illegal trip to Cuba in the summer of
1963. While it was determined that Kaffke was not registered at the Casa De Los
Amigos until Oct. 25, 1963, weeks after Oswald had left, he was familiar to the
FBI since he was also an undercover informant of the San Francisco FBI office.
He was not however, any longer suspected as being the "unknown
American" seen with Oswald in Mexico City.
Kaffke told the FBI that when he stayed at the Casa de Los
Amigos in late October 1963 the residents were still talking about Oswald's
visit. When Oswald was there he had "a lot of money" and "persons
at casa de Los Amigos are really scared when the name of Oswald is
mentioned." [Note that they were scared Before the assassination].
When the FBI caught up with Alcaraz, he verified much of what
had been reported by Milliman, thru her friend Judith Gordon, which was that he
had seen Oswald with an unknown American at Sanford's restaurant and that they
were "working together to get visas for travel to Cuba and that they
planned to go there together."
According to the FBI report, Alcaraz mentioned that Oswald
may have been associated with Steve Kennan, identified as a "pro-communist
American," who had been in Mexico in 1962 and 1963, although he
"stated emphatically," that he had never seen Oswald with Kennan.
Then, according to Rose, there is the reference in the FBI
reports of an "Arnold," who "begins to assume human shape and
identity as 'Steve Kennan' moves into limbo."
Arnold Kessler of Detroit had also been at the Casa de Los
Amigos (in February), and like Barrie Millman, had attended the University of
California at Berkeley. He worked temporarily as a journalist in Mexico City
before moving on to Brazil, where the FBI found him. Kessler denied meeting
Oswald, but stated that it was Alcaraz who told him that he - Alcaraz had met
Oswald.
As a former student radical who dropped out of college, and
was not an FBI informant, Kessler's draft board was then informed of his
circumstances so he could be inducted into the military.
The FBI Legat in Mexico then concluded there was "no
real basis for inquiry" and "no further investigation is being
conducted."
But others did investigate and found out more about the
mysterious American Quaker from Philadelphia, Steve Kennan.
In Live By The Sword Gus Russo (Bancroft Press, Baltimore,
MD., 1998) gives an historically deceiving perspective on Kennedy's murder that
still tries to sell the cover-story that Fidel Castro was behind the
assassination. There is however, an interesting footnote under the allegation
that there are no photos of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City because he was
possibly accompanied by Cuban agents. The note from Chapter 19 - 8. p. 579
reads:
"In 1994,...[Anthony and Robbyn] Summers also
interviewed Homer Bono, who told them that he met Oswald at Sanborn's Restaurant
outside Mexico City in 1963. Oswald left in the company of a Quaker from
Philadelphia named Steve Kennan [sic?]. Oswald was a passenger on Kennan's
motorbike as the two drove off to the Cuban Embassy to try to secure a visa for
Oswald. Kennan has never been found or interviewed."
The idea that Oswald could have been ferried about Mexico
City on a motorbike by "a Quaker from Philadelphia" is certainly an
interesting possibility, especially since the Warren Report makes note of the
fact (p. 735) :
"Although the Soviet and Cuban Embassies are within two blocks of each
other, they are some distance from Oswald's hotel. He must, therefore, have
traversed a substantial portion of the city on more than one occasion. "
So "A Quaker from Philadelphia" with a motorbike would have done
very nicely, and would be a valuable witness to Oswald's activities there.
Anthony Summers, in Not In Your Lifetime (Marlowe & Co., N.Y., 1998
p.441), wrote :
"In 1994, in Mexico City, the author interviewed Homobono Alcaraz
Aragon, a lawyer. His name featured in reports indicating that he claimed he
had met Oswald in Mexico City before the assassination. In the 1994 interview,
Alcaraz said he had encountered Oswald at Sanborn's restaurant, in the company
of two or three other American students - all Quakers, like Alcaraz himself.
The talk centered on efforts to get to Cuba, and Alcaraz said 'Oswald'
eventually left with one of the Americans - whom Alcaraz recalls as being
named either Steve Kennan (or Keenan) from Philadelphia. As Alcaraz recalled
it, Keenan drove Oswald on his motorcycle to go to the Cuban consulate.
Alcaraz seemed sincere, and abhorred publicity. He named a friend, Hector
Gastelo (now a farmer in Sanoro State) as probably having been present during
the encounter with Oswald. (Interview with Alcaraz, 1993; CE 2121; and
multiple FBI reports - available at the Assassinations Archive and Research
Center, Washington D.C.; Miraba: HSCA III.177)."
In a footnote to the footnote, Summers also makes note that, "As this
book went to press, the author became aware of information that the CIA ran an
agent in Mexico, code named LICOZY - 3, who was a student from Philadelphia
(Philip Agee, Inside the Company, p. 530).
The plot thickens as Agee reports (Inside the Company,
Stonehill, 1975): "The [Mexico City] station double-agent cases against the
Soviets, LICOZY-1, LICOZY-3 and LICOZY-5, are all being wound up for lack of
productivity or problems of control. One of these agents, LICOZY-3, is an
American living in Philadelphia who was recruited by the Soviets while a student
in Mexico City, but who reported the recruitment and worked for the Mexico City
station. He worked for the FBI after returning to the US - the Soviet case
officeer was a UN offical at one time - but recently Soviet interest in him has
fallen off and the FBI turned the case back over to the Agency for
termination." [Emphasis added].
Sanborn's Restaurant, where Alcaraz and Kennan reportedly met
Oswald, is also mentioned by Richard Case Nagell, who (according to Dick Russell
in The Man Who Knew Too Much, Carroll & Graf, 1992, p. 354), wrote a letter
to his friend Arthur Greenstein refering to Sandborn's restaurant as a meeting
place. While Sandborn's Restaurant is reported in one reference to be "just
outside" Mexico City, Mary Ferrell's idex notes that "Kennan was seen
several times in Sanbourn's Restaurant next to the American Embassy bldg. in
Mexico City."
It seems quite possible, even probable, as Summers' suspects,
that "Steve Kennan - a Quaker from Philadelphia," who gave Oswald a
ride around Mexico City on his motorbike, could be LICOZY-3, a "student
from Philadelphia who was recruited by the Soviets while a student in Mexico
City."
The whole "Quaker" connection to the assassination
reaches right to the heart of the matter of who was behind Oswald's movements
and how he was being directed in his clandestine operations - his advocacy of
the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans, his mission to the Cuban and
Russian Embassies in Mexico City, his intention to move to Philadelphia, his
relocation back to Dallas and his job at the Texas Schoolbook depository.
Central to everything is Ruth Avery Hyde Paine.
According to Priscilla Johnson McMillan, in Marina and Lee
(Harper and Row, N.Y., 1977, p. 314): "Ruth Avery Hyde grew up in the
Middle West, the daughter of parents who felt strongly about the value of
education and good works. When she was only thirteen, Ruth spent a summer on a
truck farm in Ohio as her way of contributing to the effort to win World War II.
The next summer she was with a traveling Bible school, teaching in Ohio and
Indiana. At nineteen, as a student at Antioch College in Ohio, she became a
Quaker, a convinced Quaker, often the most dedicated kind. She wanted to be a
teacher, and by the time she graduated had an astonishing array of jobs. She had
taught in elementary schools in the East and Middle West and had been a
recreation leader at Jewish community centers in Ohio and Indiana, at a club for
elderly immigrants in Philadelphia, and at a Friends' work camp in South Dakota.
Whatever the job, Ruth was liked and respected, and was always asked to come
back.
"She was later a teacher, aged twenty-five, at the Germantown Friends'
School in Philadelphia when she met and married Michael Paine...They moved to
Texas, and in September 1962, they separated..."
Not mentioned in this biography is the fact that Ruth Hyde Paine's father and
sister both worked in various capacities for the CIA. Another anonomoly is Maria
Hyde, an elderly American lady who Oswald met in both Moscow and Minsk, and
whose photo of Oswald in Minsk turned up in CIA files, reportedly from the files
of the Domestic Contacts Division of the CIA which routinely debriefs American
tourists and business people who travel abroad.
[It has never been determined if the Marie Hyde that Oswald
met in Russia is in any way related to Ruth Hyde Paine or the international
Quaker community. It however, seems to be a question that could be reasonably
answered].
Ruth Avery Hyde Paine is a pacifist who harbors Quaker
beliefs, studied the Russian language and wrote letters to pen-pals in the
Soviet Union, helped arrange east-west exchange students and became Marina
Oswald's guardian. She first took Marina into her home as a guest while Oswald
went to New Orleans to obtained work and an apartment.
[It was the phone number at this apartment that Dr. (Col.
USA) Jose Rivera gave to Adele Edison in Washington D.C. on April 22, 1963, two
weeks before Oswald himself knew he would be living there].
Ruth H. Paine then drove Marina to the Magazine Street
apartment in New Orleans and then notified a local Quaker, Mrs. Ruth Kloepfer,
of the Oswald's presence in New Orleans. She requested Kloepfer contact and
assist the Oswalds, and Mrs. Kloepfer and her two college age daughters, who
were also learning the Russian language, then visited Lee and Marina at the
apartment.
According to the Warren Report (p. 726): "Ruth Kloepfer
was a clerk of the Quaker Meeting in New Orleans whom Ruth Paine had written in
the hope that she might know some Russian-speaking people who could visit
Marina. Mrs. Kloepfer herself visited the Oswalds but made no attempt to direct
any Russian-speaking people to them." [Other than her daughters, who were
never interviewed].
Oswald then embarked upon his Clinton, La., pro and
anti-Castro Cuban and Mexico City operations in New Orleans, which continued
until September 22, 1963, when Ruth H. Paine arrived in New Orleans from
Philadelphia. In Philadelphia Ruth H. Paine had spent some time with her
husband's mother, Ruth Forbes Paine Young and her husband Arthur Young, the
inventor of the Bell Helicopter. Both Ruth F. P. Young (Michael Paine's mother)
and Arthur Young were pacifists and directly associated with the Philadelphia
Quaker community.
Oswald had told a few acquaintences, including Ruth H. Paine,
that he eventually intended to relocate to Philadelphia, and in his notebook
were two Philadelphia addresses.
In any case, Philadelphia is the headquarters of the world
Quaker community, which maintains close ties to nearby Main Line colleges
Swathmore College and Haverford where Michael Paine and journalist Priscilla
Johnson McMillan matriculated. Also in downtown Philadelphia is the headquarters
of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), which operates Casa de los
Amigos, the "camp" or youth hostel for America students studying the
Spanish language in Mexico City.
Instead of going to Philadelphia however, Oswald went to
Mexico City, while Mrs. Ruth H. Paine took Marina, the kids and all of the
Oswald's belongings - including the rifle, to Texas.
It is possible that Steven Kennan and his Quaker friends knew
Oswald in Mexico City and were associated with Casa de los Amigos, which is
still operational today.
- [I have initiated an internet email querry with all major
Quaker organizations and am getting a good response from librarians who are very
helpful, including one who knows Ruth H. Paine.]
- It is also possible Oswald learned of this Quaker
"camp" before he went to Mexico City from either Ruth H. Paine or Ruth
Kloepfer, although both would later deny that they knew of Oswald's intention to
visit Mexico.
It has long been speculated that any CIA photographs of
Oswald entering or leaving the Cuban or Russian embassies, on any of ten known
occassions, were not made public because of other persons who are in the
photographs, which would expose on-going covert operations.
In his book Gus Russo speculates that any person photographed
with Oswald in Mexico City was possibly Cuban, or at least a Communist, but if
LICOVEY-3 ferried Oswald around, he was being transported about by a KGB-CIA
double agent under the control of the CIA Counter-intelligence unit (James J.
Angleton-Winn Scott), the same ones who kept the CIA files on Oswald "very
close to their vests." (paraphrase of John Newman - Oswald & the CIA ).
With the Quaker connection, there seems to be an underlying
thread of detached financial and administrative assistance from a number of
"non-profit" religious oriented charity organizations such as the
American Friends Service Committee, the "Red Cross" that subsidized
Oswald's soujourn in Minsk, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Cuban
Welfare and Refugee Relief organizations.
- Some of them were supported financially by the Catherwood
Fund, a non-profit foundation established the same month in 1948 as the CIA and
located in Paoli, Pennsylvania, just outside of Philadelphia on the Main Line,
in the same small town as Michael Paine's mother, Ruth Forbes Young and her
husband Arthur Young.
- The CIA funding of such organizations has long been
established and the roles of CIA officials Tom Braden and Cord Meyer have been
widely published, and in light of the Quaker connections, should be reviewed to
see if there are any more concrete connections.
**********
Dr. Colonel Jose Rivera (USA) RIP 1911 - 1989
By Bill Kelly - (609) 814-0258 - billkell@bellatlantic.net
The literature of the J.F. K. assassination is littered with interesting
lines of inquiry, but few are as detailed and unbelieveably confirmed as the
circumstances presented by Adelle Edisen, who first made her story public in the
JFK Assassination research journal The THIRD Decade, published by New York State
University Professor Jerry Rose.
The article, titled "FROM APRIL TO NOVEMBER AND BACK
AGAIN," was written by Edisen, but to protect her identity, published under
the name of K.S. Turner in the November, 1991 edition (Vol. 8 #1) of the
bi-monthly, journal, now The Fourth Decade.
Edisen claimed that in April of 1963 she met a person with
foreknowledge of the assassination of President Kennedy, talked with Lee Harvey
Oswald on the telephone in New Orleans in May, 1963, called the Secret Service
to warn them of the assassination before it occurred and was interviewed by the
Secret Service and FBI after the assassination.
There are however, no official documented reports on the
matter and apparantly none are forthcomming from the government even after
Congress passed the JFK Assassination Records Review Act.
Adelle Edisen's story however, seems to hold water without
offical documentation, in fact, the lack of documentation makes what she has to
say even more significant, and subsequent followup inquiries by separate
independent researchers (Dick Russell, Larry Haapanen, John Gooch and myself)
have confirmed much of what she has to say. It is a story that provides numerous
leads of opportunity to further follow up on.
As a synopsis, in the first Third Decade article Turner-Edisen
describes how she came to meet Dr. Jose Rivera at a medical conference in
Atlantic City, New Jersey in April, 1963.
Edisen and Rivera were both medical professionals. Edisen was
in her third year of a Tulane University School of Medicine post-doctoral
fellowship in conjuction with the National Institute of Health's Institute of
Neurological Diseases and Blindness. She had previously worked on the faculty of
Rockefeller University, the University of Texas at San Antonio and St. Mary's
Dominican and Delgato Colleges in New Orleans
When she met Dr. Jose Rivera he was manning a booth at the
Atlantic City medical convention. Learning Edisen was with Tulane, in New
Orleans, Rivera said he had been on the faculty of the Biochemistry Department
at Loyola University, also in New Orleans and then lived in Washington D.C.
At the time of their meeting Edisen described Rivera as,
"approximately 45 or 50 years of age, short in height, about 5'3" or
4", and obese. His hair was dark brown, almost black, with some grey; he
was balding at the forehead and crown. His eyes were brown, and he wore
corrective glasses with very thick lenses which greatly magnified the size of
his eyes. His complexion was quite dark. He spoke English with a distinct
Hispanic accent."
The Atlantic City Convention Authority records reflect that
the National Institute of Health (NIH) sponsored a "High Blood Presure
Symposium" at the Atlantic City Convention Hall in April, 1963.
Edisen later (November 18, 1994) testified before the
Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in Dallas, Texas, that the meetings in
Atlantic City were organized by the Federation of American Socities of
Experimental Biology, an umbrella group of six major biological societies,
including the American Physiological Society, for whom Edisen gave a report on
her research.
The strictly a professional conversation between Edisen and
Rivera became friendly, or as Edisen explained it, "I befriended him or he
befriended me."
The NIH is their first common tie, with their mutual
professional acquaintences in New Orleans providing additional associations.
Edisen told Rivera that she was planning to visit friends in Washington D.C. on
her way home to New Orleans, and Rivera invited her to visit and have dinner
with him, his wife and daughter when she arrived in Washington. He also offered
to show her around and give her a tour of the NIH.
"I was planning to go to Bethesea in Washington and
visit with colleagues and friends at the NIH and also see the NIH," Edisen
later testified, "and so he had, in the course of our conversations and so
on, invited me to his home to have dinner with him and his wife and daughter,
and also to help me obtain hotel, motel space for my visit in Bethesda after
these meetings, and to give me a site-seeing tour, and so on."
As Edisen explained their initial encounter, "It turned
out he had taught at Loyola University in New Orleans, and we knew some people
in common who were, for example, Dr. Fred Brazda who was chairman of
Biochemestry at LSU Medical School, and a few other people."
So shortly after meeting him at the Atlantic City convention,
Edison arrived in Washington D. C. on Monday, April 22, 1963. As he had
requested, she telephoned Rivera at his office, and his secretary arranged for
her accomodations at a Bethesda, Md. motel.
Rivera picked Edisen up in his car and explained that his
wife, a nurse, was called into duty at a hospital, so they had dinner at a
Washingtion restaurant, Blackie's House of Beef.
It was standing in line waiting to be seated, Edisen
recalled, when Dr. Rivera, "began to talk of his travels in conjuction with
his work. He spoke of Dallas, Texas."
Edisen quoted Rivera as saying, "When you go to Dallas,
you should go to the Carousel Club because it's a very nice nightclub."
Edisen made a mental note of a merry-go-round, while Rivera asked her if she
knew Lee Harvey Oswald. He told her that Oswald had lived in the Soviet Union,
was married to a Russian, had a child and they were planning on moving to New
Orleans, where Edisen was then living. She distinctly made a mental impression
of the name, "I vaguely wondered if he was related to a boy I had gone to
high school with whose name was Fred Oswald."
Rivera encouraged Edisen to meet the Oswalds. "You
should get to know them," and she considered Oswald to be a fellow medical
research scientist.
Edisen and Rivera then made plans to meet the next night,
when she would get a site seeing tour and could have dinner with Rivera at his
home with his wife and daughter.
After spending the day with friends, Rivera picked up Edisen
at her motel where "a tall, sharp-faced man hailed Rivera, addressing him
as 'Colonel.' They spoke for quite a long while about their times together at an
Army base. His friend spoke of his current work in the army on telemetry and
some work with cameras and telephoto lenses."
Rivera later told Edisen that, "We're photographing
demonstrators with telephoto cameras from rooftops. We'll identify individual
demonstrators and put their names in computer files. We've started this on the
West Coast."
Edisen wondered how that could be related to his work as a
science administrator at NINDB until Rivera told her of his "other office,
on the hill," and ties with "Foggy Bottom," which Edisen thought
to be a residential section of the city.
According to Edisen: "After a lengthly drive to view the
cherry trees, the National Library of Congress, Walter Reed Army Institute and
Hospital, the Capitol Building, Georgetown and other sites, we started to
approach the White House." While they passed the White House a number of
times, the first time they went by Rivera asked Edisen, "I wonder what
Jackie will do when her husband dies?"
After a pause and Edisen's incredulous, "What?",
Rivera said, "Oh, oh, I meant the baby. She might lose the baby."
Edisen didn't know Jackie was pregnant, and that was, "the first inkling I
had that Rivera might be implying something sinister concerning President
Kennedy."
Then, "Every time we toured around the White House he
asked me if I saw Caroline on her pony Macaroni, and all kinds of crazy
nonsense, and I was beginning to think I was with an absolute mad man...Rivera's
part of the conversation at times was difficult to follow, but many of his
statements, such as the reference to 'Jackie,' seemed deliberately placed. When
he spoke of President Kennedy, Rivera was extremely critical of Kennedy's
position on civil rights. Rivera made many disparaging remarks about black
people and the civil rights movement."
Rivera also mentioned the NIH, she notes, "Several times
during the course of this evening and the previous one, Rivera referred to the
NIH being called 'The Reservation' because there were so many 'chiefs' and no
'Indians.' I wondered why he had to repeat this so many times."
Edisen, as a professional research scientist, suspected
Rivera was using hyptnotic suggestion techniques on her, and possibly even
drugs. "He spoke of hypnosis. He had knowledge of hypnotic techniques and
of the uses of LSD, a psychomimetic and hypnogogic drug which increases
susceptibility to suggestions without causing amnesia."
Since his wife, again, was called in to work at the hospital,
Rivera and Edisen had dinner at the Twin Bridges at the Marriott Motor Hotel
across the Patomac River. While the dinner was relatively uneventfull, Rivera
did ask Edisen some queer questions, like if she knew a lawyer named John Abt.
"After we finished eating, he asked me to do a favor for
him when I arrived home," recalls Edisen. Rivera wanted Edisen to contact
Winston DeMonsabert, a Loyola faculty member who was leaving New Orleans. Edisen
wrote a note to herself: "Winston DeMonsabert call Dr. Rivera when leaving
NO."
Then Rivera said to also call Lee Harvey Oswald - 899-4244.
"Write down this name: Lee Harvey Oswald. Tell him to kill the chief."
Rivera then contradicted himself, saying, "No, no, don't
write that down. You will remember it when you get to New Orleans. We're just
playing a little joke on him."
Edisen said that she still assumed "the joke" would
be on Oswald, a scientist and friend of Rivera's, and "the chief" was
a reference to Elizabeth Hartman, "the chief" of the grants and awards
section of the NIH, who Rivera had earlier joked about as being like the chief
of a reservation "with too many chiefs and not enough Indians."
Edisen remembers Rivera then being "agitated and
excited. He began talking strangely about 'it' happeing," drew diagrams on
a napkin, almost incoherent and very agitated, "It will be on the fifth
floor, there'll be some men up there," he said. Edisen quoted Rivera as
saying nonsensecical things like, "Oswald was not what he seems. We're
going to send him to the library to read about great assassinations in history.
After it's over, he'll call Abt to defend him. After it happens, the President's
best friend will commit suicide. He'll jump out of a window because of his
grief....It will happend after the Shriners' Circus comes to New Orleans. After
it's over, the men will be out of the country. Remembmer, the first time it
happens won't be real."
Edisen recalls, "He did not respond to any of my
questions about what was to happen, and I became even more concerned and
suspicious about his odd behavior and statements. As I entered his car, he asked
me to destroy the note I had made and to forget what had just happened. It did
not dawn on me that he could have been referring to an assassination of the
President - the Chief."
Rivera threatened Edisen about going to the FBI saying,
"They'll want that note. Don't give it to them. I don't want to have to
hurt you. We'll be watching you."
Edisen said, "I became very frightened. I didn't
understand what he was talking about even though he had made references to the
assassination of the President...He would say, after it happens, what happens,
you know, I don't know what he's talking about..."
End Part I.
*********
DR. (Col. Jose Rivera (USA) - Part II - OSWALD'S MOVEMENTS DIRECTED BY D.C.
About a week after Adelle Edison returned home to New Orleans from Washington
D.C. (approx. May 1-3, 1963), she called the number Rivera had given her for Lee
Harvey Oswald - 899-4244 - who she believed was a research scientist colleague
of Dr. Rivera who had returned from Russia with a Russian wife and recently
moved to New Orleans. A man who answered the phone said there was no one there
by that name.
"A week later (approx. May 9-12 1963) I dialed again,
thinking I might have misdialed the first time," recalls Edisen. The same
man answered, and seemed surprised when she asked for Oswald, as he said,
"They've just arrived."
Although Oswald wasn't there, Edisen spoke with his wife
briefly, and although she spoke with a Slavic-Russian accent, Marina seemed to
understand the conversation, didn't know Dr. Rivera, and said it was all okay
for Edisen to call back when her husband was there.
The third time she called, the phone was answered by the same
man, who Edisen belives was the landlord. Oswald came to the phone, but denied
knowing Dr. Jose Rivera of Washington D.C.
"That's strange, because he apparantly knows you and your wife,"
Edisen told him. "I then asked Oswald for the location of the telephone,
and he courteously gave me an address on Magazine Street, which I placed to be
near the 5000 block...I thanked him and apologized for bothering him. Still
thinking that Oswald was a scientist, I wondered why a scientist would be
living in a rather run-down part of the city. Needless to say, I did not
deliver River's message ('to kill the chief') to Oswald."
What is really strange is that Dr. (Col.) Jose Rivera, in Washington D.C.,
knew Oswald's New Orleans phone number on Tuesday, April 23, before Oswald
himself knew where he was moving to in New Orleans.
It was the following day, Wednesday, April 24, when Ruth
Paine drove from Irving to the Oswald's Neeley Street apartment in Dallas to
find the Oswalds all packed and ready to move to New Orleans. They had quite
suddenly - Marina later said it was because of the Walker shooting incident,
that they decided to move to New Orleans, where Oswald was born. They asked Ruth
Paine for a ride to the bus station and she was startled by the sudden decision.
Ruth Paine discussed the matter with them in the car on the
way to the bus station, and convinced them that because they didn't know where
Oswald would work or where they would stay in New Orleans, Marina and their
daughter should stay with her in Irving, Texas while Oswald went on alone to New
Orleans to find a job and locate an apartment.
Oswald arrived in New Orleans by bus and called his aunt
Lillian Murret to announce that he had returned home and to ask if he could stay
with them at 757 French Street while he searched for employment. Mrs. Murret too
was surprised, but agreed to take Oswald on as a guest until he obtained a job
and apartment.
After filing for unemployment compensation extensions for his
work in Dallas at Jaggars-Chiles-Stoval [which required cross-state approvals],
Oswald applied for work at a number of locations, including the William B. Riley
coffee company at 640 Magazine Street, where he listed three references - his
uncle John Murret, Sgt. Robert Hidell and Liet. J. Evans, the last two of which
the Warren Report claims are "apparantly fictious names."
But they're not ficticious. Oswald did know a Hidell in the
Marines, who was living in New Orleans at the time, and there was indeed a
"J. Evans," because as the Report notes on the same page, "Also
on May 9, Oswald obtained an apartment at 4905-07 Magazine Street with the help
of Myrtle Evans, who had know him when he was a child." And Myrtle had a
husband named Julian. When he was young Oswald's mother had rented an apartment
from Myrtle and Julian Evans. After the assassination Myrtle Evans characterized
Oswald as a spoiled brat to the Warren Commission and Marina's biographer
Pricilla Johnson McMillan (PJM).
Recreating Oswald's reintroduction back in his old
neighborhood, PJM wrote: "Lee went to their building and Julian Evans, who
was seated at breakfast drinking his last cup of coffee, recognized him right
away. He had known Lee both as a child and as a teenager, and there was
something about him that neither he nor Myrtle liked. Julian finished his
coffee, shook hands with the caller, and left for work. His wife Myrtle, a
heavy-set women in her fifties, who wore glasses, and had reddish hair in a bun,
peered at Lee closely, "I know you, don't I?"
"Sure, I am Lee Oswald. I was just waiting to see when
you were going to recognize me."
Myrtle and Julian thought Oswald was in Russia. Even thought
there was something she didn't like about Oswald, Myrtle took Oswald to lunch
and helped him find the apartment on Magazine Street. According to PJM however,
she drove Oswald around in her car looking for FOR RENT signs until they found
one on Magazine Street.
"Lee spoted one and they went in," PJM writes (in
Marina and Lee p. 313). "There were two apartments for rent at 4907
Magazine Street, and the bigger one looked as if it might do. It was on the
ground floor. It had a long living room, a screen-in front porch, a yard, and
the kind of iron fence children can't crawl through. The rent was $65 a month.
Myrtle advised Lee that it was the best value for his money and he'd better take
it."
The landlady was Mrs. Jesse Garner, who lived with her
husband in an apartment next door in the same building complex. Oswald told Mrs.
Garner he worked for the Leon Israel Company at 300 Magazine Street when he
actually had obtained a job that morning at the William Riley Coffee company on
the same street. It was Jesse Garner who most likely answered the telephone the
three times that Adelle Edisen called at the request of Dr. Jose Rivera.
The key question is: How did Dr. Jose Rivera in Washington
D.C. know Lee Harvey Oswald's New Orleans phone number at Jesse Garner's 4905-7
Magazine Street apartment house on April 23d, when Oswald himself didn't know
what it would be until May 9th? If true, and confirmed, it certainly indicates
that at least some of Oswald's movements were being directed by someone in
Washington D.C.
That afternoon, May 9, Oswald called Marina at Ruth Paine's
house in Irving, Texas with the news that he had obtained a job and apartment
and Marina told Mrs. Paine and the children "Papa loves us," and was
very happy. Mrs. Paine, Marina and the children left Irving the next day in Mrs.
Paine's station wagon, staying ovenight enroute and arriving in New Orleans on
May 11th. Mrs. Paine then stayed with the Oswalds at their new Magazine Street
apartment for three days.
Ed Haslam, who wrote a book called, "Mary, Ferrie and
the Monkey Virus," reported that the corner 4905-07 Magazine street
apartment building complex was owned by Mr. and Mrs. William McLaney until 1974
when it was sold to Isabella Dawson, who (according to Mary Farrell) had
previously signed a rent receipt for Oswald, indicating she had something to do
with the buildling before she bought it. Edisen also wrote to city of New
Orleans and learned the same details.
Shortly after she returned to New Orleans from Washington
Edisen also called the Loyola faculty member (Winston DeMonsabert) whose name
Rivera had given her, but he denied knowing Dr. Rivera. [This is contrary to
what DeMonsabert told John Gooch and Dick Russell when they interviewed
DeMonsabert, who admited to being in communication with Rivera up to the time of
his death].
When Edisen checked with the Chairman of Loyola's
Biochemestry Department, Dr. Fred Brazda, he said he knew Rivera but told Edisen
that Rivera "had left the University under very peculilar
circumstances" and warned her not to have anything to do with him.
Suspicious of what she knew by then, Edisen called the New
Orleans office of the U.S. Secret Service and spoke with Special Agent Rice.
According to Edisen, "After giving my name, address and telephone number to
him, I told him I had met a man in Washington in April who said some strange
things about the President which I thought they should know. It was my intention
to go there and tell them about Rivera and his statements, but I began to think
they might not believe me, so I called back and cancelled. Agent Rice told me
they would be there any time I would care to come in."
Four months later, in August, 1963, Edisen saw Oswald on
television, handing out Fair Play for Cuba leaflets in front of the
International Trade Mart in New Orleans. She recalled the announcer refering to
him as "Leon" Oswald. She noticed the similarity in names and wondered
about the coincidence.
In September, 1963, sometime after Labor Day, Edisen was
speaking with Dr. Greg Harris in the hallway at LSU, when Rivera got off an
elevator. "Of course I watched him," Edisen recalls, "and he
didn't see me (at first). He had very thick glasses. He may not have seen at
long distance. But when he was about eight or ten feet away, he noticed me and
halted and he almost stumbled stepping backwards. He looked as if he had seen a
ghost, and then he walked on. He recovered by saying he had to go see Fred
Brazda, his friend in the biochemistry."
That was the last time Adelle Edisen saw Dr. Jose Rivera.
For Edisen it all came to a head on Friday, "November
22, my fears became reality. I spent much of the day listening to the news from
Dallas and sorting out my memories of April, 1963. I felt I was involved,
however innocently, and I thought it important the Secret Service and FBI be
told of Rivera. Rivera was, to me, no longer a delusional psychotic, but an
assassination conspirator. It also occurred to me that Oswald might be innocent
despite the emphasis of his guilt by the news media and that he might have been
somehow manipulated by Rivera and his "we" who were "playing a
little joke" on Oswald.
Two days later, on Sunday, November 24, Edisen, for the third
time, called U.S. Secret Service office in New Orleans and spoke with Special
Agent Rice. She was asked to go to the Federal Building at 600 South Street,
where SA Rice met her in the lobby. She was told not sign the entry-exit
register with the security guard. They went to an office on the fifth floor
where they were informed that Oswald had been shot in Dallas.
Edisen, at first, belived she met with Special Agent J.
Calvin Rice, who has been identified as an agent of the FBI. It is more likely
she met with Special Agent John Rice, the Special Agent In Charge of the New
Orleans office of the FBI. She described Rice as being thin and short, not much
taller than she was, while J. Calvin Rice has been described as over six feet
tall and husky.
In the office, Rice introduced Edisen to "a tall,
heavy-set bald man with wire-rimed eyeglasses, a Special Agent of the FBI,"
who she recalls was named Orin Bartlett.
Rice said they were working closely on the case. There was no
one else in the office. Edisen belives the three to four hour long interview was
taperecorded as, "Mr. Rice was seated at his desk, and I was seated to his
right, and the FBI agent remained standing most of the time. I believe he may
have taped it because every time Mr. Rice got up from his desk, there was a
partition over there, for example, and there was a phone there which they used
even though there was a phone on the desk, which I didn't understand, but
apparently there was some reason for that. So every time Mr. Rice got up to
answer the phone or to use the phone, I noticed his hand would do this, and I
would either hear a whirring, a mechanical sound like a tape recorder or
something. It may have been audiotaped."
Edisen told them the story of how she met Dr. Jose Rivera in
Atlantic City in April, how she visited with him for two days in Washington
D.C., and showed them the airline ticket, hotel receipts and the notes she kept.
"At this point," Edisen recalls, "the agents'
questioning became more intense. I was asked to further identify Rivera, his
position at the NIH, and his physical description. I also gave them Rivera's
office telephone number and his home phone number (301-654-7348) in Chevy Chase,
Maryland. The FBI agent quickly went behind the partition and called someone,
giving this information. I thought Rivera was to be apprehended."
"When the FBI agent returned from behind the partition,
he asked if they could have the note, and I agreed," Edisen later wrote.
As the interview came to an end, Agent Rice asked the FBI
agent if he "had the film," and if he was ready to leave for Dallas,
as "the plane was ready."
"Before he showed me the door," wrote Edisen,
"Agent Rice asked me to call them if I remembered anything else and
requested that I not tell anyone I had been there to speak with them. I
understood this to be for my own protection as well as for their investigation.
Both agents thanked me for speaking with them."
After she recalled a few more details, Edisen called Agent
Rice a few days later, and repeated her fears of Rivera and his threats, but
Rice counseled her, "Don't worry. That man can't hurt you."
Edisen thought Rivera was in custody, and she expected to be
called as a witness before the Warren Commission. "When the Warren Report
was published, I was mystified and dismayed by the conclusion that Oswald acted
alone, and that Jack Ruby acted alone, for my experiences told me
otherwise."
Maintaining her silence about the whole affair for many
years, Edisen consulted an attorney to see if there was any record of her
pre-assassination phone calls to the Secret Service or her post assassination
interview. After perusing the 26 volumes of Warren Commission testimony and
exhibits and finding nothing about Dr. Jose Rivera or reports from FBI Agent J.
Calvin Rice or SAIC John Rice, she had New Orleans attorney Jack Peebles file a
request under the Freedom of Information Act, but no documentation was
discovered.
When the Church Committee conveined she contacted Sen. Frank
Church, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and when Sen.
Daniel Inouye and his staff seemed interested she sent a copy of all
documentation she had as well as a narrative of her experiences, but later
received the response that the matter was "outside the purview of the
Special Committee's work."
A copy of the (three page) narrative summery of her
experiences was also personally given to a Special Agent of the FBI in San
Antonio, Texas, in 1984, which he reportedly sent to Headquarters.
A year later she again made an FIO request to the FBI for
anything they had in their files, and the FBI again replied that it had nothing.
Adelle Edisen asked, in writing and at a public hearing in
San Antonio, Texas, that the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) examine
any records pertaining to Dr. (Col.) Jose Rivera, "and what his role was in
all of this. I know something about him, that he spent some time in Japan, for
example, he told me that, and it may have been there at that time Oswald was
there. He knew Oswald somehow."
As she concluded her Third Decade article, Edisen wrote,
"History should record that some investigative work was conducted relevant
to the information I had furnished to the U.S. Secret Service and the FBI
following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; however, there is no
offical record that this conversation ever took place. Why? If the information
was not considered to be relevant and pertinent, there should be some record of
the fact that the interview took place. If the information was considered to be
relevant and pertinent, there certainly should have been a record of it."
"Whatever forces were operating to assassinate President
Kennedy may never be revealed, but this should not deter anyone from seeking the
truth. If our system of government, its laws, and our civil rights are to
survive, we need to know the truth, no matter how convoluted and strange it may
be. We deserve to know this long before the next century."
In 1989, Maryland newspapers published the obituary of
"Dr. Jose Albert Rivera, pathologist, analyst, 78," which read:
"Dr. Jose Albert Rivera, 78, a retired Army pathologist
and research analyst at NIH, die dof pancreatic cancer, Wednesday, Aug. 16, at
the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. He lived in Kensington. Dr. Rivera retired
in 1973 from a second career as a medical research analyst at the Institute of
Neurological Diseases and Blindness, one of the NIH, where he worked after
retiring from the Army in 1965.
"Born in Lima, Peru, Dr. Rivera studied medicine at the
University of San Marcos. He moved to the United States to study at John Hopkins
University in Baltimore, earing his undergraduate degree there. He earned his
doctoral degree from Georgetown University in 1939 and interned at Providence
Hospital.
"In 1942, he volunteered for the Army and was
commissioned a first lieutenant in the medical corps. He was stationed at Walter
Reed Army Hospital and later assigned to Halloran General Army Hospital in New
York.
"In 1944, while acting as chief of pathology at Halloran,
he was promoted to captain and went on a series of assignments in Italy and
France and at the 198th General Army Hospital in Berlin.
"During the Korean War he served in the 1273rd Medical
Field Unit of the 406th Medical General Laboratory and received a battlefield
promotion to major. After the war, he was chief of laboratory service and
pathology at the U.S. Army Hospital in Toyko.
"In 1958, he was assigned to the Reserve Training Center
in Washington D.C., where he remained until his retirement in 1965.
"Dr. Rivera was active in many civic organizations and
charities. His favorites were the Epilepsy Foundation of America, the Reserve
Officers Association of the United States and the Association of Military
Surgeons of the United States....
"Dr. Rivera is survived by two daughters, Linda
Rivera-King of Abington, Pa., and Natalie Rivera Frederick of San Ramon,
Californian and three grandchildren. His wife, Anne J. Rivera, to whom he was
married for 52 years, died in 1988. Services were held at Fort Myer Chapel, with
burial at Arlington National Cemetary."
Larry Haapanen notes that a review of medical literature
indicates Dr. Rivera wrote a number of books that were published, incuding one
that links him to a Naval Medical facility in San Francisco.
Walt Brown, in refering to the "Global JFK Index, noted
that :
- Bartlett, Orrin - (FBI S/A - Liason with Secret Service), is mentioned in
Carlos Brunguier's book Red Friday, p. 85; Livingston's High Treason II, p.101;
Weisberg's Whitewash II, p. 200, 351, 599 and Post Mortem, p. 603; as well as WC
Vol. III, p. 67-460; Vol. VI - p. 435 (concerning delivering bullet fragments to
FBI lab on 112263 and in regards to bullet cartridges on 120363. Upper Pa. -
phone number - talked with Edisen in 1991 -
- Rice, J. Calvin, SA FBI, is listed as being refered to in Warren Commission
Exhibits : XV -pages 140- 226- 268-283- XIX - 384-386 - 627 - XX- 438-439 - 473
- XXII - 928 - XXIII - 104 - 207- 474 - XXVI -166-168
- Rice, John - Secret Service - Special Agent In Charge (SAIC) of the New
Orleans SS office in 1963-1964, refered to for his post assassination interview
with Jack Martin. SAIC John Rice is also indexed in John Davis, Mafia Kingfish -
p. 200 Flamande, Kennedy Conspiracy - 125-126, 128, American Grotesque - p.
134-13
Newman, Oswald and CIA p. 327 - Re: Carlos Bringuier - Lee H.
Oswald encunters, including once when "At the time Oswald pretended to be
against Castro," "and told Bringuier that he would be willing to
assist in training Cubans with a view of overthrowing Castro."
Newman cites: - JFK NARA RIF 124-10062-10049. To chief, from
SAIC John W. Rice, New Orleans, Subject: Assassination of JFK.
Weisberg - Oswald In New Oreans - 117- 129-130 - 179 -182 -
203 - 342
The Assassination Records Review Board Final Report (Chapter
6, Part 1, p. 109) notes: 8. Adele Edisen, Winston de Monsabert, Jose Rivera
"Dr. Adele Edisen has written several letters to the
Review Board and has also provided public testimony to the Review Board. In her
letters and testimony, Dr. Edisen stated that, in New Orleans on November 24,
1963, she recounted to an FBI agent and a Secret Service agent her knowledge of
apparent dealings between Dr. Jose Rivera, Mr. Winston de Monsabert, and Lee
Harvey Oswald in 1963. The Review Board requested FBI records on these
individuals from FBI Headquarters and field offices in Baltimore, Dallas,
Denver, New Orleans and Washington D.C. The FBI retrieved only a few records
relating to the individuals referenced above, all of which the Review Board
designated as assassination records."
The ARRB PR person, Ms. Sullivan later contacted Adelle
Edisen and informed her that the FBI had located the narrative she gave to the
SA of the FBI in San Antonio, Texas, but that was all they could locate among
their files.
New Orleans Attorney Jack Peebles
Winston DeMon.
Mr. DiMagio—Bio-Chemestry
Ed Haslam—Alb. N.Mx.
Also 15 February 1999, my reply to Kelly
Bill:
Thanks for the information. Charlie Drago's E-mail address is
cdrago@rilin.state.ri.us. Please send your possible abstract to both of us.
Please keep it as general and as forward-looking as possible. I will forward
your attachments to him as well.
Ken Rahn
***********************************************
13 March 1999
Message from J.E. Fiorentino
You may be interested in sharing with your students information from a new
book entitled, "Return to Reason" (Evidence of Disguise and Deception
by the Critics of the Warren Report) written by J.E. Fiorentino, including an
introduction by Dr. J.K. Lattimer is scheduled for release in the second half of
this year.
Dr. Lattimer, you may be aware was on the HSCA panel in the
late 70's, and has himself written a book, entitled "Kennedy and
Lincoln" which examines the medical and ballistics evidence in the case.
"Return to Reason" is currently being updated, and
contains NEW evidence in the case. The book takes an extremely unusual approach
to the case, and documents CONCLUSIVELY that the Warren Commission was correct
in their conclusions.
One section examines the Zapruder film in detail, and
pinpoints the EXACT frame when Kennedy and Connally were hit by the first shot.
If you desire further information, please e-mail me back.
The book will most probably be released in audio format
before the hardcopy.
Best regards,
J.E. Fiorentino
jstonemusic@earthlink.net
Follow-up message from J.E. Fiorentino, same day
If you wish to converse by phone......My # is 732-493-3185
Thanx again,
J.E. Fiorentino
My reply, same day
Dear Mr. (?) Fiorentino:
I found your message very intriguing. Please send more
information.
Would you be interested in attending our April conference in
Providence? (See link from the class's web site.) Do you need information about
it? I probably won't have time to call you in the near future.
Is the original edition of the book still available?
Ken Rahn
His reply, same day
Thanx for you response.......Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend....The
book is not published yet.........I wrote it over the span of several years, so
I decided to make some updates before publication....That will be the
"original," or first edition.
As, up until recently I was employed full time at a law firm,
time was something I just didn't have. I have other business interests, and
since this was basically a one man show, the delay in publication has been
agonizing to say the least.
I would be happy to supply any info. you need. Perhaps I
could send a detailed response on some specific questions you or your students
may have.
As I stated, the bbok will probably be released in audio form
first, which for a non-fiction book of this type may not be the greatest of
mediums, but will afford me the opportunity to get it out a little faster. I
still have some legalities to work out re: including frames from the Zapruder
film in the book. Initially the royalty demanded by the Zapruders' lawyers was
prohibitive. I feel that I could publish the book without the frames from the
film, but since so much hinges on that aspect of the investigation, the optimum
would be to publish them.
Thanx again for your invitation, and let me know how I can be
of assistance.
I will tell you this. If you ever believed there was a
conspiracy in the assassination, this is THE book for you.
Best regards,
John Fiorentino
My reply, same day
Dear John:
I think that all of us interested in the JFK assassination
have to be VERY careful about statements involving conspiracy or lack of it. For
starters, conspiracy can be proven whereas lack of conspiracy cannot. Thus I
will never say "There was no conspiracy" because I cannot prove that,
nor can anyone else. I may say "I do not believe" in conspiracy,
because that is an entirely different statement. What I or anyone else believes
has an indistinct relation to the truth and is basically inconsequential--it's
what we can demonstrate (or prove) that counts.
So what do we really know about the assassination? That in 35
years, not one piece of objectively falsifiable evidence for conspiracy has
emerged. But that does not mean or in any way imply that there was no
conspiracy, only that we haven't been able to find a conspiracy so far. On the
other hand, 35 years is a long time, and with each tick of the clock, it becomes
less probable that there really is a conspiracy to be found. (See my essay #1).
But we will never be able to say it for sure. As for me, I judge that it is
>95% probable that Oswald acted alone, but I cannot and will not go farther
than that. We are not a court of law that must reach a decision even when the
evidence is inconclusive, as it must be for disproving conspiracy. I would urge
you to be wary of overly strong statements about lack of conspiracy.
Concerning using your book in my class, I don't see how it
will be possible given that we end in the first half of the year and your book
will appear in the second half.
I'm sorry that you can't attend our conference.
>I would be happy to supply any info. you need. Perhaps I could send a
detailed
>response on some specific questions you or your students may have.
What kinds of questions did you have in mind--about the book or about the
assassination?
I'm curious—does your book go into the scientific evidence,
the medical evidence, or all types of evidence? How is the book structured? What
kind of academic background do you come from?
Ken
His reply, same day
I agree, you can't prove a negative............Thusly, I cannot prove there
was no conspiracy. However, most people are quite uneducated about the
assassination, gleaning their "knowledge" from the plethora of
conspiracy works.
When you examine the evidence, and then compare it to what is
stated by the critics, you quickly see that all those thoughts, doubts, etc.
about the government's "coverup" are unfounded. Even Gerald Ford
admitted, and the Warren Report stated......it found no evidence of a conspiracy
either foreign or domestic...It never said there was no conspiracy.
My book examines the medical evidence, some of which is new.
The single bullet theory, which upon examination of the Z film, matches EXACTLY
what the Warren Commission stated. I examine the ballistic evidence, the
supposed "accoustic" evidence for a fourth shot. And dispel EVERY myth
that has been perpetrated upon the American people concerning this tragic event.
There is also an examination of Stone's JFK.....and various
storyweavers such as.....Cyril Wecht, MD........Jean Hill..........Harold
Weisberg.....David Lifton.......Dr. Crenshaw.........Mark Lane....etc., etc.
The book is fully footnoted, and referenced........I would be
happy to answer any questions pertaining to the assassination.
Best regards,
John Fiorentino
*******************************************
17 March 1999
Dr. Arthur Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC) has submitted
a critique of my Essay #5, on neutron activation and the JFK assassination.
Because of the length of this critique, I have separated it from these shorter
comments. To read it and two sets of introductory comments, click
here. To read my response to his critique, click here.
*******************************************
26 April 1999
From Roger Byrum
siward@erols.com
Subject: Strong vs. Weak Evidence
Hello Dr. Rahn:
I have read a number of your essays relating to the Kennedy
assassination. While I am all for dividing the evidence into "strong"
and "weak" evidence and tossing out the "weak" evidence, God
knows there are enough red herrings in that kettle, I'm not at all certain that
your criteria for dividing it is correct.
I noticed you placed witness statements in the weak category
and the opinions of scientific experts in the strong category. I'm not convinced
that witness statements are non-falsifiable per se. Nor am I convinced that
expert opinion is necessarily as strong as you represent.
I can give you one interesting example of expert opinion. The
House Select Committee on Assassinations had nine forensic pathologists examine
the X-rays and autopsy photographs of President Kennedy. They concluded that the
bullet trajectory through Kennedy's back was level to slightly upward.
Attorney General Ramsey Clark also assembled a panel of
experts to examine the same X-rays and photographs. They concluded that the
bullet trajectory through Kennedy's back was downward.
Clearly, somebody's wrong.
Roger Byrum
Back to PSC482G