Before I continue further down this train of thought, I need to mention that if anyone would think it entertaining to hear me discourse in person, there are a couple of new opportunities. This coming Wednesday evening I will be on Jeff Bushman’s internet radio show for about an hour. We will be covering a broad variety of topics and Jeff’s a great host so it should be a good session. In addition, a recent lengthy interview by Alan Dale is now up on the Lancer web site and archived for access. The links are below:
I’ve been following a number of the current media interviews on the anniversary of the assassination as well as a couple of the television specials – not all of them, after close to 20 years on this subject I do hit overflow now and then – and it appears that there is a new trend. Many quotable personalities are acknowledging that the Warren Commission inquiry was lacking in a great many ways, even “dysfunctional”, and that it was not provided with a considerable amount of information as well as with questionable evidence. Now that’s a good thing, its only taken four decades or so to have that point acknowledged. Beyond that however, the new operative responses seem to be for the speakers to fall back on a position of stating that its important to keep an open mind or simply to pontificate that we will simply never know what really happened. Both of which are pretty safe positions to take, although I’ve note noticed any of the “open minded” folks on my voice mail, clamoring to be informed of what they might have missed in the past 50 years. Perhaps we will see all of them joining our ranks in Dallas?
Perhaps the most striking recent comment came from John Kerry, who seems to have taken the position that conspiracy of some sort may well have been in play – with his first thought being that perhaps another look should be taken at Oswald’s Cuban and Russian associations. Which of course, in my view, is exactly what the plotters in the Dallas attack wanted to happen – Kerry is simply behind their playbook about 50 years, for those of them still living, it must be pretty frustrating. In that regard, lets take a step further in thinking about the “patsy” concept I introduced in my last post.
How many of you mystery fans, print or television, have seen the show which begins with the police arresting the supposed murderer – who generally has at least some level of motive but who has been stupid enough to take the murder weapon, with their prints all over it, and hide it in their dresser drawer, in the trashcan out back or maybe the utility shed. The police and DA are happy, and justice is about to prevail…until Jessica Fletcher, Matlock or Perry Mason steps in to reveal that many murderers are just a little brighter than that. In other words, the obvious suspect is not necessarily the guilty party, no matter how the evidence originally stacks up. And the bad guys have usually taken some pains to stack the deck, not only with the evidence but in creating a series of associations and a motive that falls apart with a bit of work - within half an hour or so of air time.
Now this concept of setting up patsies is not really all that complex, William Harvey’s notes address the fact that any ZRRIFLE operative will have to have a fake document trail and evidence pointing them out as a Soviet or perhaps Eastern bloc asset in case they are caught. And in SWHT I describe Veciana’s remarks about how similar one Castro assassination attempt they set up in Latin America was to Dallas, even going so far setting up the patsy with photographs implicating him as a Communist and other evidence showing he was acting for Communist handlers. So, if Mr. Kerry is open to a conspiracy I would encourage him to consider the fact that the now obvious sponsors might be just a bit too obvious. I would also suggest he consider that both the Soviets and Russians had an excellent reputation for intelligence work and would be unlikely to leave such an obvious trail positioning Lee Oswald as being associated with them if they were indeed the true instigators of a conspiracy. In other words, lets give the real bad guys just a trace of credit here.
In this series of posts I’ve brought forth a number of specific incidents and sources that associated Lee Oswald with unknown individuals who were positioning themselves as Castro agents. As we get closer to the attack in Dallas those associations and suspicions continued to grow. In Dallas Sylvia Odio was introduced to an individual identical to Lee Oswald and told later, out of his presence, that he was a hired gun who could equally kill either Castro or Kennedy. In SWHT I review Odio (and her fathers) suspicions that those individuals were not the peo0ple they claimed to be but were playing some sort of deeper game in those remarks. Currently Bill Simpich is in the process further detailing the same type of false associations being planted in Mexico City and later in Dallas, according to FBI Agent Hosty, Oswald would still be in contact with “subversives”. I would submit that it was not Russian or Cuban agents handling Oswald in such a matter so as to implicate themselves in such a transparent fashion, surely insuring American retaliation following an attack on the U.S. President.
I will also submit that Lee Oswald was not stupid enough to shoot the president with his rifle and then think about hiding it at the same location, with fingerprints likely on it and then adamantly deny any such act immediately upon being taken into custody. If I hear that “he did it to become famous” motive on one more TV show…well enough for now.