The Tippit Case in the New Millenium

[David Josephs]

In synthesyzing and building on the work of the research giants from the past, I personally do not adhere to the criminal law standard of proof. Rather, the better standard in my opinion is not proof beyond a doubt. The better test is "which is the most probable explanation?"

While Occam's razor is nice, it is not a legal standard...

Real evidence must be relevant, material, and authentic before a judge will permit its use in a trial. The process whereby a lawyer establishes these basic prerequisites is called laying a foundation, accomplished by calling witnesses who establish the item's chain of custody.

If the item cannot be rendered AUTHENTIC then it cannot be permitted as real evidence in a trial.... while "the most probable" sounds good - wouldn't a well planned event leave evidence that lead the layman to the most probable explanation... ie Oswald did it. as opposed to showing how the rifle as evidence of Oswald shooting anyone is not authentic... there is no way to legally place or maintain that rifle in Oswald's possession... the attempts at uniqueness are easily rebutted...

You see, I'd rather agree on a standard for evidence... that the rifle was "found" in the TSBD is not a priori evidence that Oswald bought it, retrieved it, took it to work, etc.... until those steps are authenticated... which most of us here can do in most every area of the case to show that in the end, The Evidence IS the Conspiracy....


Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen. https://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation...dence.html

[Lauren Johnson]

While Occam's razor is nice, it is not a legal standard...

It's also an excuse to stop thinking.

[Milo Reech]

The critical element of Tatum's statements to Moriarty & Basteri is not the number of shots he heard (four in 1978, three or four in 1986), but the lag preceding the last shot. Per the summary of his 1978 statements (undated):

His testimony differs from other witnesses in one respect; after the initial shots he saw the gunman run to the back of the police car, step into the street, and shoot the policeman again at point blank range (HSCA Report p.60 and HSCA Vol 12 p.41).

This is both elliptical (omitting the run back toward the front of the car) and absurd (a man rushing to kill would not have taken the long way around the car).

Tatum's first (1978) description of this event conforms with the summary. His 1986 version is radically different and more expansive. Cutting to the chase:

...I saw a person (Oswald) with a gun in his hand and he turned around, as if he was going to run off or walk off and as he got to the rear of the car, he hesitated and walked around the squad car (towards the officer) and shot a fourth time. It could have been a third.

Zounds! Now Tatum has the ruthless killer either running or walking, still going the wrong way, then pausing as if to ponder the next step! Buy this, buy anything.

The mutual support provided by Benavides validating Tatum's statements & Tatum vindicating Benavides' testimony crashes in a circular heap if the presence of neither at the murder scene when the murder occurred can be established independently. For example, what investigation did Moriarty/Basteri perform to corroborate Tatum's statements? There's nothing about it in the summary.

And so far nothing substantial's turned up to supply a basis for belief in either tale.

For above material see Armstrong's papers at Baylor:
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm...m/id/11686

[Lauren Johnson]

Probably most readers on this site assume that the SPONSORS of the JFK assassination were Curtis LeMay, Allen Dulles, James Angleton, etc. As some people might know, my identification as to the sponsors is radically different.

These names would qualify as Facilitators and or False Sponsors. The real power lies in the hands of the ultra-wealthy banking and royalty families united in secret societies. The US versions would be the DuPonts, the Fords, the Rockefellers, etc. Allen Dulles would have needed not much more than a short conversation to know he was to proceed.

[James Lateer]

JFK Organizational Chart-Core Individuals



[TABLE="width: 753"]
[TR]
[TD]Tri-lateral Commission[/TD]
[TD]Council on Foreign Relations[/TD]
[TD]Bilderberg Group and SS Chmn Prince Bernard,Neth.[/TD]
[TD]Chmn Chase Manhattan Bank David Rockefeller[/TD]
[TD]CEO Dillon, Read Banker Clarence Dillon[/TD]
[TD]European Intl Banker Mayer Rothschild[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Chair Council on Foreign Rel. John McCloy[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Chicago Mayor Richard J Daley[/TD]
[TD]Speaker of House of Reps John McCormack[/TD]
[TD]<--------------------[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ex CIA Director Allen Dulles[/TD]
[TD]Nat.Sec.Advisor McGeorge Bundy[/TD]
[TD]Asst Secy of Def. Internat. Security Paul Nitze[/TD]
[TD]Sec. of State Dean Rusk[/TD]
[TD]SISS Chairman Senator James O Eastland[/TD]
[TD]Acting SISS Chairman Senator Thomas J Dodd[/TD]
[TD]---------------->[/TD]
[TD]-------------> German PR, U.S.Ret. General Kenneth Buchanan, of Julius Klein Inc.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Dir New Orleans Trade Mart CIA Agent Clay Shaw[/TD]
[TD]Dep. Natl Sec Adv & Dir of Policy Plng Dept of State Walt Rostow[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon, Head of Secret Service, ATF[/TD]
[TD]Counsel for Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms Thurmond Shaw[/TD]
[TD]SISS---- Dirksen [Ervin] [Hruska] [Keating] [McClellan] [Scott] [Johnston][/TD]
[TD]Chief NASA Marshall-Redstone Missile Pgm German Baron Gen. Wernher von Braun[/TD]
[TD]Ret Army Gen John B Medaris Former Cmdr Army Redstone Missile Program[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]CIA Operative David W Ferrie[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Sec Svc Chief James J Rowley[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Chief of Dallas ATF Frank Ellsworth[/TD]
[TD]Dallas Mayor Earl Cabell[/TD]
[TD]Chief of Weapons Dev. Bell Aircraft German Gen Walter Dornberger[/TD]
[TD]West German Intel Agent Walter Becher[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

As can be seen from my Organizational Chart, I am not hesitant to place the Rockefellers and people like that at the top of my chart.

However, it's an illusion to consider all these billionaires to be fungible and identical in their acts and involvements. If you did into them, many are totally at odds with one another. They only appear to be the same due to being observed from a distance.

The most important fact is that the Rockefellers already had so many of their "agents" inside the JFK administration, that they could only lose influence after he was murdered. JFK "kissed up" to the Eastern Establishment, but LBJ less so. I don't think there is any theory specifically involving the Ford or the DuPont families. There is information, however, likely involving the Rockefellers and the Dillons, however. As to the Rothschilds, they are in neutral territory, in my thinking.

Far and away the most likely rich people involved as sponsoring the assassination were the Dillon, Read clique, headed by Clarence Dillon, father of JFK's treasury secretary C Douglas Dillon. Basically, all of the billionaires like the Rockefellers, the DuPonts and the Rothschildts had to tacitly form a consensus on their attitude toward the assassination. Any one of them could have dissented and possible foiled the assassination. But then, they always acted in unison. That was the purpose of establishment of the Bilderberg Group. That is--- for the rich people all to be "on the same page".

By the way, to my knowledge, the above organizational chart is the first and only one ever suggested and published for the JFK assassination. And I have not received even one challenge as to how to change or improve the chart.

I'm not sure why, but I would be interested in any input.

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

https://homes.cs.washington.edu/~pedrod/...dmkd99.pdf

"Occam's razor is often considered one of the fundamental tenets of modern science. In its original form, it states that "Nunquam ponenda est pluralitas sin necesitate," which, approximately translated, means "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" (Tornay, 1938). It was formulated by William of Occam in the late Middle Ages as a criticism of scholastic philosophy, whose theories grew ever more elaborate without any corresponding improvement in predictive power. Today it is often invoked by learning theorists and KDD practitioners as a justification for preferring simpler models over more complex ones."

I do not mean to endorse Occam's Razor for evaluating JFK evidence. If one applied the first definition above, then the "lone gunman" theory is by far the simplest, so Occam would convict LHO. By the second definition, if your theory includes the guilt of the CIA and Military Intelligence, then you would not multiply entities by adding the Mossad, British Intelligence or the Mafia. Both of these conclusions are, in my opinion, useless in the JFK analysis.

Rather, my suggestion is that "if someone proposes a theory which explains and event, and no one else proposes any other theory (or a preposterous theory), then you should accept the proposed theory, not as conclusively proven, but rather only as the working hypothesis." Such a working hypothesis can be used as a door which the researcher can open which will likely lead to further valuable information and even proof."

Dr. Caufield explains Oswald's presence in the voter registration line in Clinton, LA. There is no other good explanation. So you go forward with Dr. Caufield's theory.

Likewise, only Judyth Vary Baker has suggested why Oswald was at the Jackson Louisiana Mental Hospital for an interview. I have seen no other good explanation. So I go forward with the theory of Judyth Vary Baker. And so on.

The following is a list of logical tools that I developed in my publication to analyze JFK evidence and theory:

1: Motive, means and opportunity.
2: When you have eliminated the impossible, you have the answer.
3: If you are judging a theory which offers an explanation for otherwise unexplained
facts, you should believe it.
4: Some of the first information to come out can sometimes be the best information.
5: When a key witness makes a statement that sounds totally unbelievable, it
almost always turns out to be true in the end.
6 There are no impossible coincidences.
7: If a career, salaried member of the espionage community makes a statement,
he is very possibly lying. (That's his talent and his job).
8: There may be some evidence which is covered up by law enforcement out
of sheer embarrassment and nothing more.
9: Cui Bono? This is Latin for "Who Benefits."
10. Follow the money.

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

There may be some confusion about principles of evidence which I will try to clarify as follows:

Any evidence which is relevant is potentially equally good evidence. However, some relevant evidence is not admissiblein court due to having too much of a history of being deceptive (like hearsay), or because of social policy (like physician-client privilege, etc).

When describing evidence as "real evidence" or evidence which has been "authenticated", these adjectives are not used legally in the same sense as the public use of the terms. Hence, "real evidence" is like "real estate". That is not the same usage as saying "the United States is a real country' or that "the Communist threat is a real' threat."

"Authenticated evidence" only refers to physical evidence which has been "authenticated." That means it is proven to be what it is claimed to be. Thus, we look at the proof of the "chain of custody" which only applies to physical evidence.

That does not mean that physical evidence "is more authentic" than other evidence. It may be authentic, but then eyewitness testimony may be "authentic" or circumstantial evidence may be "authentic." The latter two types do not have to be "authenticated" like physical evidence because they are on the face of it, either authentic or not authentic.
For circumstantial or eyewitness evidence, chain of custody does not make any sense and is not necessary, (unless it has been reduced to physical form like an affidavit signed by a witness).

Quoting from Wikipedia:

Physical evidence (also called real evidence or material evidence) is any material object that plays some role in the matter that gave rise to the litigation, introduced as evidence in a judicial proceeding (such as a trial) to prove a fact in issue based on the object's physical characteristics.

Quoting the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence. (a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

From Wikipedia: Evidence

Types of evidence:

Digital evidence
Personal experience
Scientific evidence
Testimonial evidence
Physical evidence
Trace evidence
Relationship evidence

I would add:

Eyewitness Evidence
Expert Testimony
Declaration of party
Declaration against interest
Business records
Newspapers and publications
Judicial Notice
Circumstantial Evidence
Dying declarations
Best Evidence
Statistics Evidence
Admissible Hearsay Evidence
Forensic Evidence

In my opinion, some JFK researchers are awaiting for some item of physical evidence to appear (such as a photo or signed confession). This will likely never happen. And that's not a problem because we have such a wide array of types of evidence, that one does not have to rely only on physical or "real" evidence in the sense of legal "real evidence." In that context, "real" means "physical."

The other major issue discussed above is the "burden of proof." Many assume that since we are talking about a murder, that the standard of proof against Oswald (or the killers) should be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." What is forgotten is that Jackie Kennedy could have sued Oswald's estate for wrongful death. In that civil proceeding, the test is "the preponderance of evidence" and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's why OJ Simpson was proven guilty in his wrongful death case, but not guilty in his criminal case.

Really, I don't see either test as necessary for a JFK researcher. Probably the closest test to that which is useful to the JFK researcher is the "motive, means and opportunity test." That is a tool used by murder investigators. The JFK researcher is closer to the role of the detective than he is to prosecutor, judge or jury.

It is sometimes said that to prove a conspiracy, usually the only evidence you will have will be circumstantial evidence.

James Lateer

[Cliff Varnell]

Probably most readers on this site assume that the SPONSORS of the JFK assassination were Curtis LeMay, Allen Dulles, James Angleton, etc. As some people might know, my identification as to the sponsors is radically different.

These names would qualify as Facilitators and or False Sponsors. The real power lies in the hands of the ultra-wealthy banking and royalty families united in secret societies. The US versions would be the DuPonts, the Fords, the Rockefellers, etc. Allen Dulles would have needed not much more than a short conversation to know he was to proceed.

Allen Dulles is arguably the most over-rated villain of the post-WW2 era.

We are to believe that he set up family friends of his girlfriend as hosts of the family of a Red Agent assassin. Had Oswald been gunned down soon after JFK and accused of conspiring with Kostikov and the KGB, the harsh attention on the ostensibly lefty Quaker Paines would have been intense.

We are to believe that the sponsors of the hit selected as top organizer a guy who'd mentally and physically checked out of the Bay of Pigs operation and was fast gaining a reputation for senility while he was head of the CIA.

What did Allen Dulles bring to the table -- other than the personal need to aid and abet the cover-up to save his own ass?

The CIA and William Harvey didn't have proprietary control over the ZR-RIFLE death squads, who were more under the control of Charles Siragusa of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.

From Douglas Valentine's The Strength of the Wolf:
(quote on)

[William] Harvey was so dependent on the FBN and its underworld contacts that he scribbled the words "the Magic Button" beside a reference to the Bureau in his notes.
(quote off)

From AJ Weberman's nodules, emphasis added:

(quote on)

CHARLES SIRAGUSA: THE CIA'S HITMAN

The CIA's initial efforts to form an assassination section involved Charles Siragusa. Siragusa (born October 28, 1913; died April 17, 1982, Office of Security # 41 82) was raised amid mob violence in New York City's Little Italy. He worked under ANGLETON in the OSS (March 1944 to December 1945), and then was an official of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. [Winks Cloak and Gown p363] He was sent to Italy in 1951 to neutralize "Lucky" Luciano, who was sending heroin shipments to New York. [sterling, C. Octopus p79] Charles Siragusa was attached to the U.S. Embassy, Rome, where he worked with the CIA Station. A CIA document revealed: "Siragusa was of liaison interest to various components of this Agency from 1961 to 1967, including the Behavioral Activities Branch of the Technical Services Division." [HSCA Gambino/Carpenter 2.28.78] In May 1967 Charles Siragusa supplied the CIA with biographic data that stated he had been employed by the Illinois Crime Commission since 1963. As head of the Commission, Siragusa was instrumental in solving the $4.3 million Purolator theft in 1974 by planting a snitch in the suspected burglary gang. In 1974 the name of Charles Siragusa was given to the Central Cover Staff in response to a request from an individual who might work for a pharmaceutical firm as an investigator.

In October 1977, Charles Siragusa told Senator Edward Kennedy "that he was approached by a CIA employee in 1960 or 1961 who he recalls was Mr. Vincent Thill, who sought Mr. Siragusa's assistance to recruit underworld figures for assassination purposes. Mr. Thill is alleged to have said that one million dollars would be paid for a successful assassination. Mr. Siragusa also stated that in addition to Mr. Thill, he had contact with the following former CIA employees: Sheffield Edwards, JAMES ANGLETON, John Mertz and Robert Bannerman. As related to the CIA, the context of their relationship with Mr. Siragusa was not given. The SSCIA was informed of Mr. Siragusa's allegation. Mr. William Miller, SSCIA, suggested to Commander Bernard McMahon, Executive Assistant to the Director of the CIA, and Mr. John Waller, Inspector General, that CIA investigate the allegation. The Agency has initiated an investigation; following are the results to date: (Deleted)."

CHARLES SIRAGUSA AND VINCENT THILL

Charles Siragusa told journalist Jack Anderson: "After a few minutes of chitchat, the CIA man [Vincent Thill] made this startling suggestion: that Siragusa, drawing on his underworld knowledge and contacts, recruit a crew of mafia torpedoes for standby assassination duty. They would be paid $1 million in fees and expenses for each kill. The CIA would assign the missions and underwrite the payoffs from secret funds." Siragusa, who had underworld and mafia connections because of his position with the Bureau of Narcotics, said that he refused to cooperate. Some evidence, however, indicated Charles Siragusa proposed that narcotics traffickers be utilized as assassins. On December 19, 1960, Harold Meltzer was considered as a possible CIA assassin. Meltzer was an associate of Meyer Lansky. The CIA: "Attached is a rather comprehensive six page biographical history which supplies not only all the information you requested, but many additional facts which will facilitate your evaluation of his potential. Meltzer owns and operates Fried Sportswear Company, Los Angeles, California. On August 3, 1959 he was convicted at Federal Court at Los Angeles for failure to register as a previously convicted narcotics law violator at the time of his travel abroad. He was fined $1,000 and placed on three years probation. Meltzer appeared before a Federal Grand Jury at Los Angeles on March 24, 1960, under subpoena, but invoked the Firth Amendment throughout questioning. Although he was threatened with contempt proceedings, this action never materialized. In the Spring of 1959 he furnished information to our California Office, but has not since cooperated with us. He has the background and talent for the matter we discussed but it is not known whether he would be receptive. Also attached is a copy of his FBI criminal record and an old Wanted Notice which bears a good likeness of him. I have never met Meltzer." [Los Angeles Times 5.3.78; CIA Enc. 12.1960

JAMES ANGLETON AND CHARLES SIRAGUSA

JAMES ANGLETON was interviewed on October 13, 1977, regarding his relationship with Charles Siragusa: "He knows Siragusa from World War II days. Following the war, during the 1950's, Mr. Siragusa was assigned to Rome as the U.S. representative on narcotics matters for Western Europe. ANGLETON had several official contacts with him but none since. Mr. ANGLETON states he was never associated with assassination plotting."

CHARLES SIRAGUSA AND JOHN MERTZ

When CI Director JAMES ANGLETON wanted his own Counter-Intelligence shop in Vietnam he ordered former Pretoria Chief of Station, John Mertz, to set one up. John Mertz told this researcher: "During World War II when ANGLETON was in Italy working for Allen Dulles he made an arrangement where he ran a Counter-Intelligence Unit in Italy. These men were in uniform, and did not report to the military. That was a peculiar situation in Italy for a short period of time. In July 1965 ANGLETON got the idea that he could do the same in Vietnam. They knew at that time that the American forces were thoroughly penetrated by the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. He sent me over to talk to General Joseph A. McChristian. He was top intelligence officer in Vietnam. [McChristian was General Westmoreland's intelligence chief from 1965 to 1967.] He later became DIA Chief, when he came back to the States. McChristian sent me over to confer with him to see if it would be possible for the Agency to set up a Counter-intelligence Unit in uniform, not reporting to the military. McChristian kicked me out the country. He said, 'No way, get the hell out of here. Tell ANGLETON, no.' Our Chief of Station was Gordon L. Jorgensen. I came back and made a report to ANGLETON. He sent a couple a guys over there and they got kicked out. [Gordon Jorgensen was succeeded as Chief of Station of Saigon by John Limond Hart.] That's as far as that went. I went to Africa a year and a half after that."

Mr. John Mertz was interviewed at his retirement home in Florida on October 6, 1977 in regard to Charles Siragusa's allegations. "Mr. Mertz related the following regarding his contacts with Mr. Siragusa. In 1960 or 1961, three CIA employees were arrested in Havana, Cuba, while engaged in an intelligence audio operation directed at a third country. They were tried, convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison. Their CIA affiliation was not revealed. Mr. Mertz was tasked with devising a means to free the prisoners. Mr. ANGLETON was Siragusa's OSS Supervisor in Italy during World War II, and suggested to Mr. Mertz that he contact Siragusa...Mr. Mertz states he was never associated with assassination plotting nor did he deal with Mr. Siragusa on any matters other than those discussed above...Mertz says he was never associated with assassination plotting."

CHARLES SIRAGUSA AND ROBERT BANNERMAN

Robert Bannerman, who was Deputy Director, Office of Security, during the early 1960's, and later the Director of the Office of Security "remembers Siragusa as a Office of Security covert contact/informer. He says that when an Office of Security investigation turned up information related to narcotics, Siragusa might be contacted to see if he could provide assistance.


(quote off)

I put Dulles in the back up patsy chain along with E. Howard Hunt, the Paines, Jack Ruby, JD Tippit, and LHO.

The top level of the hit according to my reading -- so I speculate-- were John D. Rockefeller 3 and W. Averell Harriman. Uner them I'd speculate were Prescott and George HW Bush. Under them (quite possibly) were Paul Helliwell, Carl Jenkins, and Henry Hecksher. The field team (quite possibly) included guys from Jenkins/Hecksher AMWORLD and the FBN guys associated with the CIA's MKNAOMI (Technical Services Division).

Dulles was a flawed candidate for assassination COO -- but the perfect fit if the operation went sideways and Agency guys had to take the fall.

[James Lateer]

Regarding Cliff's scenario of the assassination: I agree entirely when it comes to the basic skeleton of facts:

1. Certain select persons from the CIA were somehow involved.
   
2. Events in post WWII Italy played an important role.
   
3. CIA hitmen were at least consulted and strongly considered.
   
4. Organized crime figures connected to Chicago played a role.
   
5. The Rockefeller family belongs at the top tier on the chart.
   
6. The assassination happened near that fuzzy boundary line between the criminal world and the world of government.
   

How I might disagree or expand on the above would be as follows:

1. The CIA hitman consulted was QJ/WIN who apparently was ex-Nazi Otto Skorzeny.
   
2. The conspiracy would have to have been way, way wider because there had to be an a priori fix on how the entire US government would respond.
   
3. By blaming Oswald, then killing Oswald, the perpetrators were acting on the assumption they would get away scott-free. This required a huge number of people to be "fixed" before the assassination. It had to anticipate a Jim Garrison or a number of Jim Garrisons. The cover-up had to have been signed off on before the event, not worked out afterwards. No one would sacrifice their lives (except the patsy), unlike the Lincoln assassination or other presidential assassinations.
   
4. Comparable assassination plans involved entire countries. The July 20, 1944 attempt on Hitler involved Army commanders spread from Berlin to Paris and points in between. The Lincoln assassination apparently involved Jefferson Davis, the Confederate Secret Service (and many people think the Vatican as well). The DeGaulle assassination involved an in-place nationwide network called "the old general staff" and possibly elements of the OAS and the entire French fascist establishment (sometimes called the Cagoule).
   
5. Many people can't really realize how something like the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee could be openly involved. This committee has been indentified as involved by both myself and Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, both of us coming at it from entirely different directions. Dr. Caufield was researching co-chairman James O. Eastland and I was researching co-chairman Thomas Dodd. Also, virtually no American comprehends the National Security Council which had to be involved.
   
6. Scarcely one American in a million was aware that the Government of West Germany was in control of NATO. Many researchers have suspected NATO but none realize that Germany controlled NATO.
   
7. Scarcely on American realizes that Germany lost World War II but the NAZIS WON WORLD WAR II. The scope of the coverup about Nazis in the post-War world is pretty much mind boggling. Most researchers don't imagine anything like this, or that it could be so completely swept under the rug. (Jim Marrs and similar authors have recognized this in re the assassination).
   
8. Although many, including my publisher Mr. Kris Millegan suspect George HW Bush, I have never seen anyone speculate as to exactly what his role would have been. I only put people on my chart when I could postulate a specific role or action that they would have been doing.
   
9. There would never have been a 55 year cover-up on behalf of the handful of anonymous people suggested above.
   

As for Allen Dulles. I have him on my organizational chart more as a liaison rather than a COO. The only person who could have been in charge of the plot would have to be someone like General Willoughby who had supervised the intelligence for all of Japan. Or someone who had been part of Operation Valkyrie like Allen Dulles was (but he was only a facilitator, not a planner of Valkyrie). Or possible somebody like J Edgar Hoover with 40 years of heading the FBI under his belt. Or Nazi Generals Hans Spiedel, Wernher von Braun or Reinhard Gehlen. The planner would have to understand the entire workings of the US Government, the US Intel establishment and law enforcement, even at the State level.

Dulles was necessary a link between the Nazis, the CIA, the Warren Commission, the Military, etc. etc. His history with intelligence in both World Wars and his contacts all over the world, especially with the ex-Nazis were unique and Dulles would have been an "ace of spades" for the conspirators.

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

JFK Organizational Chart--I finally created a version of my organizational chart which would fit on an entry in this thread.

[TABLE="width: 1322"]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Tri-Lateral[/TD]
[TD]Cncl For Rel[/TD]
[TD]Bilderberg[/TD]
[TD]Rockefellers[/TD]
[TD]C Dillon[/TD]
[TD]Rothschild[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]J McCloy[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]R Daley[/TD]
[TD]J McCormack[/TD]
[TD]<--------------------[/TD]
[TD]-------------------[/TD]
[TD]----------------[/TD]
[TD]------------------>[/TD]
[TD]Vatican[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]A Dulles[/TD]
[TD]M Bundy[/TD]
[TD]P Nitze[/TD]
[TD]Dean Rusk[/TD]
[TD]J Eastland [/TD]
[TD]Thos Dodd[/TD]
[TD]---------------->[/TD]
[TD]K Buchanan[/TD]
[TD]J Klein[/TD]
[TD]Hans Globke[/TD]
[TD]Adenauer[/TD]
[TD]Brentano[/TD]
[TD]<? | | | | | [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]JV Baker[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Clay Shaw[/TD]
[TD]W W Rostow[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]C D Dillon[/TD]
[TD]ATF Shaw[/TD]
[TD]Dirksen[/TD]
[TD]W Von Braun[/TD]
[TD]Gen Medaris[/TD]
[TD]Roy Cohn[/TD]
[TD]J Bonanno[/TD]
[TD]Lemnitzer[/TD]
[TD]Gen Gehlen[/TD]
[TD]<? | | | | | | |[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Ervin[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Hruska[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Keating[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]McClellan[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Scott[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Johnston[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hale Boggs[/TD]
[TD]A Ochsner[/TD]
[TD]E Butler[/TD]
[TD]D Ferrie[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]J Rowley[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]F Ellsworth[/TD]
[TD]E Cabell[/TD]
[TD]Dornberger[/TD]
[TD]W Becher[/TD]
[TD]C Cabell[/TD]
[TD]R Morris[/TD]
[TD]Willoughby[/TD]
[TD]Heusinger[/TD]
[TD]<? | | | | | [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bringuier[/TD]
[TD]Arch-Smith[/TD]
[TD]Banister[/TD]
[TD]Oswald[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]P Paterni[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Oswald[/TD]
[TD]J Curry[/TD]
[TD]M Payne[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]J deMenil[/TD]
[TD]C Kersten[/TD]
[TD]Mohrenschildt[/TD]
[TD]E Walker[/TD]
[TD]Stephenson[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]F Sorrels[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]W Fritz[/TD]
[TD]R Payne[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Raigorodsky[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Oswald[/TD]
[TD]D H Byrd[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]shooter 1[/TD]
[TD]shooter 2[/TD]
[TD]shooter 3[/TD]
[TD]W Greer[/TD]
[TD]Kellerman[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD]Jack Ruby[/TD]
[TD]Oswald[/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]