Alex Cox takes out after Ron Rosenbaum and Errol Morris

[Jim DiEugenio]

Its incredible to me that either Morris or Tink left out the Latino appearing man from the discussion.

When, in fact, to me that is crucial.

I really wonder if Tink did leave him out or Morris did. One way to clear the air would be for Morris to show the whole long interview with Tink.

I mean Thompson has been a PI for decades. And somehow he missed the fact they were next to each other? Then sat next to each other after and it looks like the Latino had a radio in his hand and talked into it? And that is not important Tink?

I really hope that Tink did mention it and Morris cut it for the NY TImes.

But heck, Tink is the same guy who said Garrison was up a tree in 1967 because he said the assassination was a coup de'tat.

So maybe Tink bought Blakey also. Even though part of Blakey's agenda was to discredit the critics. And this fit that agenda perfectly.

I mean with Morris' help, and Tink's, the NY Times is still using it. I suppose its just a coincidence that the Times published Blakey's book.

[Lauren Johnson]

Its incredible to me that either Morris or Tink left out the Latino appearing man from the discussion.

When, in fact, to me that is crucial.

I really wonder if Tink did leave him out or Morris did. One way to clear the air would be for Morris to show the whole long interview with Tink.

I mean Thompson has been a PI for decades. And somehow he missed the fact they were next to each other? Then sat next to each other after and it looks like the Latino had a radio in his hand and talked into it? And that is not important Tink?

I really hope that Tink did mention it and Morris cut it for the NY TImes.

But heck, Tink is the same guy who said Garrison was up a tree in 1967 because he said the assassination was a coup de'tat.

So maybe Tink bought Blakey also. Even though part of Blakey's agenda was to discredit the critics. And this fit that agenda perfectly.

I mean with Morris' help, and Tink's, the NY Times is still using it. I suppose its just a coincidence that the Times published Blakey's book.

Jim @ 21 It does indeed look like he as a radio but we don't see much of anything. Were radios that small in that day? Just asking.

[Anthony Thorne]

Joe MacBride in his book Into the Nighmare quotes a comedian of the day, I think it was Mort Sahl, remarking that President Kennedy was "shot like a dog on the streets of Dallas and all of a sudden he had no friends at all." It is amazing that not one member of the Kennedy clan, other than Jackie, who wore that bloodstained dress, stuck up for the murdered president. What did they hope to gain by silence? And how did they end up, as a result?

A very good point. I'm still reading through Richard Mahoney's SONS AND BROTHERS which lays out a lot of the blackmail dynamics that developed between the Kennedys, Hoover and mafia figures like Johnny Rosselli (the Amazon reviews of Mahoney's book are instructive but I think criticisms of it being a simplistic 'mafia did it' tome are off base, as the associations revealed between mafia figures and cold warriors like Bill Harvey seem pertinent and nuanced, and the book works best when the events depicted are viewed as a facet of a larger operation that obviously involved the CIA). I mention all that simply as I'm wondering what percentage of the reasons for silence on the issue of JFK's murder were due to RFK 'biding his time' (as in Talbot's BROTHERS), how much was from the fear of having a distorted narrative regarding Kennedy admin/anti-Castro Cuban/mafia hit team relationships come to light, and how much was from the simple shock and fear that powerful and unknown forces would strike hard if their personal suspicions regarding the assassination were made public. Off the top of my head I don't know the answer to any of those questions.

I agree with Alex's comment on his blog about the dismay/discomfort/disgust he felt watching Tink Thompson chuckle and smirk through the Morris film, busting a gut at the assassination and those loopy researchers that have been working to unravel the mystery. I like the other Morris films that I've seen but his Umbrella Man short is offensive and obnoxious on numerous levels. The photo of the Latino and the Umbrella Man calmly sitting together after the assassination is deeply suspicious, and how Thompson can find the nerve to piss himself laughing at the suggestion of foul play here is beyond me.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TI...la+Man.jpg

I just ordered The President and the Provocateur (UK edition from Book Depository) and look forward to reading it and posting a few comments and questions afterwards if Alex is still up for discussing it a bit.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Its incredible to me that either Morris or Tink left out the Latino appearing man from the discussion.

When, in fact, to me that is crucial.

I really wonder if Tink did leave him out or Morris did. One way to clear the air would be for Morris to show the whole long interview with Tink.

I mean Thompson has been a PI for decades. And somehow he missed the fact they were next to each other? Then sat next to each other after and it looks like the Latino had a radio in his hand and talked into it? And that is not important Tink?

I really hope that Tink did mention it and Morris cut it for the NY TImes.

But heck, Tink is the same guy who said Garrison was up a tree in 1967 because he said the assassination was a coup de'tat.

So maybe Tink bought Blakey also. Even though part of Blakey's agenda was to discredit the critics. And this fit that agenda perfectly.

I mean with Morris' help, and Tink's, the NY Times is still using it. I suppose its just a coincidence that the Times published Blakey's book.

Jim @ 21 It does indeed look like he as a radio but we don't see much of anything. Were radios that small in that day? Just asking.

In my view, it doesn't look that small. Especially when seen in his back pocket.

Anthony, there is a long and interesting story about Mahoney and that book which I will not go into here.

Suffice it to say, the man who wrote that book is not the same guy who wrote JFK:Ordeal in Africa.

If you read them both, you will see the difference.

But I agree with you, for the life of me I don't understand how Thompson can do what he is doing on that film without informing anyone of what he is leaving out.

But of course, I couldn't understand why he disagreed with Garrison when, in 1967, the DA said JFK's murder was a coup de'tat.

[Tracy Riddle]

I'm not sure I've ever heard Thompson express an opinion about who was responsible for the assassination. Does anyone else know?

[R.K. Locke]

Perhaps RFK remained silent because he was not in a position to prove who was responsible at the Sponsorship level of the plot, and therefore could not effect the systemic changes necessary to achieve justice.

If justice was indeed at the forefront of his mind, his mistake was in believing that he would be allowed to change the system from within; that the same forces that killed his brother would abide his ascent to power and attempt at retribution.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Bobby understood that he was powerless in the aftermath of the ambush.

He was only AG in name only.

He was boxed in below by Hoover at FBI and by LBJ above him. Not just tactically, but by the fact they both hated his guts. And now it was payback time.

I am convinced this is one of the major reasons he resigned.

Before he died, Roger Feinman was preparing a really amazing thesis. RFK was actually researching the JFK case on his own, not through proxies--although he did do that.

He had honed in on a doctor in New York who he thought Bobby had consulted with on the JFK autopsy. Its too bad Roger passed away before he could finish that research.

[Anthony Thorne]

SONS AND BROTHERS (which I liked a lot) described RFK's hands-on role as an interrogator/investigator/researcher during his war against the mafia and Jimmy Hoffa, down to his reading the complete work of journalists that had covered areas of interest (and grilling or hiring those journalists thereafter), having various proxies report the latest evidence, and even grabbing a shovel and digging up the body of a buried victim himself. There are a handful of anecdotes (I wish there were more) that show his interest in the killing of his brother, but the suggestion noted by Jim seems quite possible to me - yet another reason for me to like and admire RFK.

SONS AND BROTHERS pointedly shows RFK's fatalism in the final period of his life, determined to give his all as a candidate and stand up for what he believed was right in his gut and his heart, while telling others that "If they shoot, they shoot". I'm sure he had a unique perspective on the JFK killing above and beyond the fact that he was a related family member, and his role as a candidate gunning for an administration that likely concealed the architects of his brother's death - people who evidently hated RFK as much as they did JFK - meant he could either withdraw from public life, or refuse to let the scumbags that killed his brother dictate who he was and what he did. The killings of both brothers grow more upsetting and affecting the more you learn about them, but I've long been haunted by the stories and photos of the RFK funeral train taking Bobby on his final journey in public, as more than two million people - including families from poverty with both parents and children standing and saluting - lined the tracks to say their goodbye. I expect only the conspiracy theorists and researchers repeatedly attacked by the mainstream media full grasp the import of that day, what it meant, what had been lost.

In small contrast, I visited Youtube yesterday looking for a random clip of Allen Dulles (unrelated to the JFK assassination), and every comment beneath it called out Dulles for his role in Kennedy's killing, the top rated being one that expressed an urge to do something unmentionable to Dulles' grave.

I'm hoping Alex's book gets more attention than just plaudits from those already in the know. Hopefully some mainstream critics will have the balls to reflect on its contents rather than reviewing it before they've read it.