Bill Simpich's State Secret is completed

[Jim Hargrove]

Jim, the book lays out in Chapter 5 that I think someone inside the Agency did the set-up - David Morales or someone a lot like him, probably from the Miami station. That's where the dissension against JFK appeared to be the strongest.

Morales and his buddies were highly skilled in counter-intelligence. They would have had no problem manipulating Oswald - wittingly or unwittingly - into doing pretty much whatever they wanted.

Oh, yeah. Thanks. Boy, we're REALLY making headway into understanding the basics of what happened in this case, and the news media is as silent and dismissive as ever, as far as I've seen. It seems as if it will take some sort of official mea culpa from the CIA before many of them will be forced to take notice, and that will probably never come.

Maybe it's all a case of perception, though. My brother works for what's left of a small news service in D.C. and he visited us last Thanksgiving. When we started talking about the assassination, he asked if I'd watched any of the network coverage and I said I didn't because it was all bs. He said something like, "Are you kidding. It was all conspiracy oriented, with a suspicion that the CIA was involved." I asked if he was living in this country the last few weeks of November, and he mentioned that media consultant from Texas (Gary Mack's friend, but I can't remember his name) who said he could debunk every "conspiracy theory" except that the CIA did it. Sheesh.

Thanks again for this book! Obviously, I can learn some more by going through it again, and I'll try to do that.

Jim

[Dawn Meredith]

Jim, the book lays out in Chapter 5 that I think someone inside the Agency did the set-up - David Morales or someone a lot like him, probably from the Miami station. That's where the dissension against JFK appeared to be the strongest.

Morales and his buddies were highly skilled in counter-intelligence. They would have had no problem manipulating Oswald - wittingly or unwittingly - into doing pretty much whatever they wanted.

Oh, yeah. Thanks. Boy, we're REALLY making headway into understanding the basics of what happened in this case, and the news media is as silent and dismissive as ever, as far as I've seen. It seems as if it will take some sort of official mea culpa from the CIA before many of them will be forced to take notice, and that will probably never come.

Maybe it's all a case of perception, though. My brother works for what's left of a small news service in D.C. and he visited us last Thanksgiving. When we started talking about the assassination, he asked if I'd watched any of the network coverage and I said I didn't because it was all bs. He said something like, "Are you kidding. It was all conspiracy oriented, with a suspicion that the CIA was involved." I asked if he was living in this country the last few weeks of November, and he mentioned that media consultant from Texas (Gary Mack's friend, but I can't remember his name) who said he could debunk every "conspiracy theory" except that the CIA did it. Sheesh.

Thanks again for this book! Obviously, I can learn some more by going through it again, and I'll try to do that.

Jim

Bill I really enjoyed your talk at COPA and look very forward to reading your book. Thank you for making it available here.
For some of us who work full time reading online books is something that must be "added into" an already busy schedule. At the moment I am re-reading Harvey and Lee and taking notes.
I have decided only one book at a time on this subject. Promise yours will be next.

Dawn

[Bill Simpich]

Jim, the book lays out in Chapter 5 that I think someone inside the Agency did the set-up - David Morales or someone a lot like him, probably from the Miami station. That's where the dissension against JFK appeared to be the strongest.

Morales and his buddies were highly skilled in counter-intelligence. They would have had no problem manipulating Oswald - wittingly or unwittingly - into doing pretty much whatever they wanted.

Oh, yeah. Thanks. Boy, we're REALLY making headway into understanding the basics of what happened in this case, and the news media is as silent and dismissive as ever, as far as I've seen. It seems as if it will take some sort of official mea culpa from the CIA before many of them will be forced to take notice, and that will probably never come.

Maybe it's all a case of perception, though. My brother works for what's left of a small news service in D.C. and he visited us last Thanksgiving. When we started talking about the assassination, he asked if I'd watched any of the network coverage and I said I didn't because it was all bs. He said something like, "Are you kidding. It was all conspiracy oriented, with a suspicion that the CIA was involved." I asked if he was living in this country the last few weeks of November, and he mentioned that media consultant from Texas (Gary Mack's friend, but I can't remember his name) who said he could debunk every "conspiracy theory" except that the CIA did it. Sheesh.

Thanks again for this book! Obviously, I can learn some more by going through it again, and I'll try to do that.

Jim

Bill I really enjoyed your talk at COPA and look very forward to reading your book. Thank you for making it available here.
For some of us who work full time reading online books is something that must be "added into" an already busy schedule. At the moment I am re-reading Harvey and Lee and taking notes.
I have decided only one book at a time on this subject. Promise yours will be next.

Dawn

Dawn, I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did writing it.

[Alan Dale]

Bill Simpich's extraordinary in-depth analysis of Oswald in Mexico City and how the CIA responded to that episode is one of the necessary new pieces of scholarship that all who are interested in JFK must consider. Because we have the benefit of many knowledgeable and thoughtful members, and because Bill himself is registered here, I'd like to ask for your questions regarding this essential contribution to assassination related research.

As an appropriate follow-up to the completion of State Secret, Bill has agreed to participate in an upcoming interview for Part II of our conversation from last year.

Please read State Secret and post questions or comments upon which you would like Bill to respond. We are also grateful for any suggestions regarding media outlets/interview opportunities which may help to promote this important work.

[Jim Hargrove]

I'd like again to thank Bill Simpich for making this extraordinary work so readily available to all. Those who haven't read it and have limited time might consider starting with the elegant conclusion, which can be read in an hour or so, and is a microcosm of the other chapters. The conclusion is here:
.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Conclusion

A couple of questions for Mr. Simpich:

1. Does SA Barrett believe DPD Captain Westbrook brought the Oswald/Hidell wallet to 10th and Patton? Is he convinced that this wallet became the arrest wallet? If so, any thoughts about what happened to the wallet of the poor schmuck arrested at the theater? Has anyone asked Barrett if he had or holds suspicions about ties between Westbrook and the Agency?

2. I was surprised to learn that Anne Goodpasture is still alive. Do you know how many of the other suspects from the Miami and MC stations are still around? If a campaign were started to get someone, anyone, with the authority to grant immunity and question them under oath, do you think their (witnesses or interrogators) lives would be in imminent danger?

3. Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, impersonated for weeks in and around Dallas, appeared to be in two different places at once throughout much of the time covered by existing USMC documentation, made a number of appearances in the United States (including some backed up by limited written evidence) while in Russia, and even seems to have attended different elementary schools simultaneously. What do you think of John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee evidence?

4. What are you working on now?

Thank again to Mr. Simpich for this wonderful, wonderful work.

[Jim Hargrove]

Bump.


C'mon people.

This is the best assassination book in years.

Please read and ask questions!

[Bill Simpich]

[quote=Jim Hargrove]I'd like again to thank Bill Simpich for making this extraordinary work so readily available to all. Those who haven't read it and have limited time might consider starting with the elegant conclusion, which can be read in an hour or so, and is a microcosm of the other chapters. The conclusion is here:
.

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Conclusion

A couple of questions for Mr. Simpich:

1. Does SA Barrett believe DPD Captain Westbrook brought the Oswald/Hidell wallet to 10th and Patton? Is he convinced that this wallet became the arrest wallet? If so, any thoughts about what happened to the wallet of the poor schmuck arrested at the theater? Has anyone asked Barrett if he had or holds suspicions about ties between Westbrook and the Agency?

Barrett doesn't know where the wallet came from, but believes that it was the arrest wallet. He told WFAA-TV in November that he thought that they had to tell the story that Bentley had found the wallet in Oswald's pocket because "too many people" had handled the wallet and there was going to be a chain of custody problem. It's amazing that Barrett made such a statement, because he seems to be a true believer in the Warren Commission's story - and there's not a lot of law enforcement people that call out another law enforcement person for not telling the truth. It's no accident that Barrett is telling this story now that Bentley recently died.

2. I was surprised to learn that Anne Goodpasture is still alive. Do you know how many of the other suspects from the Miami and MC stations are still around? If a campaign were started to get someone, anyone, with the authority to grant immunity and question them under oath, do you think their (witnesses or interrogators) lives would be in imminent danger?

I have been informed that there is a notice stating that Goodpasture died in 2011. Of my prime suspects, Lt. Commander Feeney died in 2012. Harvey, Morales, and Roselli died in the 70s, and Tony Sforza in 1984. Harry Holmes is dead, as well as the Secret Service officers I am most concerned about. A number of secondary suspects and witnesses are very much alive. I think that there is no imminent danger to witesses and interrogators at this point - the networks that used to exist have faded away and have been replaced by new ones with younger people who have little investment in the JFK story.

3. Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, impersonated for weeks in and around Dallas, appeared to be in two different places at once throughout much of the time covered by existing USMC documentation, made a number of appearances in the United States (including some backed up by limited written evidence) while in Russia, and even seems to have attended different elementary schools simultaneously. What do you think of John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee evidence?

John Armstrong's book is terrific, and made an enormous impact on me. His research on Harry Holmes, the rifle, Mexico City, and many other subjects is first-rate. I can't tell you how many times I went back to his book. On the Harvey and Lee evidence, I'm still on the fence. The photo on the book cover (and the DOD card) is compelling. That looks like an ID designed to be used by two different people. I am convinced that Oswald was impersonated on several occasions. The pictures of "the two Marguerites" are very disturbing. The service records seem to refer to more than one person.

Nonetheless, I would need more evidence to convince me that there was a Harvey Oswald who was born in Eastern Europe, served in the military as the same time with "Lee", and then went to the USSR and returned to the USA in place of "Lee Oswald". I think it's more likely that one or more people impersonated LHO on occasion while he was in the USSR and after his return. This is a difference in opinion, and my mind remains open. His book is one of the most important ones on the JFK assassination and double agents in the post World War II era. He relied on primary sources and conducted ground-breaking interviews. I hope many more people emulate John's approach and the way he tackles the central issues of this case. He has cast much-needed light on the situation.

4. What are you working on now?

Thank again to Mr. Simpich for this wonderful, wonderful work.Thank you Mr. Hargrove for your kind words, and for all you have done to make John Armstrong's essays and book more widely known.

To anyone who read and liked my book, please consider a donation or membership to the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Their support made the book possible, as well as the research of many other people.

I am moving forward with national security research. One project I'm considering is starting with the 60s-70s and up to the present. Right now I'm doing a study of James McCord and his role in spying on the FPCC, wiretapping the Watergate, getting the Watergate burglars arrested by replacing the piece of tape on the door, and then breaking the case wide open by spilling the beans right before he was about to be sentenced in early 1973. McCord is still alive - he's about 90.

I'm going to continue writing on the JFK case. I have two articles to finish on the 12 Legend Makers series. I'm also working on articles that highlight the planted evidence.

I am convinced that the wallet, the magic bullet, and the shells for the rifle and the pistol were planted. If you follow the chain of custody, the case for these items falls apart. There is other planted evidence as well (you have to ask how the Mannlicher wound up in the hands of Lt. Day), but the case for these items is particularly strong. Planted evidence is a key reason why the case has been so difficult to resolve. If you believe that JFK was killed due to an operation led by intelligence officers, it would seem that planted evidence would be the natural way to get the job done.

[Jim Hargrove]

Thanks again to Bill for all this wonderful research, and to Alan fro bringing it to our attention.

It will probably take a little time for this work to make its full impact... but I suspect it will soon take a significant place in the literature.

[Jim Hargrove]

Barrett doesn't know where the wallet came from, but believes that it was the arrest wallet. He told WFAA-TV in November that he thought that they had to tell the story that Bentley had found the wallet in Oswald's pocket because "too many people" had handled the wallet and there was going to be a chain of custody problem. It's amazing that Barrett made such a statement, because he seems to be a true believer in the Warren Commission's story - and there's not a lot of law enforcement people that call out another law enforcement person for not telling the truth. It's no accident that Barrett is telling this story now that Bentley recently died.
. . . .

I am convinced that the wallet, the magic bullet, and the shells for the rifle and the pistol were planted. If you follow the chain of custody, the case for these items falls apart. There is other planted evidence as well (you have to ask how the Mannlicher wound up in the hands of Lt. Day), but the case for these items is particularly strong. Planted evidence is a key reason why the case has been so difficult to resolve. If you believe that JFK was killed due to an operation led by intelligence officers, it would seem that planted evidence would be the natural way to get the job done.

Has anyone asked Mr. Barrett if he saw what comprised the Oswald ID in the wallet? Was it, by any chance, a Texas drivers license, rather than what we've been told? Planted or not, SA Barrett saw the wallet at 10th and Patton, it's earliest known location in the pitiful chain-of-custody evidence that exists, at least as shown on the WFAA-TV footage. The recent WFAA coverage of SA Barrett suggests he didn't get much of a look of what was inside the wallet, but I can't believe I didn't ask this question earlier. This case has become SO damned complicated.

[Bill Simpich]

Barrett didn't see the wallet contents. No report of a drivers license. He remembers Westbrook asking him if he knew Oswald and if he knew Hidell. Leonard Jez reported at a 1999 conference that he learned at the tippit scene that the wallet was Oswald's, this comes from Martha Moyer who was at the conference.

Barrett doesn't know where the wallet came from, but believes that it was the arrest wallet. He told WFAA-TV in November that he thought that they had to tell the story that Bentley had found the wallet in Oswald's pocket because "too many people" had handled the wallet and there was going to be a chain of custody problem. It's amazing that Barrett made such a statement, because he seems to be a true believer in the Warren Commission's story - and there's not a lot of law enforcement people that call out another law enforcement person for not telling the truth. It's no accident that Barrett is telling this story now that Bentley recently died.
. . . .

I am convinced that the wallet, the magic bullet, and the shells for the rifle and the pistol were planted. If you follow the chain of custody, the case for these items falls apart. There is other planted evidence as well (you have to ask how the Mannlicher wound up in the hands of Lt. Day), but the case for these items is particularly strong. Planted evidence is a key reason why the case has been so difficult to resolve. If you believe that JFK was killed due to an operation led by intelligence officers, it would seem that planted evidence would be the natural way to get the job done.

Has anyone asked Mr. Barrett if he saw what comprised the Oswald ID in the wallet? Was it, by any chance, a Texas drivers license, rather than what we've been told? Planted or not, SA Barrett saw the wallet at 10th and Patton, it's earliest known location in the pitiful chain-of-custody evidence that exists, at least as shown on the WFAA-TV footage. The recent WFAA coverage of SA Barrett suggests he didn't get much of a look of what was inside the wallet, but I can't believe I didn't ask this question earlier. This case has become SO damned complicated.