The AARC presents a new series of lectures commemorating and honoring the legacy of President Kennedy, the inspirational meaning of his term of office, and the consequences of his assassination sixty-one years ago.

In the words of the distinguished British scholar Malcolm Blunt, “Jesus Christ, what we lost when we lost that man.”

By Bill Simpich

Good afternoon. I’m Bill Simpich, and I’m going to start by offering you a snapshot of a journalist named Kent Biffle, who was active with the Fort Worth Press, and we’re going to discuss the Fort Worth Press as a separate newspaper, and also as the Fort Worth and Dallas coverage of Oswald and things like Oswald in the four years before November 22nd because, you remember, he was a red defector and that’s the kind of man bites dog story that gets you headlines.

So, the way the story begins is that Oswald defected in the end of October 1959. And when it hit the press, the headline is “Fort Worth Man Asks Red Citizenship. Passport turned in at Moscow.” And other headlines were like “20 -year -old Marine to Renounce Citizenship,” with little quotes from Oswald. And then you will see, if you turn to the Fort Worth paper someday, a photo of a gentleman who looks like Oswald with a woman and a little girl all looking at the newspaper. The gentleman looks like Lee Oswald, but in fact it’s the best Lee Oswald double you could ever ask for. It’s Robert Oswald, and that’s his wife, Vada, and their daughter, with the headline, “Brothers’ Turn to Reds Puzzles Fort Worth Man.”

These are examples of the press coverage that was being obtained, and the fellow who wrote two articles in particular during this time of November is a man named Kent Biffle. He was an informant with the FBI a couple years later in ‘61 on the mafia side of things, answering to Robert Barrett. And he wrote articles not just for the Fort Worth Press, but also the Fort Worth star telegram. Then later we’ll find him with the Dallas Morning News. Kent wrote an article on the 1st of November saying, “Fort Worther may become Russian, so he can write about experience.” Then, about the 16th of that month, he actually tried to place a three -way call to Lee Oswald in Moscow while his mother was hiding on the other end. And so, the FBI taped it, wiretap, if you will. And in the stories, you’ll see that Lee says hello, hello, and he hears his mother’s voice and he flips and he hangs up on her. So, the headline is, “Moscow Phone Went Dead, Turncoat Hangs Up on Mother.” And that word “turncoat” is highly charged. I saw it again and again in the stories and the term itself, which was not unknown, but was popularized around the Oswald case by Kent Biffle. And Lee Oswald clipped Kent’s story, and it can be found in his possessions. He wrote about it when he wrote John Connally asking for his discharge to be upgraded.

So, very significant article. Fascinating information about this case during November ‘59 is I found one clip in the Star-Telegram actually stating that the remainder of this dispatch was held in censorship. It’s kind of a overflow from the censorship of World War II but it’s still jarring to see a story about Oswald or anybody for that matter in 1959 being withheld through censorship. Kind of mind boggling.

So, I’m gonna step up the story now because Kent did write a story in ’62 when Oswald came back. So, it’s not like he dropped the ball on him. And in fact, Marguerite tracked with Kent and used the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as a dropping off place for her mail and her phone calls in the 1960 period, which is quite amazing when you think about it. And it’s not to say that Marguerite is some kind of spy. Rather, it’s to say that Marguerite, who I have a lot of faith in as a witness, and I think she really got a bad rap as a woman and as an older woman and as a working -class woman from even the research community, but especially, of course, from the press who seized every opportunity to denigrate her. She was working very closely with Biffle. Biffle was paying her money to give him stories and that’s why she was so eager to work with them because she was so poor. She was as poor as she could be and she worked with a lot of prominent people taking care of their kids. She took care of the mayor of Arlington’s kids, and she took care of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s publisher’s kids, the Carters, Amon Carter, Jr. And Mr. Carter was considered the, you know, the dean of Fort Worth. Lee Oswald even went to his camp, it was called the Carter camp. And she worked at Carter’s house until 11 days before the 22nd of November. And I bring all this up to show just how prominent this defection of Lee Oswald was in Fort Worth and Dallas alike.

Now, I want to close this portion with Mr. Biffle by the last days before November 22nd. And, in particular, I want to focus on a quote from Tom Dillard who worked for the Dallas Press. He was a photographer. His quote is this, “So, at Love Field everything went fine up to the point that the whole day became a great frustration for a photographic person.  First thing, parades were usually handled with a flatbed truck for pool and certain selected photographic personnel to ride in front of the presidential car in presidential parades.” Again, to ride in front of the presidential car in presidential parades. “That was cancelled at the last minute. We were put in Chevrolet convertibles to ride several cars back. I think we were about six cars back. Bob Jackson and I and a couple other boys were in this parade. This put us totally out of the picture.”

And I’ve got these photos courtesy of Vince Palamara from Mexico City and Nashville and a variety of other locales, all showing the president behind the photo cars. The photo car is in front and then the presidential car follows and you can see JFK waving to the crowd in all these other towns, but we don’t have that photo in Dallas. Why not? It’s because, in my opinion, the Secret Service fellow changed the order of the motorcade and put the press people in the back and, I say, specifically so there wouldn’t be good photos of the president getting shot up.

Now I’ve got another press clip I’m gonna just give you the headlines for these. these. This headlines from the Dallas Morning News since November 15, 1963. And it says, “Tight Schedule, JFK Motorcade Seems Unlikely.” Goes on to say, “Despite numerous requests, the Chamber of Commerce says prospects for motorcade there aren’t too bright. A tight schedule and security regulations stand in the way.” Now, after that, I’ve got another clip. This time it’s from Kent Biffle two days later on the 17th. It says, “Incident Free Day, Urged for JFK Visit.” And Kent’s lead paragraph is, “Dallas leaders urged Saturday against any demonstrations or incidents during President Kennedy’s visit here Friday.” And, sure enough, on November 19th, two days later, it was confirmed that not only would there be a motorcade, but they print right in black and white what the directions of the motorcade are gonna be: “The motorcade will then pass through downtown on Harwood and then west on Main, turning back on to Elm at Houston, and then out Stemmons Freeway.”

I mean, you’re talking about press here and security? Here’s another article the next day in the Dallas Morning News. This is the 20th of November:

“Breakfast entry due by way of kitchen. President Kennedy is insured of a cook’s tour prior to making his appearance Friday at a Hotel Texas breakfast in his honor.”

That was the 22^nd, morning of, in Fort Worth.

“The Secret Service, which guards the president, has laid out the most direct route for the Kennedys to take from the elevator to the grand ballroom. It’s through the kitchen.”

Can you imagine telling the public what the entryway is going to be through the kitchen? Absolutely outrageous.

At the same time, here’s James Yule. Now it’s one day before November 22nd. Yule is the police press liaison, and he’s privy to all the inside skinny from the press that kind of work, frankly, that Jerry Hill used  to do. Yule reports that more than 400 officers, including 40 State patrolmen will be deployed for Friday’s presidential visit in what police officials described Wednesday as the most elaborate security arrangements ever made here. And they get into all the details, about 40 State officers, 13 Dallas County Sheriff’s officers, a police detail of 250, just spilling all the beans, unbelievable.

And sure enough, you know, we now have access to the Secret Service lineup for the motorcade. And we know that the presidential limousine, I should say, was number four, and that the National Press camera car was about six back in number 10, and this main camera car again moved from the front to the back of the murder case so JFK could not be photographed.

Vince Palamara blames Floyd Boring in Washington for the Secret Service for this move, saying that Winston Lawson on the ground merely executed Boring’s plan, which was spelled out three days before the assassination. And now, four day four cars beyond the camera car all the way near the back, there’s a local press pool car and after the cameraman and who’s in there but none other than Kent Biffle himself and other local individuals who literally crashed the motorcade, as one of them said, they “unofficially” joined the motorcade at Love Field rather than having been a planned vehicle. And this allowed Biffle, by accident or design, to be right in front of the Texas School Book Depository within moments after the assassination.

And what Biffle claims he did was he claims he ran to the grassy knoll because he thought shots might have come from there because people were running that way and then he ran right back to the front door of the Book Depository and then he ran inside the door and a man who ran inside the door supposedly the very same time as he was a photographer with a movie camera named Tom Alyea, who’s pretty well known among research community, and Alyea claims, “I ran upstairs with the Secret Service men. It boiled down to the fourth, sixth floor. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 feet of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, looking over rafters, and the actual finding of the gun.” If you can believe it, the only two men who got inside the book depository, beyond the first floor who were actually reporters, were Tom Alyea and Kent Biffle. And Kent and Tom were there for the finding of the shells and the finding of the Mannlicher-Carcano, and Alyea filmed this. Alyea threw the film out the window, then most of his film was mysteriously destroyed. We just have tiny pieces of it left. And both, most interestingly, both Biffle’s story and Alyea’s story were buried.

Alyea did not come forward and claim credit like any reporter usually would. Kent Biffle wrote an article, in fact, two articles on the 23rd of November. With his name for the Dallas Morning News and in neither one did he admit that he was up on the (sixth) floor in the 22nd. Again, you’d think he and Alyea would be touting this all over the world and instead they kept it very much to themselves. And I question why.

The article was about the assassin crouching and taking deadly aim. And I want to read a portion after Biffle gets into great detail about how three cartridges were found at the corner window, the cold drink bottle with the fried chicken and the Mannlicher rifle found nearby. He quotes Truly the superintendent. He quotes he cites Lumpkin using scores of firemen and policemen to search the building all these details that only somebody on the scene would know and then he cites an anonymous employee of the textbook firm who I think is in fact Truly stating, I’ve never seen this quote anywhere else, “I don’t know if you’re interested in this, but one of the fellows who works here is gone can’t find him anywhere. He’s 23, about five foot nine, weighs about 150 pounds. I’d have to check the payroll section to be sure, but I think he’s been here a couple months. His name is Lee Oswald.” And Biffle claims that he was there for a long period of time thereafter and left, and only after he left did he realize that Lee Oswald was the same person that was the focus of his articles and interactions with Marguerite four years earlier. I find that frankly impossible to believe.

Now, as an aside, I want to say that there were many other individuals that were key in this as well. Bob Schaefer from CBS News fame, he worked for the Star-Telegram, he drives Marguerite as it turns out at the police station; and Pierce Allman was camped out at the Book Depository, but never got past the first floor. Robert McNeil was writing for the Dallas Times Herald. He was working, he was at the Book Depository, but never got past the first floor as well. And then he headed off to Parkland. Jim, his partner later on, Jim Lehrer, who also wrote for the Times Herald. He heard the discussion not to use the bubble top, which was amazing. There’s so much that can be said about the Dallas press and their various roles. But for today, my focus is on Biffle and his colleagues in the big picture, how they framed this story to kind of ruin what happened.

Specifically, I want to call people’s attention to people like Forrest Sorrells who entered the building and said that he came upon a Negro janitor who hadn’t seen anybody leave through that door. Sorrells asked for the manager and was shown to Mr. Truly. Sorrells asked that a list be prepared of the names and addresses for all the employees of the book depository. He was looking for potential witnesses and had no basis for suspecting an employee; well, we know the story of the roll call and I’m going to get there in just a moment. The fellow who ran the story of the roll call was Pat Ganaway. He was in charge of the Special Services Bureau which was basically the intelligence wing of the Dallas police, and there was a description this is Gaeton Fonzi wrote about this back in ’71:

A description of Oswald, for instance, went out over the police radio within 15 minutes after Kennedy was killed. Captain Ganaway, in charge of the police’s Special Service Bureau, later explained that Oswald’s description was broadcast because he was missing from a roll call of the Book Depository employees. He was the only one who didn’t show up and couldn’t be accounted for.

And Gaeton points out, as most of us know, I think, that the facts are that there was no roll call. That 48 of the 75 employees were outside when the president was shot. And that Ganaway quote is picked up in the Dallas Morning News the next day. “He was the only one who didn’t show up and couldn’t be accounted for.” So again, 48 were outside at 12:30, five had not reported for work that day. Others left the building almost immediately upon hearing the shots. Many employees were not allowed to enter the building after the assassination and thus were absent when the police search began. But Mr. Biffle, who had spent much of the afternoon in the building where he’d witnessed officers discovering the rifle, the shells and more, he claimed that he saw two roll calls. He says at the second one at 2:30, everyone was there, but Oswald. Oswald, of course, was already in custody by 2 o’clock. 73 FBI reports reveal 41 were in custody or had left by 2:30. So, this is utter nonsense in his story from November 23rd.

And Ganaway, in fact, with Revill, are party to the famous Kaminski list of the names and addresses of the employees at the location where the Harvey Lee Oswald name comes up as first in line. And then there’s all these check marks on that list pointing out who we hasn’t been able to interview yet. So, this whole roll call business is utter and complete nonsense.

There’s a second story that Kent Biffle writes the same day saying suspected killer defected to Russia in ’59. And I’m going to read the last two paragraphs of this incredibly detailed article, which state that, “The Fair Play for a Cuba Committee founded in New York in 1960 as a group dedicated to supporting the government and policies of Cuban premier Fidel Castro. The group announced its formation in a full-page ad in a New York newspaper. The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee investigating the financing of the ad found that the money came from the Cuban Mission to the United Nations.” Dozens of very deep pieces of information pre -internet that the local columnist has in his article one of, you know, at least two if not more from that day while neglecting to tell us he was on the scene that day. Biffle goes on by November 28th to write an incredibly detailed article about Oswald and his supposed acting alone that day, and it’s so well written, that I suspect it was the model for what’s known as Commission Document 1, which was created about 10 days later by the FBI as its report on the assassination. I think it was one of the main documents they relied on. And it, in turn, CD1 is the framework for nothing less than the Warren Report itself. As many of us know, the FBI investigation was virtually what was rubber stamped by the Warren Commission. They did very little writing of their own.

So, the Kent Biffle story, I ask it this way, was he witting or unwitting? Was he simply given all these leads and told to shut up and your career will be much better and he basically was a cover -up participant, or is it possible that he was even part of the set -up itself? More to discover. But Biffle has not gotten the focus he deserves. He is one of the many people of a dozen or more, I’d say, that I would consider persons of interest in the assassination of the president.

Thank you.

 

[END OF LECTURE]

 

ALAN DALE: Thank you, Bill. May I ask a couple of quick things, touch upon a couple of quick things with you?

BILL SIMPICH: Sure. You like the story?

ALAN DALE: Yes.

BILL SIMPICH: Have you ever heard it before?

ALAN DALE: I’ve heard elements of it. News to me that Biffle and Alyea referred to Secret Service during the search.

BILL SIMPICH: I had never seen that till just a few weeks ago. I found that almost by accident.

ALAN DALE: And I, I’ve never heard that most of Alyea’s film was accidentally destroyed or went missing?

BILL SIMPICH: Yes, destroyed

ALAN DALE: Great.

BILL SIMPICH: Yeah, no kidding.

ALAN DALE: Yeah. When do we think that Kent Biffle is (finally) drawing attention to himself by making the connection that this figure, Lee Oswald, is the same person that he was focused upon some time earlier in relation to the Marguerite Oswald angle.

BILL SIMPICH: Biffle doesn’t talk about his connection with Oswald for decades.

ALAN DALE: Oh my God, I didn’t realize that.

BILL SIMPICH: No, he never, I mean, why isn’t he touting himself? I mean, this is kind of what one of the things I wanted to explore. The biggest reason I have a hard time believing that Biffle was part of the setup for the hit, was the fact that he worked with Oswald’s family so closely in ’59 and ’60. It’s stunning to me that nobody found this before me. The person, of course, who led me sort of towards it was Peter Dale Scott, who couldn’t understand why Marguerite was reporting to the Star-Telegram all this, you know, getting her mail there and shit. And that’s what led me to it. I was like, Jesus Christ. I mean, you go through those early Fort Worth newspapers, it’s unbelievable.

ALAN DALE: Yeah. I get it.

BILL SIMPICH: So, but the part that I’m really I’m glad we’re waxing about is the part I really don’t understand is why in the world wouldn’t Biffle try to make his career on the fact that he knew Oswald back in ’59…

ALAN DALE: Exactly the way Pamela or whatever… Priscilla McMillan did.

BILL SIMPICH: Right. Right. I mean, that kind of notoriety vaults your career.

ALAN DALE: It draws attention to itself as arguably inexplicable. It seems perverse.

BILL SIMPICH: Yeah, and he does he didn’t do it on day one and he didn’t do it on day seven and he didn’t do it till year 20, and even then he low balled it.

ALAN DALE: Yeah, astounding.

BILL SIMPICH: So anyway, I mean, for like a year, I was like, this guy’s part of the hit, but now, now I’m getting more nuanced. I’m like, I’m not convinced he’s part of the hit. I think he was being coached by people who were part of the hit.

ALAN DALE: That’s very plausible.

BILL SIMPICH: Yeah, because why else are they telling him to shut up? It makes no sense for him to be shutting up.

ALAN DALE: Thank you so much for participating.

BILL SIMPICH: See you in a bit.

RELATED: DOWNLOAD BILL’S SUPPLEMENTAL LECTURE IMAGES: JOURNALISTS AND MORE AS A PDF BY CLICKING HERE.

Bill Simpich: Civil Rights attorney, author of ground-breaking articles focusing on the hidden intricacies of the CIA, a leading and insightful analyst of the intelligence files associated with Lee Harvey Oswald’s enigmatic episode in Mexico City seven weeks prior to President Kennedy’s assassination. Bill’s eBook, State Secret, was published in 2013 and may be read in its entirety courtesy of Bill and the Mary Ferrell Foundation:  State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald.

The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend is the story of twelve individuals with intelligence connections who shaped the life and stories around Lee Oswald – who built his “legend.” From Oswald’s sojourn to the Soviet Union to his time as a re-defector in the US South, Bill sifts through the record to uncover surprising truths about the man and his legend.

This series is the backstory of the research that culminated in Bill’s book State Secret. A brand-new preface, epilogue, and the text of each essay – including links to the primary documents in the National Archives – can be read by clicking HERE.

 

Copyright © AARC. All rights reserved.

The AARC presents a new series of lectures commemorating and honoring the legacy of President Kennedy, the inspirational meaning of his term of office, and the consequences of his assassination sixty-one years ago.

In the words of the distinguished British scholar Malcolm Blunt, “Jesus Christ, what we lost when we lost that man.”

By Greg R. Parker

Lay of the Land

The post-1967 Summer of Love West Coast vibe has been described as a haven for psychedelic fascists – wolves hunting lambs amid the detritus of a decaying society, but where the baubles of hope and wisdom, free love and true charity still hung as the magnets.

The level of decay was in direct proportion to the number of freelancing prophets, sects and occult societies gathering adherents. When the people are hungry, feed them bullshit, is the unstated motto of every conman and woman who ever pitched a tent, commandeered a soapbox, sold snake oil, or promised salvation, universal wisdom, or the power to obtain all you wish.

It was no place for a young Christian Jordanian refugee whose childhood memories were of watching neighbors being literally blown to bits, and whose father abandoned his family soon after arriving in the United States. Let’s not forget that the backdrop to the June 1968 Robert F. Kennedy assassination was a deeply unpopular war and the recent assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. One of the few who might truly deliver any respite at all from the excesses of greed and conflict, and the privations caused by lack of education or institutionalized inequality, was Robert Kennedy.

Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was the ultimate lamb… making it supremely ironic that “Sirhan” translates as “wolf”.

 

Labels

Originally, Sirhan had been accused of committing the assassination of Robert Kennedy because RFK had affirmed that he would go ahead with the sale of 50 fighter jets to Israel, and Sirhan believed the jets would be used against his homeland. But as Philip Melanson has pointed out,

• The jets were originally promised by President Lyndon Johnson in January 1968 (though it must be added, the exact number of jets was not settled and that even by September of that year, Johnson was not committing to 50)
• Humphrey, McCarthy, and Nixon were all supporters of Israel and of the sale of the jets

Melanson goes on to discuss political scientist James W. Clarke’s attempts to construct a workable timeline that pinpoints the catalyst for Sirhan’s obsession. Clarke nominated a newspaper article of January 9 in which Kennedy is quoted as saying that the US should “supply whatever weapons [Israel] needed to offset whatever the Russians were supplying the Arabs so that Israel can protect itself.” This was not an outlier policy – it was mainstream and had bipartisan support. In fact, the only real objections were coming from the Pentagon which was worried that the sale might leave the US short in Vietnam.

Two months after RFK was enunciating his policy on military aid to Israel, Israel attacked Jordon. UPI reported in part that, Israel came under rebuke from the Vatican for its reprisal thrust into Jordan, and the Soviet Union said Israel must be punished for threatening world peace. Both sides claimed victory in the 15-hour battle Thursday that sent Israeli jets and tank columns smashing into Jordanian territory…”

It would be May before Sirhan’s alleged homicidal rage against just a single proponent of this mainstream policy would manifest itself in his writings. In support of this, one of two news clippings allegedly found in Sirhan’s pockets after his arrest, was from the May 26 issue of the Pasadena Independent Star-News by columnist David Lawrence. This article noted in part that Kennedy favored aid to Israel “with arms, if necessary to meet the threat of the Soviets.” It seems that both Melanson and Clark were unaware of this story, or its alleged discovery on Sirhan, along with other pocket litter. The flip side of this is that Kennedy had qualified the provision of military aid in both the January article cited by Melanson and Clark, and in the May article Sirhan is said to have had on him.  This aid was provisional upon it being necessary to offset the aid being offered to Arab countries by the Soviets.  It’s what we call ‘wiggle room.’

Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty was one of those politicians who started somewhere on the Left and drifted with glacier-like efficiency to the Right, along the way, seeing Communist opponents everywhere and endorsing Richard Nixon over fellow Democrat, John F.Kennedy in 1960.

One day after the assassination, Yorty went public proclaiming that Sirhan was motivated or directed by Communist influences. It was one of a flood of false reports trying to link Sirhan to Communists. The Yorty accusations were based on a two-and-a-half-year-old police report that a car registered to Sirhan’s brother, Adel, was seen in the vicinity of the hall used by the Marxist-based WEB Dubois Club, a statement by a postman that he delivered to Sirhan what he suspected was Communist literature⁴, and that according to Sirhan’s notes RFK had to die by June 5 – a date that Yorty falsely claimed was marked by the Black Panthers to be the first day of Black Revolutionary Protest. As it turned out, the literature being delivered to Sirhan was not communist in nature. It was from the Arab Student League. And Adel’s car had likely been borrowed by Sirhan the day it was seen near the WEB Dubois Club. Sirhan had an old school friend named Walter Crowe who was a member.

So, Sirhan was an anti-Semite. Or a communist. Or Pro-Black Power. Whatever he was, he was most certainly anti-RFK – and it was one of those first three that was the cause of his “anti-RFKism.” At least that is what we are supposed to believe. Although the anti-Semite tag has been the most popular meme, when drilling down, there is no more basis for it than the other labels. Yes, he was certainly no fan of Israel, but given his background, this is entirely understandable. In any case, many around the world oppose Israeli occupation of the West Bank without being anti-Semites.

Ironically, on May 18, while Sirhan was writing that “my determination to exterminate RFK is becoming more the more [sic] of an unshakable obsession,” RFK was at the University of Kansas making the point that as important as stopping the Vietnam War is, there were other critical election issues such as poverty, the problems inherent in major cities, and race relations. But equal to those, he listed what he called another type of poverty – a poverty of satisfaction, purpose and dignity. There was no mention made of Israel. It was a speech which would have had a positive impression on Sirhan, had he heard it.

 

The Occult

It is well established that Sirhan was a member of AMORC on and off from 1966, having lessons by correspondence, and that he was showing interest also in Theosophy.

What has been missed or at least misunderstood is an understanding that he was also studying Sex Magick as practiced by Aleister Crowley. It should not be a surprise. There was much crossover between AMORC, Theosophy, and Crowley’s Thelema and Ordo Templi Orientis. In fact, according to a prominent publisher specializing in these areas, “although neither of those two groups [AMORC and Rosicrucian rival, the Fraternitas Rosæ Crucis] were ever practitioners of black magick, they both do have links to sex magick.”

According to a former employee of the Broughton Book Store, Sirhan had been in there on five or six occasions looking for books on metaphysics, cultism, eastern religious teachings… and on one occasion, black magic. Whether or not he was successful in finding such literature, the term “Black Magic” appears in his notebook, along with obscure references to sex magick rituals as described in Crowley’s Book of Lies. The misspellings in his notes suggest, however, that he was not learning from literature, but verbally from another party. Indeed, though such rituals can be performed solo, the norm would be in tandem with at least one other.

An alternative explanation for the bad spelling and other issues is that Sirhan was being instructed via a shortwave radio he kept in his room. It has been suggested as far back as 2011 that this radio played a part in what transpired in the Ambassador Hotel on June 5, 1968. According to Prof Daniel P. Brown of Harvard, it is possible that the radio was used for both waking “coercive persuasion” and hypnosis. Brown is an expert in hypnosis and spent long periods of time with Sirhan, calling him one of the most hypnotizable subjects he has ever assessed. I might add that drugs may have also been put into the so-called cakes of light used in at least one of the rituals, though this would need to assume he was given these “cakes” and did not make them himself.

 

The Star Sapphire

The Star Sapphire is a sex magick ritual described by Crowley in Chapter 36 of his Book of Lies. All sex magick rituals are used to “manifest” your inner-most desires.  They would not be used, for example, to enable you to pick up a gun and shoot someone since, even if that is your innermost desire.  You do not need magic to manifest the ability to do it.  In Sirhan’s case, it is far more likely he was trying to attract both money and the affections of one, Peggy Osterkamp, on whom he had a crush.  Someone else, however, may use such rituals to “manifest” their desire for you to pick up a gun and shoot someone. Just remember that all magicians are deceivers and that all magic is deceit. And some people are happy with that arrangement.

The word “sapphire” is written phonetically under a series of triangles – some overlapping to form hexagrams. According to this ritual, “a red triangle is the descending tongue of grace; the blue triangle is the ascending tongue of prayer”. Joining them to form the hexagram is symbolically interlocking God and Man. Such rituals date back to ancient Egypt – for example, The Sacred Ritual of Ankh-Ka… which is also known as The Ritual of the Sacred Triangles. Here, you form the six-pointed star known as the Triad of Light and Darkness. Note that Sirhan has written the word “Trine” above “Saffire” – which has a similar meaning in the occult to the word “Triad” used in the ancient Egyptian ritual.

Sex rituals, as the name implies, are sexualized rituals, and as stated, are usually – but not always, performed with at least one other. It is not possible to tell from Sirhan’s writings if he actually conducted such rituals, let alone if he had any “helping hands.” But what they do show at the very least, is an interest in them – and therefore an interest in what he may be able to “manifest” by using them.

Sirhan was often teased at school and in his workplace about his lack of girlfriends. It must have burned. It burned enough at least to turn to unusual “remedies.’ And Peggy was cute with that little turned-up nose. Another carrot used by both the occult and intelligence agencies is money, where the target has a weakness or real need for it. And again, we see references to large sums of money in Sirhan’s writings… along with some evidence of enmity toward those of wealth, including remarks made about RFK’s wealth, to the bartender at the Ambassador. There are no known indications that such enmity goes back any further than any of the other concerns that consumed him during 1968.

The question stands: if Sirhan had a partner in performing these rituals to help him “manifest” wealth and the girl of his dreams, was that person busy “manifesting” the assassination of RFK using Sirhan?

A name that crops up later in the notebook is “Thom Troward.” Troward is the granddaddy of the modern self-improvement movement and the source for much of the material used in The Secret which promises “you’ll learn how to use The Secret in every aspect of your life—money, health, relationships, happiness and in every interaction you have in the world.”

Troward was an English author who died in 1916.  His works influenced the New Thought Movement and Mystic Christianity. The New Thought Movement was a US attempt to amalgamate “ancient wisdom.” It currently encompasses metaphysics, “positive thinking” as popularized by Norman Vincent Peale, the laws of attraction, healing, life force, creative visualization, and personal power. All branded under different labels and monetized by hustlers to the nth degree.

 

The Mass of the Phoenix

Sirhan had the term “Black Magic” written in his notebook. This was a few pages after the entry about The Star Sapphire. Under it, we see the number 44.

The last two lines have reference to the ten degrees or levels to be attained in AMORC.

Chapter 44 of Crowley’s Book of Lies concerns The Mass of the Phoenix – a one person ritual involving the consumption of a home-made wafer Crowley called a “cake of light.” There are a number of different ingredients that can go into a cake of light, although it must include some bodily fluids. One ingredient that can be used is port wine – and “port wine” is also mentioned in Sirhan’s notes.

 

 

Debunking the Dr. William Joseph Bryan Myth

Bryan was charged in Nevada with furnishing liquor to a minor — an 18-year-old girl. It was further alleged that he was discussing the concept of “free love” with her at the time. He was extradited from California in 1961 to face the charges filed by DA William Raggio. Raggio would later become embroiled in the Sinatra Jr kidnapping on both a personal and professional level (he was a friend of Ol’ Blue Eyes). Later still, Raggio would have a major dispute with Jim Garrison over the latter’s investigation into the JFK assassination.

Bryan claimed the charge was politically motivated (at the time of the incident, he was running for local office in Sparks). Convicted and fined $1,000, Bryan later surrendered his license to practice medicine in that state.

During a 1973 Dallas murder trial in which Bryan had been called as an expert witness for the defense, he was forced to admit under cross-examination, that he was currently serving five years on probation with the California Board of Medical Examiners after being found guilty of sexual misconduct with four female patients. One of the conditions of his probation was that “whenever respondent shall perform any treatment upon a female patient involving hypnosis or other therapy, he shall have an adult female present as an observer, or such hypnosis or therapy shall be otherwise visually monitored by such adult female.” Some claims, both about and by Bryan, have proven impossible to verify (especially the uncited claims found in uber-conspiracy books) including that he was a fundamentalist preacher and another, that he was a Bishop of the Old Catholic Church. One however, made by Bryan himself, can be ticked as true: he was indeed the grandson of multiple presidential candidate and anti-Darwinian crusader, William Jennings Bryan. His father, WJB’s only son, William, Jr, made a name for himself as U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona and serving as Regent of the University of Arizona. In 1921 he moved to Los Angeles and practiced law at the office of Isadore B. Dockweiler. WJB, Jr then served as federal commissioner for the San Francisco Exposition of 1939. This was the year following his appointment by President Roosevelt as Collector of Customs for the port of Los Angeles.

Another claim by Bryan which may be true is that he was a technical consultant for the movie, The Manchurian Candidate. Whilst it has not been verified, it has at least been verified that he had similar roles in the cult classics, Tales of Terror and Dementia 13. One more unverified claim in conspiracy books is that he was a drummer for a short period in the Tommy Dorsey Band. However, I suspect that Bryan is being mixed up with singer Bryan Anthony who had a short stint with the band.

Bryan also claimed he had been the one-time Air Force Chief of Medical Survival Training. This has been extrapolated by various conspiracists into his having worked in “the covert brainwashing unit of the Air Force.” For the record, here is what it actually refers to: “medical survival training, including specialized training for one’s specialty as a Special Operations Command Medical Officer (Health Administrator, Physician Assistant, or any Specialist under AFSC 48X) to ensure success during an operation while in the field with limited supplies.” At a stretch, and it is a big one, this may include mind control techniques…though his self-described expertise in “brainwashing” is hardly supported by his known futile attempts to use such techniques on females for his own personal pleasure.

Bryan was the hypnotist who helped Albert DeSalvo remember how he committed the murders associated with the Boston Strangler. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Bryan fed DeSalvo information that lent credence to the eventual confession via leading questions.  Of some interest is that Sirhan had written in his notebook “God help me… please help me. Salvo Salvo Salvo Di Di Salvo Die S Salvo.” Some use that as evidence of Sirhan having been hypnotized by Bryan. But this would make the whole plot Amateur Hour, if true. What plotters, who would obviously know about the automatic writing already implicating Sirhan, would allow the DeSalvo entry to remain in the book when it leads straight back to the hypnotist they used? It is more likely that Sirhan read about the hypnosis used on DeSalvo and subconsciously understood that he himself was getting in too deep.

In 1974, David Rendin, Science Editor for the National Education Association, did a four-part series exposing the American Institute of Hypnosis run by Bryan. The AIH had been operating since 1956 teaching hypnosis and acupuncture. Rendin exposed it by simply forking over the dollars for a four-day course on Medical, Dental and Surgical Acupuncture. At the end of the course, he not only received a certificate for acupuncture, but also a certificate stating he had “satisfactorily completed prescribed courses of study, and having presented proper credentials, and having demonstrated thorough knowledge and proficiency in the use of hypnosis” and was “hereby elected to membership in the professional association division of the American Institute of Hypnosis.” Trouble was, not once during the course, did he or any other participant, receive any training whatsoever in hypnosis or its use. Then again, nor did any of them actually administer acupuncture needles to themselves or others with or without guidance. In short, the AIH was a diploma mill. And to add a touch of audacity, it also offered courses in the “Successful Treatment of Sexual Disorders.” This was run by the sexual predator himself, Dr Bryan. Brochures for this course advise participants to “wear comfortable clothing,” that many “new and unusual teaching methods” will be employed including “three laboratory sessions, a special demonstration session of artificial aids, a film on frigidity and a three-and-a-half-hour workshop.” The best part? He referred to himself in these brochures as “Big Daddy!”

At this point, a brief word on his Wikipedia entry is necessary. I am not among those who dismiss Wikipedia out of hand. Such dismissal shows a basic misunderstanding of how any encyclopedia is compiled and what types of records can be used as citations. As with any source of information, you need to check the citations used for any particular entry before accepting or dismissing it.

That said, the Wikipedia entry for Bryan is abysmal, noting the Christian/Turner hypothesis that Sirhan had been hypnotized by Bryan to fire blanks at RFK, while making only cursory mention of some of the misconduct charges he had faced and no mention at all of the very real question mark over the legitimacy of his Institute. In fact, it uses a single source to make him appear to be an important figure in the development of hypnosis in therapy.

Bryan was a self-promoting scam-artist and sex fiend. His claim of having been involved in CIA programs like MKULTRA are not only not supported by any documentation as far as it can be ascertained, but come to us only via prostitutes he had bragged to. Having checked the claim in many books and online sites without finding a single citation in support, except on Wikipedia (which cited a book which accepted Bryan’s bragging as Gospel), this is the only evidence that exists. As pointed out previously, his use of hypnosis to take advantage of young women, failed miserably assuming they were programmed to forget. That alone shows he was not up to the job of programming a patsy. The suspension of disbelief when it comes to Bryan is not a “one off” in conspiracy literature. The sad fact is any claim by anyone can get a free pass if it can be assimilated into the theory being pushed.

 

Love, Peace and Understanding

A few names in Sirhan’s notebook have drawn little if any attention. Maybe because some are misspelled and therefore are not recognized, or maybe because the names run counter to the preferred narratives and labels applied to Sirhan and therefore need to be ignored.

Let’s start with the name written as “Wajieduddien”. This is a misspelling of “Wahiduddin” – as in Wahiduddin Khan, an Indian Islamic scholar and peace activist born January 1, 1925. He received numerous awards for his peace activism and was listed as one of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world. In 2001 he founded the Center for Peace and Spirituality. However, it was back in 1967 that he started to address public and private gatherings to advocate for policies which were nationalist, inter-nationalist and inter-faith in nature.

Now looking at other words and names on that page:

“Sukroot” This is a misspelling of the Sanskrit word “sukrut” which translates as “good work/deeds” or “virtuous.”

“Illuminati” while the Illuminati are the bad guys in many conspiracy theories, historically, its members wanted to drag the world from the darkness of superstition. It is not known in   what   way   Sirhan understood the society, but it was, and remains, a misused term of division.

 “Al Hilal” This is probably a reference to the Egyptian arts magazine of the same name. It has been published monthly since 1892 and is the type of magazine that Sirhan would have had delivered and which was (wrongly) suspected of being communist in nature.

Master Kuthumi, according to Madame Blavatsky, was a Mahatma who later became an Ascended Master and was one of her inspirations for Theosophy. Historians believe now that Kuthumi never existed but rather, was an invention of Blavatsky to support her work on Theosophy.

Despite such skepticism, Theosophists continue to accept Kuthumi as doorkeeper to the Ancient Mysteries, and as a world teacher alongside Jesus. Tellingly perhaps, he is also known among adepts as “a Master Psychologist,” “a sponsor of youth” and “a Master of unconditional love and non-judgement.”

Um Kulthoum is a misspelling of Umm Kulthum, an Egyptian singer, songwriter and film actor covering a 50-year span between 1920 and 1970. She is a national icon in Egypt and has inspired several Western performers, including Bob Dylan.

Noted for her improvisational ability, she famously sang live on air during the Six Day War against Israel… “We will come back by force of arms (…) The Arab army is with you (…) The tragedy of Palestine pushes you towards the border (…) The victory is for you.”

Abdel [?] Wahab whose full name was Mohammed Abdel Wahab – was another famous Egyptian singer, songwriter and actor of the period known for his patriotic songs, including nationalist and revolutionary anthems such as “Ya Masr tam El-Hanna” (Oh Egypt, Happiness is Here) and “Ya Nessmet El-Horria” (The Breeze of Freedom).

Sout Sawtushark(?) “Sout” and “sawt” are alternative spellings for a type of urban music found in Kuwait and Bahrain. The full meaning here is yet to be found. In Arabic, it translates as “sound.” The second part of the word written by Sirhan is a misspelling of “oushack” which is a Persian style rug – the same type that appears in folklore as flying carpets. It appears then that Sirhan was indicating a rug used in occult practices, prayer, or music recitals.

Basem Is an Arabic male given name.

 

Conclusions

At Sirhan’s 1969 trial, hypnotist Bernard Diamond testified that the case was “an astounding instance of mail-order hypnosis, dissociated trances and the mystical occultism of Rosicrucian mind power and black magic.” In short, the defense would argue that Sirhan acted under mind-control, but it was self-induced.

I would argue that this defense was correct, but incomplete.

Sirhan can be likened to a computer infected with a malicious AI program.

We have seen the meme a hundred times in science fiction.

In Sirhan’s case, someone was feeding him material and wiring him to make connections after he had placed himself under hypnosis. This could have been done in person, or via shortwave radio.

Another analogy might be someone taking over your social media profiles – your recognizable face to the world – in order to profit, or to do you and/or others harm – often with the damage done before you even realize there is a problem.

We can see by virtue of having decoded some of the words in his notes, how the narrative toward killing RFK was spun.

SUKRUT! – do good deeds!

What are good deeds? Spreading peace and enlightenment like the Illuminati, Wahiduddin Khan and Master Kuthumi. Those are doers of good deeds.

Defending one’s homelands against Israel is a good deed and will bring peace! Listen to the patriotic songs of Umm Kulthum and Mohammed Abdel Wahab and become inspired!

And finally… those who aid Israel, like RFK, must die in the interest of peace.

Sirhan’s entry into this quagmire of deceit was being 23, fatherless, rudderless and without a girlfriend, but with a giant crush on one young lady who had a turned-up nose… and who knows? possibly even a liking for polka-dot dresses. And so, he drifted toward the wolves with their shingles hanging so prominently with their promises of good fortune, self-discovery, and magic.

The plotters certainly knew his “type” in females and found someone who would be sure to catch his eye at the Ambassador. She would pull the Sirhan trigger. Of course, no one would rely on someone like Sirhan to hit and kill the target. He was simply there as a diversion and to take the fall, regardless of where his bullets went. As in the assassination of JFK, if you control the evidence, and the witnesses, you control the narrative – especially if your designated fall guy is dead or robbed of memory.

 

Precedent Case

For a precedent case, we go back to the April 9, 1948 assassination of Colombian politician, Jorge Gaitán in Bogota, the nation’s capital.

Both Gaitán and Robert Kennedy were young charismatic liberal leaders on the campaign trail.

Both Gaitán and Robert Kennedy were seen as a danger to the status quo.

Both were shot by pistol at close range in front of multiple witnesses.

Suspicious characters were seen with the accused in the lead up to the gunfire and left the scene immediately after it.

The alleged assassins, Juan Roa Sierra and Sirhan Bishara Sirhan were 26 and 24 years old respectively.

Both alleged assassins were raised in fatherless homes.

Both came from superstitious cultures.

Both were in and out of employment.

Both saw themselves as having much more potential than circumstances were allowing them.

Both drifted towards the occult for answers to their situations.

Both kept notebooks with strange entries.

Both became members of the Californian cult known as AMORC via correspondence.

Both practiced self-hypnosis under instruction from AMORC.

Both practiced rituals aimed at obtaining all they desired under instruction from AMORC.

While Sirhan claimed no memory of what happened at the time he pulled out his pistol and began firing, Roa was killed by a mob before he could give any information.

In both cases, sections of the media, some US government departments and agencies, and conservative politicians tried to lay the blame at the feet of communists, with many on the Left blaming political foes, religious extremists, and corporates backed by US military and/or intelligence networks.

**********************************************************

Greg R. Parker is an Australian researcher/writer. He is a former federal public servant within the Department of Social Security and a special project officer for the Northern Territory Environmental Health Unit.

Prior, between and after holding those positions, he has been a general laborer, shop salesclerk, factory worker, cleaner at a beach market, manager of an employment agency, carer in a group home, performance poet, barman at an outdoor concert venue, and a shop owner. After retiring, he got bored and worked as a school crossing guard for 4 years, but is again retired.

He is the founder of the ReopenKennedyCase (ROKC) forum which is no longer operating but remains viewable online as a valuable research resource.

He also has a personal website at  gregrparker.com which covers all of his pet interests, and a substack page here

Parker is currently juggling multiple JFK projects, including updating and completing his biography, Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War (taking the story from where it leaves off in 1959 through to the assassination weekend), a major work (and possible book) on the bus passengers to Mexico City – a joint project with David Percox, and writing and recording a collection of songs relating to the ’60s assassinations which will be available soon. [JOE DARCY and the NEW DISEASE: NOV 22, 1963]

Parker is unique among assassination researchers. His great, great grandfather was an English convict sentenced to 7 years for the theft of some cloth. He stayed when he gained his freedom. His grandmother (a grand-daughter of the convict) was the daughter of a half French-Canadian half Cree Indian mining engineer.

Among his other relatives was a magician who once held the world record for lying on a bed of nails.

An autodidactic, Parker left school at 14, and among his other endeavors, he was an amateur boxer, a rugby league player, and most joyously of all – a survivor of a 2-year stint as a home parent until his twins were old enough to start school.

His research has been cited in numerous books and articles.

RECOMMENDED: In conjunction with a series of recorded discussions with Alan Dale at JFKConversations.com, Greg has produced a deep and invaluable study-guide that can be found HERE: Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War Supplement 

Copyright © AARC. All rights reserved.

The AARC presents a new series of lectures commemorating and honoring the legacy of President Kennedy, the inspirational meaning of his term of office, and the consequences of his assassination sixty-one years ago.

In the words of the distinguished British scholar Malcolm Blunt, “Jesus Christ, what we lost when we lost that man.”

 

The Spirit of Justice and the Kennedy Assassination

(a story in three parts)

By Pat Speer

Part I: Looking Through the Eyes of Henry Fonda

Imagine if you will that we are looking through the eyes of Henry Fonda—in an imaginary sequel to 12 Angry Men, a 1957 courtroom drama. This sequel is built upon the real facts of a real case–the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. But poetic license has been taken so that the accused—who was murdered before trial–can actually have a trial, of sorts…

We are sitting in the jury room, awaiting the beginning of today’s proceedings. The prosecution has presented its case, the defense has countered with some witnesses of its own, and today is the day the defendant will take the stand.

The prosecution has made the claim that this young man, who proclaims his innocence, was the killer of a prominent man, after firing a rifle from the sixth floor of a building at this man while he was traveling down the street below in a convertible.

It has presented evidence for this claim, which the defense has questioned. As the prosecution claims this young man acted on his own, moreover, it has presented additional evidence designed to support that only one shooter fired upon this prominent man, and that this young man was that shooter.

But their case is tattered at the edges.

Just yesterday, in the last testimony to be taken before the defendant finally has his day, the defense revealed that the prosecution had hired some of the best shooters in the world to re-enact the supposed shooting feat of this young man, who was once a decent shooter but hadn’t practiced in months, and were unable to do so…

So now, we sit here, the spirit of justice, in the form of Henry Fonda in an imaginary sequel to Twelve Angry Men, reviewing the case in our mind, and the whole thing unravels. The case, not our mind.

Over the few first days of the trial we were told that the rifle used to kill this prominent man was found in a building overlooking the crime scene where the suspect was alone on his lunch break, but on a different floor from where he was last seen before his lunch break. And were told as well that this rifle belonged to the suspect, and that his palm print had been found on this rifle, along with fibers from the shirt he was wearing when arrested. And, then, having set the scene, the prosecution called upon a witness who’d been standing on the street below the window from which the rifle was believed to have been fired, and this witness identified the suspect as the man who fired this rifle, or one just like it, from that sixth-floor window.

Now, if it was left at that, we the jury could quickly come back with a guilty verdict, and be home in time for dinner.

But it wasn’t left at that.

The defense brought out that the witness–the only witness to see the shooter who was willing to ID the suspect–had refused to ID the suspect before having an FBI agent pay a visit to his home, and that even then he said he felt certain that the man he saw was not wearing the shirt the suspect had been wearing when arrested an hour later.

Now this last bit was surprising, seeing as the prosecution had just claimed fibers from this shirt—the one the witness claimed the suspect had not been wearing—were found on the rifle found at the crime scene.

What once looked like a simple case was not really all that simple.

We review every bit of evidence presented by the prosecution, in an attempt to tie this young man to the shooting, and find problems with most every one.

To start with, neither the rifle nor a package the size of the rifle was observed in the suspect’s possession on the morning of the shooting by the man who drove him to work.

While this man said there was a package in the suspect’s hand that morning, and an empty package was purported to have been found in the building by the sniper’s window, this only made the case against the defendant more problematic, as the evidence linking this package to the suspect was, well, suspect.

We recall. The policemen testifying as to the discovery of the rifle and this package offered differing stories as to where the package was discovered, and the first responders on the scene, including the chief of detectives, had no recollection of its resting on the floor where it was purported to have been discovered a short time later.

Something is just wrong. Not only did the man who drove the suspect to work insist the paper package he’d seen in the suspect’s possession was much too small to have held the rifle found in the building, even if it was broken down, he claimed it was not even the right kind of paper, and had passed a lie detector while doing so.

And it gets worse. This man claimed the suspect had told him the package contained curtain rods, that he had retrieved from the garage of a family with whom his wife had been staying. And this man’s sister claimed she also saw this package, and that it was as her brother said—that it was the size of a packet of curtain rods, and far too small to have held the rifle. Now, the prosecution had tried to push the possibility it was a rifle and not curtain rods by questioning the woman with whom the suspect’s wife had been staying and asking her if she had given him some curtain rods, to which she said no. But on cross-examination she admitted she’d thought there’d been a package of curtain rods in her garage, but was unable to find one after the shooting.

And it gets worse. When asked if the suspect had needed curtain rods for the room he’d been renting, the suspect’s landlady admitted that the curtain rods were damaged when she inspected the room on the night of the shooting, but had assumed that this damage came as a result of over-eager police officers during their search of the room. But, gee, the prosecution had failed to present an officer who would admit such a thing.

So this part of the case was confusing. The prosecution needed to show that the defendant had brought the rifle to work that morning, but the evidence for this was weak, at best. To tie the package found in the building, which was purported to bear the suspect’s prints, and to have been used by the suspect to transport the rifle into the building, the prosecution had brought in an FBI expert on paper who claimed the bag had been constructed from paper available in the warehouse where he worked—in the building from which the shots had been fired. But the defense had dragged out from this expert as well that the paper had come from the roll in use on the day of the shooting–that had only been in use for a few days—and then reminded us that the man who drove the suspect to the house where his wife had been staying on the night before the shooting had claimed the suspect had had no such paper in his possession on the ride home, and hadn’t been home for more than a week.

So which makes more sense? That the suspect stole this paper from work with no one noticing, and transported it on his body to the house where his wife was staying with no one noticing, and used it to create a package or bag to hold his rifle, in the garage of a small house shared with a number of others, with no one noticing, and then returned to work with this package containing a rifle the next morning…to have the only people to see him with this package the next morning say it looked like a package of curtain rods?

Or that this package contained curtain rods?

And the empty package found in the building was not empty at all, but filled with big big problems for the prosecution’s case?

The prosecution acknowledged, after all, that, although virtually twice as large as the package described by the man who drove the suspect to work, the package found in the building was still too small to have held the rifle, unless it had been broken down. And to try to overcome this the prosecution had an FBI expert testify as to the ease with which one could break down, and then re-assemble, the rifle, with a dime, which they considered necessary seeing as no screwdriver was found on the suspect or anywhere near the sniper’s window. But the defense had countered this with the undisputed fact that a rifle which had been assembled in such a manner would be unlikely to fire with the accuracy required for this crime, within minutes of its assembly, and without any practice shots and adjustments. And the FBI then admitted they’d performed no tests to see if the rifle could in fact fire accurately after being assembled with a dime.

And as we sit here, replaying this embarrassment, we see that there were a number of such mis-steps by the prosecution.

Incredibly, they presented a witness claiming he saw the suspect upstairs, near the sniper’s window, 35 minutes before the shooting. But this was self-defeating, as the defense was able to bring out that the prosecution’s witness had a criminal history, and had changed his story multiple times, and that a police report had been written claiming this man would change his story for money.

So why was he put on the stand?

Oh yeah. The suspect had claimed he was in a break room at the time of the shooting, and the prosecution was trying to suggest this was a lie, even though the defense had a witness lined up to say he saw him in this break room 30 minutes before the shooting. So it would seem they were trying to pit the testimony of this convicted felon, who’d changed his story multiple times, against the story of both the defendant and this credible witness.

But this witness wasn’t the only witness whose statements supported that the suspect had visited the break room.

The suspect had claimed to see two co-workers as he sat alone in that break room twenty minutes or so after speaking to the man who said he saw him in the break room, and these co-workers, while not recalling his presence in the break room, had nevertheless confirmed they’d walked past the break room when he said he saw them. Well, as the defense had correctly pointed out, if the suspect had been lying about being in the room, how would he have known to claim he was in a room where no one else was, and how would he have known those two co-workers had passed by the room?

It seems likely he was telling the truth.

Within two minutes of the shooting, a policeman had observed the suspect buying a coke from a coke machine in another room of the building. This room was four floors away from the presumed location of the shooter. This policeman had testified to the suspect’s being calm and collected and giving no signs of being someone in a race for his life. And this, even though the prosecution had claimed he’d just raced downstairs from a location four floors above and on the opposite side of the building. The defense had called witnesses, moreover, who’d claimed to be on the stairs at this time, and had not seen the suspect on the stairs, nor heard him race down the stairs. Even more problematic, the policeman had admitted that as he ran up the stairs an elevator from an upper floor had come down. The prosecution claimed the passenger in this elevator was a co-worker of the suspect’s, but this co-worker, whose statements were erratic, at best, said he didn’t go upstairs after lunch until after the time of the shooting.

The prosecution claimed he was wrong about this, of course. And had presented as proof that the co-worker had claimed he’d heard shots from above after he’d gone back upstairs, and was standing on the fifth floor. But the co-worker disputed this, and insisted he’d heard but one sound from directly above. And when the defense followed up, it was able to point out that the co-worker was standing by the elevator shaft on the west side of the building, and the sounds of the shots would have come in from the open window on the east side of the building, which was directly below the open window from which the shots were supposedly fired. And then proposed that the sound heard by the co-worker was not a shot at all, but the sound of the roof hatch being slammed as the policeman returned from his inspection of the roof.

In the end, we were confused as to just what this co-worker heard and just where he was at the moment of the shooting. But the prosecution’s claims of his whereabouts reeked of desperation. In order to have him as the occupant of the elevator that had descended as the policeman ran up the stairs, they had necessitated his standing right by this elevator as the suspect had ran down the stairs from the floor above—and well, this was a problem, seeing as it was not an enclosed stairwell, and the suspect would have to have run out from the stairs coming down from above, and then cross the floor within a few yards of this co-worker—before proceeding on down staircase after staircase to where he was spotted by the policeman moments later.

We recall the testimony of the three men who’d been having lunch on the fifth floor, and realize its significance. They were standing with their backs turned towards the elevator, and a lot of open warehouse floor behind them. But they had not heard or noticed either of the men supposedly on the floor behind them—the co-worker at work or the suspect running down the stairs from above and crossing the floor right past him.

And the thought occurs now that they didn’t notice these men because the co-worker did not come up until after the time of the shooting, precisely as he’d claimed, and the suspect had not run downstairs. He was downstairs during the shooting, precisely as he claimed. And some unknown person or persons had descended in the elevator as the policeman ran up the stairs, and had exited the building before it was sealed off.

The prosecution’s claims just don’t add up. While it had made much ado about the suspect’s palmprint being found on the rifle, the defense had been able to elicit testimony proving the FBI initially claimed the suspect’s print was not on the rifle, and only changed their opinion after being presented with a supposed lift from the rifle by the local police…days after the arrest of the suspect, and the supposed transfer of all pertinent evidence to the FBI. It was as if they got a do-over.

The case reeks of desperation, and smells to high hell.

In an attempt to cut off claims by the defense that the shooting could not have been the work of one man, the prosecution had presented experts who claimed they’d re-constructed the shooting. Well, the defense, upon cross-examination, had been able to elicit testimony from these experts that their re-construction proved the only way the defendant could be guilty of killing this prominent man all by his lonesome was to fire three shots rapid fire, and have one of these shots not just strike the man in the back but have the bullet exit from his throat and wound the other prominent man riding in front of him. Well, this was surprising seeing as the doctors testifying for the prosecution had testified to examining the body of the deceased, and to finding no passage of a bullet in the body from the back wound to the presumed exit on his throat.

We don’t know what actually happened, and we may never know, short the unlikely event the suspect confesses when he testifies today, but we know that the prosecution’s theory of the crime is not a reasonable explanation for what has happened.

As the victim was not an ordinary man, but someone with a multitude of enemies, a number of whom possessed the ability to hire a team of shooters and frame an oddball like the suspect—we realize that, in good conscience, we cannot condemn this man to death for the murder of the prominent man.

So now we’re sitting here, in the deliberation room, and thinking that the once slight room for doubt we had about the defendant’s guilt has grown to be the size of a room. The deliberation room, in which we sit.

The Spirit of Justice looking through the eyes of Henry Fonda can see this. Heck, Henry Fonda, in his current state, can see this. It’s as clear a case of reasonable doubt as one can find.

Reasonable doubt, after all, does not require proof the defendant did not commit the crime, it merely requires that enough questions remain about the defendant’s guilt that a guilty verdict—a claim the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt—is unjustified.

So here we are: looking through the eyes of Henry Fonda, in an imaginary sequel to Twelve Angry Men, prepared to hear the suspect’s testimony, and barring any bombshells, embark upon a point by point discussion of the case with our fellow jurors…to show them there are substantial doubts the suspect fired the weapon, or even had the ability to shoot the weapon with the degree of skill required to do what he is purported to have done.

Only when we come out of our flashback on the trial, filmed in glorious black and white, of course, we witness the following…

Four members of the jury are yelling—actually yelling—that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They totally accept that the suspect shot the victim without an identifiable motive. They totally accept that the eyewitness was right about the suspect but wrong about the shirt. They totally accept that a high-velocity bullet somehow traversed the body from back to front without leaving a discernible pathway. And they totally accept that the suspect somehow managed to perform a shooting feat which experts had been unable to replicate.

And they think the concerns raised by their fellow jurors over the ever-changing stories and inconsistent pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution is nit-picking, and Anti-American.

They don’t care what the suspect has to say. They don’t like the defendant. They want him to pay. And they want to go home.

And so we rise, and clear our throat, and prepare to use Henry Fonda’s voice to convince these irate jurors to save all their arguments for after the trial. And think to ourselves that we will then go through the case point by point, and show them that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that a verdict of not guilty is appropriate.

But then shots ring out.

The suspect, while en route to the courthouse from his jail cell, and surrounded by dozens of local police, some of whom look suspiciously like Tom Robinson’s guards in To Kill a Mockingbird, has been killed by a local strip club owner–who claims he did it for the public good.

We are skeptical, because if there’s anything we know about strip club owners, it’s that they’re not really concerned with the public good.

We begin to discuss this with our fellow jurors, but are rushed from the deliberation room, and told to go home.

 

Part II: Looking Through the Eyes of Jack Klugman

Imagine if you will that we are the Spirit of Justice looking through the eyes of Jack Klugman, in a hypothetical episode of Quincy M.E., an American TV show that ran from 1976 to 1983. In this episode we have been hired as a consultant to a convicted murderer in a third world country. We’ve been able to show that the victim’s wounds were inconsistent with a bullet trajectory proposed at the trial, and that the location of a back wound presented to the jury on a diagram depicting the shooting, had been inaccurate, and had been placed in a location which implicated the defendant. The defense counsel’s submission of our analysis before an appeals court has been met with approval, and the defendant has received a second trial.

Now here we are, at the second trial, preparing to take the stand. The prosecution has admitted their prior mistake regarding the back wound, and has presented a new theory of the shooting, in which the back wound is now in its supposedly proper location. But they are admitting to a second mistake as well, and are claiming that the head wound entrance was also placed in an incorrect location at the original trial, and that that is why the victim’s wounds were inconsistent with the bullet trajectory proposed at that original trial. They are essentially telling the jury “Trust us. We got it right this time.”

But we have done our homework. And have found that the trajectory still doesn’t work, as it requires a bullet’s traveling through the spine of the murder victim on a straight trajectory before entering the back of a second victim, crashing through his rib cage, smashing through his wrist, and imbedding itself in his leg. And we have discovered that the wound ballistics expert hired by the prosecution has made some desperate claims to make his case, such as that a bullet will lose substantially more velocity traveling through an inch of back tissue than it will through four inches of a neck, and that a skull will explode from the temporary cavity created by the passage of the bullets used in this killing while they travel through the skull…at a distance many times greater than the distance attributed to such injuries in previous studies of this ammunition.

And we have performed some investigations of our own. And have found that the wounds described in the autopsy reports to the scalp, skull, dura, and brain are not only inconsistent with the bullet trajectory proposed by the prosecution, but consistent with a bullet heading on an alternative trajectory, one in which the bullet strikes the top of the head at a shallow angle, and leaves an enormous wound of both entrance and exit.

And we have discovered numerous other pieces of evidence to support such a scenario. The emergency room physician who pronounced the death of the victim had had experience with such wounds, and had said on the day of the shooting, in a press conference, that the victim’s large head wound appeared to be a wound of this nature, a tangential wound of both entrance and exit.

And that’s not the worst of it. While researching tangential wounds we discovered that the prosecution’s own consultants have written textbooks in which they describe a large gaping wound as symptomatic of such an entrance, and not of an exit, and knew full well this clashed with their conclusion in this case, and had thereby added a footnote to their report in which they claimed they presumed the doctors citing the missing scalp in this instance were all mistaken.

But, hold it right there. They attributed the mistake to one doctor, when they almost certainly knew his observation of missing scalp was backed up by numerous doctors–essentially everyone who saw the wound in the emergency room and autopsy room.

And we are prepared to explain to a jury the relevance of these mistakes regarding the medical evidence—that the prosecution’s experts have mis-represented two separate head wounds as one head wound—which serves to support the scenario provided these hired guns of medicine by the prosecution, which knew full well that two head wounds would necessitate the presence of a second shooter.

And we have even more to tell the jury, to help them see what has happened. The prosecution has presented a trajectory expert who claims he’s aligned the wounds of the victims at the time of the shooting and determined the likely location of the shooter—which is of course the presumed location of the defendant.

But we have uncovered a problem here as well. The new and improved location provided by the prosecution for the entrance on the victim’s head—a location that had been moved because it was inconsistent with the damage to the victim’s brain (and a location, btw, at odds with the statements of everyone to see this entrance) is towards the top of the back of the head, at the same level of the proposed exit location on the front of the head. And this has forced this trajectory expert to propose that at the time of the head shot the victim was leaning forward at the same angle as the bullet was travelling from a sixth-floor window. Okay. But the medical experts had, as we recall, corrected the error of the previous trial and had acknowledged the back wound to be on the back, at a slightly lower location on the body than the proposed exit on the throat. Well, this forced the trajectory expert to propose that the victim leaned forward at an even sharper angle when this shot was fired.

So here’s the problem, which we shall soon share with the jury. There are films of the shooting which show the victim sitting up at the time of the shot supposedly traveling from back to throat, on a supposedly slightly upwards trajectory, and then, seconds later, leaning sharply forwards and being shot through the head, on a purported flat trajectory through the head.

Well, this makes no sense. The prosecution has proposed that a bullet fired from six floors up through a person sitting erect in a seat has traveled through his body on a slightly upwards trajectory, and that a second bullet fired from this same location but a few seconds later after the victim’s head had slumped forwards had traveled through his head on a flat trajectory.

The shots as proposed could not have come from the same location. But the trajectory expert has claimed that his re-creations of the shooting using protractors and dolls have demonstrated just that.

This is two plus two equals five kinda stuff. The films of the shooting prove the prosecution’s expert is spewing nonsense, which the defense plans to use to unravel the entire case against the defendant.

But then word arrives that the defendant has been stricken with cancer—a fast-moving kind—and the trial has been postponed. And then, a few weeks later, that the defendant has died, and oh well, Jack Klugman as Quincy is sent home to America, where thank God, trials of this nature would never ever happen.

 

Part III: Looking Through the Eyes of an Audience Member at a JFK Conference

Imagine if you will that we are the Spirit of Justice looking through the eyes of John Q. Public, and have decided to attend a research conference on the killing of President John F. Kennedy, to see if any progress has been made since we last looked at it through the eyes of Jack Klugman.

We take a seat at the back of the conference room, and witness the following…

A series of speakers on the problematic medical evidence who fail to discuss the official reports of the autopsy, other than to claim they were faked to suggest the defendant’s sole guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, this is odd. We know from our work on Quincy that the evidence actually suggests the opposite.

The next speaker is strangely certain of himself. He says things such as that we “know” there was a bullet entrance on the victim’s forehead, and that we “know” this even though no one actually viewing the body had said they saw this, because, well, uh, a man whose family later declared he had dementia at the time had said a person had once shown him a photo showing such a hole, and even though this person—the one who’d supposedly shown him this picture—had once described seeing photos not currently in the official record, but had said nothing about the photo this demented man claimed he’d shown him. And yes, even though the very person claiming this man to be an all-important witness for this bullet hole that went unobserved by all the credible witnesses, had admitted that this demented man had told him numerous similar stories which he believed were, uh, the ramblings of a demented person.

This speaker then proceeds to tell us that the supposedly fake autopsy report was not so much a faked report, as a reasonably accurate report on the body of the President after it had been altered by the autopsy doctors—and never mind that their assistant was on stage with an earlier speaker and had just said this did not happen. This speaker says that the assistant who was in the autopsy room is not to be trusted on this because well, he apparently has forgotten that he was locked out of the room for ninety minutes. And oh yeah, never mind as well that the x-ray tech who’d said he saw the doctors cut on the body said they did this after the x-rays had been taken. This speaker states as a fact that the x-ray tech saw them do this before the x-rays were taken, and that that is why the x-rays depict a wound where the speaker just can’t believe a wound was actually located.

We get up and leave the room, but come back an hour later to see if the next speaker is any more convincing.

Nope, this speaker claims a long-dead police officer whose son once tried to auction off his father’s diary—that turned out to be a fake–fired the last of three shots fired upon the President from in front of the President, and this leads someone to shout out from the crowd that this couldn’t be because it had actually been a teen-aged mafia assassin, who’d confessed to the killing on YouTube.

And this leads someone from the audience to stand up and explain that he feels certain it was a secret service agent who’d fired the final shot from the front, from right there in the car, which apparently no one noticed.

And this leads yet another member of the audience to jump up and say “No, no, no.” The Secret Service agent who’d killed the President with the final shot had fired from the follow-up car, which apparently no one noticed.

And this leads yet another frustrated Sherlock to stand up and yell that they are all wrong because no shots came from behind, period, and that the accused assassin was not even in the building from which the shots were fired, when the shots were fired, because he was really outside on the front steps, where he was captured in a famous photo taken during the shooting. He holds up the photo, and then explains that the reason this figure looks like an employee of the building is because a secret CIA photo lab took the original photo from its photographer within minutes of the shooting, and added the face of this employee onto the body of the accused.

And this provokes yet another outcry, this one from someone who assures this last man that the accused assassin isn’t even visible in that photo, but then adds that he is visible in some news footage taken moments later.

He then passes around photo-copies of a blurry image taken from this news footage. It shows a figure at the back of the crowd which he claims is a man, but others in the audience think is a woman, holding what he claims is a Coke bottle, but which others in the audience think looks like a coffee cup.

We attend the talk of one last speaker.

This speaker claims, as fact, that the killing of Kennedy was part of a series of killings orchestrated by an evil government agency, that has similarly faked moon landings, and school shootings, and stolen an election from a billionaire businessman whose primary policy proposals are cutting the taxes on billionaires such as himself, and using the military to round up his perceived enemies.

We had come to this conference with hopes of hearing new developments in the case, but were instead fed dubious theories by people who see the evidence through the eyes of the people who’d misled them, and conclude from this that the evidence must be fake…who then cast into that black empty cauldron their own recipe for batshit bouillabaisse. Instead of History 101: we were fed a JFK Assassination Horror Story stew of slimy spooks and ghastly ghouls, peppered with zombie lies, and heated by voodoo science.

Seeing this, The Spirit of Justice looking through the eyes of an ordinary man at a JFK conference decides to flee this nightmare, deserts the body of our everyman, and dissipates back into the ether.

For Cyril

 

Copyright © AARC. All rights reserved.

The AARC presents a new series of lectures commemorating and honoring the legacy of President Kennedy, the inspirational meaning of his term of office, and the consequences of his assassination sixty-one years ago.

In the words of the distinguished British scholar Malcolm Blunt, “Jesus Christ, what we lost when we lost that man.”

 

With permission granted by the author, this lecture is presented in three parts as an excerpt from Larry Hancock’s must-read 2020 publication, In Denial: Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks?

A brief discussion between Larry Hancock and Alan Dale follows upon the conclusion of Part Three at the 20:04 minute mark.

 

http://www.larry-hancock.com/

 

Recorded November 2024.

Copyright © AARC. All rights reserved.