My new book, "Into the Nightmare"

[Magda Hassan]

Any chance of a screen play based on your book Joseph?

[Joseph McBride]

Joseph:


FIrst, who do you think was the most important witness in the Tippit case?

Second, should we trust any of the radio log transcripts?

I ask because Barry Ernest's book quotes Wiggins as saying the shots rang out at 1:06. But according to the logs Tippit made a a call at 1:08.

Would you like to do an interview on Black Op Radio?

JIM D

Jim, I'd be happy to do an interview on Black Op Radio.

I think the most important witnesses were Acquilla Clemmons and Domingo Benavides, but you
have to look at the whole complicated Tippit shooting scene as a mosaic. And there is conflicting
testimony that needs to be sorted out, as I do my best to do in INTO THE NIGHTMARE. The scene is like
RASHOMON. Another key witness was T. F. Bowley. In 1992 he gave me what he said was the first interview he had given in person to a non-government investigator, and he spoke in careful detail about what he experienced that day.

As you know, there have long been credible accusations of tampering with
the police radio transmissions. I go into a lot of detail about the transmissions
in the book.

I tend to agree with Larry Ray Harris that Tippit was shot at 1:09. Greg
Lowrey told me he thought it was 1:08. Helen Markham told the police
that day it was "approximately 1:06." Mrs. Donald Higgins in the Ernest book says 1:06. She was only questioned
by that one author, and it seems odd and improbably convenient that a TV announcer mentioned
the time, so I am dubious about that. The Tippit transmissions at 1:08
seem authentic, as far as we can tell. So it's logical that he was shot
shortly after that. And Bowley said he came on the scene and found
the dead officer at 1:10.

These times seem to come together credibly. Oswald couldn't have made it there in time, unless
he was driven there, for which there is no specific evidence. But there were cars at the
scene that seemed suspicious. I don't think he was there, but it cannot be ruled out,
and if he was, he was being set up and wasn't a shooter.

There is no Zapruder film of the Tippit shooting -- and even if there
were, it wouldn't necessarily be definitive, as we've learned with the Z
film. So what's needed is a critical and analytical study of all the
evidence and "so-called evidence" to try to get as close as possible to
the truth of what happened when Tippit was killed. I believe my book
gets as close as we've been able to come.

[Joseph McBride]

Any chance of a screen play based on your book Joseph?

Thanks for that kind suggestion, Magda, but I am mostly out of that field. I retired from the Writers Guild of America
as of 1984 and have only done some documentary work since then, when
people have approached me with projects (on which I've usually
preferred to be a co-producer). These days I teach screenwriting, which I greatly enjoy doing, and I wrote a 2012 book on the subject,
WRITING IN PICTURES: SCREENWRITING MADE (MOSTLY) PAINLESS.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Thanks Joseph.

I interviewed Larry in Dallas myself on the Tippit case. I think this was in 1992.

God what a good guy he was. He told me he thought Tippit was shot at 1:08 or 1:09, he leaned toward the latter.

I am sure in your book that you try and explain all the problems with he ballistics evidence right? Especially why the bullets were kept in the file cabinet for what was it, four weeks?

I am not aware if you know this, but Armstrong makes a very good case that Oswald never picked up the handgun at Railway Express.

DId you build on that one? Because it is very interesting to me and credible.

[Jim Hackett II]

This sounds to me like a great idea,
both to hopefully help sales of your book as well as getting the word out to interested people about your work.
Best Regards
Jim

[Magda Hassan]

The scene is like
RASHOMON.

Yes, the whole case is resonant of that movie!

[Joseph McBride]

Thanks Joseph.

I interviewed Larry in Dallas myself on the Tippit case. I think this was in 1992.

God what a good guy he was. He told me he thought Tippit was shot at 1:08 or 1:09, he leaned toward the latter.

I am sure in your book that you try and explain all the problems with he ballistics evidence right? Especially why the bullets were kept in the file cabinet for what was it, four weeks?

I am not aware if you know this, but Armstrong makes a very good case that Oswald never picked up the handgun at Railway Express.

DId you build on that one? Because it is very interesting to me and credible.

Yes, Armstrong does a great job with the ballistics. There is no credible ballistics evidence linking
Oswald to the shootings. The "so-called evidence" produced actually exonerates Oswald by itself,
without all the other circumstances surrounding the events. I go into the Tippit ballistics in considerable detail and offer
some new theories about that aspect of the case. I help shred the official case in my close questioning of Detective
Leavelle, who gave me a very revealing interview that honestly admits a lot of the problems with it.
I go into close detail on all the mess surrounding the official case against Oswald
for the Tippit killing, which was as much a farce if not more so than the case
against him for shooting Kennedy. He would have walked if he had had a fair trial.
Henry Wade gave me another revealing interview. He knew he didn't have much of a case against Oswald for killing
Kennedy, admitted they didn't do much on the Tippit case, and even discussed his worries about getting a conviction against Ruby, despite
millions of people having seen him shoot Oswald on TV.

[Allen Lowe]

Mr. McBride -

I spent a lot of time yesterday reading through the Amazon preview of your book, so clearly it's possible that my questions are answered by other sections of the book. But I do have a few questions (and/or observations you may want to respond to) -

1) you state very clearly as far as I can tell that you think Mary Ferrell was a disinformation agent and had intelligence connections - and that the dictaphone tape, you indicate, is useless as evidence and the result of her "disinformation" efforts - was also wondering if you had read D.B. Thomas' work in this area?

2) you don't seem to be aware that Kennedy had an active representativeWilliam Atwood, I believe it wasin negotiations with representatives of Castro for some time before the assassination. You only mention Jean Daniel's late encounter with Castro in this regard ( and I did check in the index and did not see any entry for Atwood).

3) you also seem, and once again this is only by partial reading so I apologize if I'm incorrect, to be at least partly in the camp that theorizes that JFK was reckless in his supposedly hawkish stance and policies towards Cuba, and thus vulnerable. Now I know that Jim here has done a lot of work in this area, of course. but I was wondering if if you do subscribe to the "JFK as hawk" theories.

thanks

[Charles Drago]

The scene is like
RASHOMON.

Yes, the whole case is resonant of that movie!

I add my voice to those raised in welcome, Joseph McBride. You appear to bring to these pages the all-too-rare investigative technique that answers the question, "Must our work be driven by rationality or intuition?" with a resounding "Yes!"

It was the late radical historian and JFK author George Michael Evica (And We are All Mortal; A Certain Arrogance) who first appreciated the JFK conspiracy as dramaturgy -- one vulnerable to studies by criminalists and literary scholars, but deeply understood only when both perspectives are equally valued and applied.

Given the literary inclinations and/or talents of three uber-suspects within the Facilitator level of the plot (James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, and E. Howard Hunt) and one in the doggerel-eat-doggerel cheap seats (Clay Shaw), we should not be surprised.

I give a nod to all this in my Introduction to A Certain Arrogance. And I share a small excerpt from Evica's c.v. on this thread -- he taught Myth and Ritual in Literature, Genre Studies in Literature, Literary Criticism, Consciousness Development and the Symbolic Process, Linguistics, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Investigative Reporting, and Investigative History. He also studied Advanced Studies in Linguistics and Anthropology at Columbia University and Advanced Studies in Myth and Literature at Hartford Seminary Foundation -- to underscore my contention that the depth of one's investigation into the JFK assassination may be measured in direct proportion to the breadth of the mind conducting it.

We would benefit, I'm certain, from your thoughts on all this.

Also, you'll note above that I reference the "Facilitator" level of the JFK plot. At a certain point in any serious investigation of the assassination, the investigator must arrive at a working model for the conspiracy -- one based on fact and insight gathered to date, open to development and de-construction, and useful in the reverse-engineering of what we know to have taken place.

So as not to overload a single post, I'll go into detail a bit later.

Thanks so much for your attention.

[Charles Drago]

As promised:

When I use the terms Sponsors, False Sponsors, Facilitators, and Mechanics, I do so within the context of what has come to be known as the Evica-Drago Model for the JFK conspiracy:

SPONSORS -- Those with the authority and motive to sanction the assassination and the connections to engage facilitating agents and systems. Among them in my opinion: the most powerful supra-national entities who were -- and are -- above Cold War and Clash of Civilization cosmetic differences.

FALSE SPONSORS -- Selected primarily from involved high-level FACILITATORS and otherwise uninvolved entities who logically might have come under suspicion. Among them in my opinion: LBJ, the CIA, the Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Big Business, Big Oil, Castro, Khrushchev, etc.

FACILITATORS -- From the "princes" who directly and/or through buffers routinely interacted with and carried out the agendas of the SPONSORS and who created the plot in all its complexities, through high-level members of facilitating organizations, to mid- to low-level functionaries who performed the heavy lifting. Among them in my opinion: LBJ, James Angleton, Edward Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, David Sanchez Morales, Lucien Conein, Gerald Patrick Hemming, "William Bishop" and other CIA officers and agents, Santos Trafficante, Johnny Rosselli, Jimmy Hoffa, certain Secret Service, FBI and military intelligence officers and agents, individuals intimately linked to Big Business and Big Oil, certain Dallas elected officials and members of the DPD, certain members of the print and broadcast media, certain heads of state, etc. etc. etc.

MECHANICS -- The gunmen and support personnel on-site who carried out the attack and escape-evade procedures. Among them in my opinion: possibly a team from Pakse Base, former Wermacht/SS sniper(s), etc. Think the most skilled hunters of humans on the planet.

Your thoughts, if you please.