Jean Rene Souetre

This is a more complete version than the fragments I have recently posted about Souetre.
 
On January 20 or 21, a French reporter, Louis Assemat-Tessandier, met a man in a Montreal apartment.  The man had been drinking.  He told of being in Dallas at the time of the murder and being expelled from the country the following morning at about 6:30 AM.  He did not admit being involved in the murder and apparently did not explain why he was expelled (I have been unable to find the original article).  
 
The man tried to contact Louis again 8 or 10 times after the initial encounter.  But Louis thought he was menacing, was afraid of him, and avoided any further contact.  Calling back incessantly, it's likely that person wanted to know what he had told Louis in a drunken stupor.  Even without the full story, the expulsion was a problem.  
 
Louis published the man's story almost a month after the encounter, on Feb. 19, 1964, in an obscure newspaper, Cote-Basque Soir.  Louis did not name the man in the article. 
 
Louis' article came to the attention of French authorities. DeGaulle was scheduled to go the Mexico on March 15.The French did not dismiss the story as fiction, but instead they looked into it to assess its validity and the extent to which that person could be a threat to DeGaulle. They decided the threat was real. 
 
The Bayone police interviewed Louis and asked him who the man was.  Louis said it was Michel Roux.  But Louis described the man as tall, tanned, and handsome.  Souetre was 6'1".  Roux was 5'8" and physically could not be mistaken for Souetre.  The police forwarded their report on Feb. 29, 1964.
 
Souetre and his aliases were well known to the French. They suspected him of being involved in the OAS attempt to assassinate DeGaule in 1962, from which DeGualle narrowly escaped.  They concluded, as I do, that man who talked to Louis was Souetre using Roux as an alias. 
 
Souetre may have been drunk, but he wasn't stupid. In telling the story, he was not going to give up all vestiges of protection.
 
The French sent an urgent inquiry on March 5 (10 days before DeGaulle's trip) to the New York Office  of the FBI. They asked for information about Souetre.  “Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French army and an activist in the OAS.”  Souetre, not Roux. They included Souetre's aliases of Roux and Michael Mertz (both real people) not as additional suspects, but as aliases of Souetre in case that may help the Americans get to the bottom of the case.
 
They asked: was Souetre expelled from Dallas on Nov 23 and if so, to where?
 
The Americans did not want to talk about Souetre.  The CIA  and INS were asked about the inquiry.  Both, together with the FBI, denied any knowledge of Souetre or the expulsion.
 
When they answered the French on March 10, the FBI seized on the mention of Roux to try to divert attention to him.  Roux, the real person, had indeed entered the Dallas area November 19, mainly to look for work, and departed December 6 of his own volition.  He was not expelled.  No one disputes this or claims Roux was in fact expelled.  Not even the FBI made such a claim when they diverted the French inquiry from Souetre to focus on Roux. 
 
You see, it was all a case of mistaken identity. But the FBI didn't explain Louis's description of his source, which couldn't be Roux.  Nor did they explain how Roux could have known about the expulsion to tell Louis about it. 
 
The French located Roux after getting the FBI response. He said he had talked to the reporter but only by phone (?), and denied he had said anything like what appeared in the newspaper story.  His denial was brushed aside by the FBI, never refuted.
 
The French were not fooled by the FBI diversion.  They assumed the FBI "answer" was all they were going to get from the Americans.  DeGaulle, in fact, suspected the CIA was involved in attempts to kill him.
 
But time was running short to decide about DeGaulle's trip.  They beefed up security and DeGaulle went to Mexico.  One story has it that the OAS did send shooters to Mexico but they were intercepted. 
 
To sum up:  Oswald was on the steps and Souetre was one of the shooters who murdered Kennedy.  Souetre was hustled out of the country the next day and Oswald was murdered the following day.  Early on, things were going as planned. 

Louis Bloomfield of PermIndex fame was based in Montreal.

Lincoln’s assassin John Wilkes Booth also hung out in Montreal where there was a lot of Union/Confederate intelligence activity.

James Earl Ray, Martin Luther King’s alleged assassin also passed through Montreal during his escape to the UK. 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1771861231/?coliid=IW5IS07M52ATS&colid=1LLH1ZZ3NP50V&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

Roger, the CIA does a thorough assessment of strengths and viulnerabilities of people they consider for use.

It is critical they get it right. Lives depend on it. Missions depend on it.

If Souetre was in the habit of getting thoroughly munted and shooting his mouth off - to conspiracy-orientated journalists no less - there is no way they use him.

And that is consistent with the stuff you are leaving out.

https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2018/12/12/mystery-solved/

That's not to say I don't have some questions of my own.

The two girls sound like a typical intel set-up.

I would also point out that Mertz was living in Canada at this time and that Roux was another army deserter whose affiliations (if any) remained unknown)..

The investigation of Alderson's background is also full of question marks with nothing really matching up exactly. Non-existent street names. His father possibly a government agent. Plus one or two other anomalies. 

So it would not surprise if something was going on here. The journalist comes across as possibly a useful idiot. 

What I absolutely do discount is that any of the three were in any way actually involved in the assassination.

While agreeing Souetre's alleged role doesn't hinge solely upon his supposed links with Skorzeny and the phantastical " Project Lancelot ", nor indeed upon the veracity ( and highly dubious provenance) of the so called " date book ' , at this particular juncture I remain unconvinced. 

Looking over some material relating to Franco's latter years: the rise of the relatively apolitical technocrats,  in the wake of the Spanish " Economic Miracle " of the 60s,  to the resurgence of the hardline Bunkeristas,  post Carrero Blanco's ( the Caudillo's alter ego) assassination and the dark , almost ghoulish  tragicomedy of his harrowing decline, and grisly ( clumsily) stage managed death ( the decrepit enfeebled Franco dragged out of his hospital bed, a totteringy emaciated effigy, by the ambitious palace clique- his wife, Dona Collares,  his daughter,  son in law,  various validos and hangers on- desperate to cling onto power,  almost coming to physical blows as they fought by the bedside of cadaverous Franco,  unconscious and kept alive by life support) , to be honest,  the more I look the worse Coup seems. 

Often reducing the dizzying cavalcade of  anonymous OAS members/ Euro fascists/ the old guard  to mere caricature. Giving no real insight into their characters or motivations. 

I'm in the process of starting a thorough reread,  checking through various sources,  with a view to writing a detailed review. 

Not a smear job. But a simple fact based evaluation of the central claims. Focusing mainly on the Skorzeny/ OAS angle. 

The idea of Skorzeny as QJWIN; for instance sending such a notorious,  instantly recognisable character to the Congo, AS A COVERT ASSASSIN,  sounds almost preposterous. 

I don't want to interrupt the flow of the thread, certainly with ZRRIFLE ,the continuing speculation around William " Bill" Harvey and his alleged role in the pre assassination planning  and the sinister nexus of Western intelligence services, mercenaries,  ideologues fanatically opposed to anti imperialism,  and determined to stifle the winds of change, currently in the process of blowing away the crumbling vestiges of the Colonial Empires (Britain,  France, Belgium,  Portugal,  Netherlands and,  to a lesser extent Spain,  for since 1898 the once mighty Spanish Empire,  the first modern superpower,  was little more than a tiny barbarically prosperous corner of Africa and a stately phantom,  often seen haunting certain drawing rooms in Madrid ) and combine this with the incendiary cold war theatrics,  not to mention the large available pool of highly trained,  driven and motivated professionals,  with plenty of recent experience,  the link cannot be dismissed entirely. 

However,  on this particular occasion,  the evidence is incredibly tenuous. Circumstantial at best,  as for the interview? It raises more questions than it answers. 

Such " confessions " are, in the wake of Files,  Harrelson ( later retracted?), Holt,  Factor " Saul", the teenage MKUltra victim who claimed he was smuggled into the TSBD in a crate, etc etc., are less than worthless,  imho.

A while back I posted a couple of messages here taking issue with Larry Hancock's conclusion that Souetre was not in Dallas.  Larry did fine work on the topic. But his conclusion did not follow from his research. Swallowing the FBI diversion that Roux *was* in Dallas and left a few weeks after the JFKA of his own volition tells us nothing about Souetre's whereabouts. The FBI offered no information about where Souetre was.
 
Now you're back, Greg, citing Larry's conclusion, and claiming I left his stuff out that would have contradicted what I said. Apparently you think I was cherry picking.  Did you miss my previous posts?  If not, why would you say such a thing?
 
I left out nothing about Hancock's work. In fact, my whole post yesterday is my response Larry's conclusion that the Souetre "mystery" had been solved by showing he wasn't in Dallas.
 
Once I realized that (1) nothing about Souetre's whereabouts had been "solved",  (2) the FBI's diversion to Roux was, I think, because the Americans didn't want to talk about Souetre and (3) the French thought it was Souetre in Dallas and weren't fooled by the diversion, I set out to try to find a real answer.  Yesterday's post is what I have so far. 
 
The French inquiry was about Souetre, and only Souetre.  The word "subject" in the inquiry is singular and Roux and Mertz are mentioned only as aliases Souetre used, not as subjects of the inquiry.
 
That didn't deter you from going on your own diversion by pointing out that Roux "was another army deserter whose affiliations (if any) remained unknown)". Did Roux match the reporter's description of the man he talked to?  Was Roux deported?  Was Roux once a captain in the French army as referenced by the inquiry? 
 
Or, you say, Mertz lived in Canada "at this time".  Meaning what?  Was he deported on Nov 23?  If not how would he know about the Dallas expulsion on Jan 20-21 in order to tell the reporter about it.
 
Greg and the FBI: strange bedfellows.
 
You close by offering the unadorned assertion that you "absolutely discount" that Souetre was in any way involved in the JFKA. May I ask how you know that?
 

Do you know where Souetre was on Nov. 22, 23 or Jan 20, 21?  A main reason I posted here was to see if anyone could tear down my logic or provide information that would refute my conclusion.  You have done neither.  You haven't even tried to do either one.

While agreeing Souetre's alleged role doesn't hinge solely upon his supposed links with Skorzeny and the phantastical " Project Lancelot ", nor indeed upon the veracity ( and highly dubious provenance) of the so called " date book ' , at this particular juncture I remain unconvinced. 
 
RO: Unconvinced of what?

Often reducing the dizzying cavalcade of  anonymous OAS members/ Euro fascists/ the old guard  to mere caricature. Giving no real insight into their characters or motivations. 

I'm in the process of starting a thorough reread,  checking through various sources,  with a view to writing a detailed review. 

Not a smear job. But a simple fact based evaluation of the central claims. Focusing mainly on the Skorzeny/ OAS angle. 
 
RO:  I urge you to focus on Souetre as well.  It was Harvey who had the job of finding assassins for the CIA.  He was looking overseas for his "assets".  The extent to which Skorzeny was an intermediary may be less important to reaching the planners.  I don't know. 

The idea of Skorzeny as QJWIN; for instance sending such a notorious,  instantly recognisable character to the Congo, AS A COVERT ASSASSIN,  sounds almost preposterous. 

However,  on this particular occasion,  the evidence is incredibly tenuous. Circumstantial at best,  as for the interview? It raises more questions than it answers. 
 
RO:  Please continue.

Such " confessions " are, in the wake of Files,  Harrelson ( later retracted?), Holt,  Factor " Saul", the teenage MKUltra victim who claimed he was smuggled into the TSBD in a crate, etc etc., are less than worthless,  imho.
 

RO:  I think what is worthless is pointing to Files, Harrison et al as somehow similar to Souetre

Roger Odisio wrote:A while back I posted a couple of messages here taking issue with Larry Hancock's conclusion that Souetre was not in Dallas.  Larry did fine work on the topic. But his conclusion did not follow from his research. Swallowing the FBI diversion that Roux *was* in Dallas and left a few weeks after the JFKA of his own volition tells us nothing about Souetre's whereabouts. The FBI offered no information about where Souetre was.
 
Now you're back, Greg, citing Larry's conclusion, and claiming I left his stuff out that would have contradicted what I said. Apparently you think I was cherry picking.  Did you miss my previous posts?  If not, why would you say such a thing?
 
I left out nothing about Hancock's work. In fact, my whole post yesterday is my response Larry's conclusion that the Souetre "mystery" had been solved by showing he wasn't in Dallas.
 
Once I realized that (1) nothing about Souetre's whereabouts had been "solved",  (2) the FBI's diversion to Roux was, I think, because the Americans didn't want to talk about Souetre and (3) the French thought it was Souetre in Dallas and weren't fooled by the diversion, I set out to try to find a real answer.  Yesterday's post is what I have so far. 
 
The French inquiry was about Souetre, and only Souetre.  The word "subject" in the inquiry is singular and Roux and Mertz are mentioned only as aliases Souetre used, not as subjects of the inquiry.
 
That didn't deter you from going on your own diversion by pointing out that Roux "was another army deserter whose affiliations (if any) remained unknown)". Did Roux match the reporter's description of the man he talked to?  Was Roux deported?  Was Roux once a captain in the French army as referenced by the inquiry? 
 
Or, you say, Mertz lived in Canada "at this time".  Meaning what?  Was he deported on Nov 23?  If not how would he know about the Dallas expulsion on Jan 20-21 in order to tell the reporter about it.
 
Greg and the FBI: strange bedfellows.
 
You close by offering the unadorned assertion that you "absolutely discount" that Souetre was in any way involved in the JFKA. May I ask how you know that?
 

Do you know where Souetre was on Nov. 22, 23 or Jan 20, 21?  A main reason I posted here was to see if anyone could tear down my logic or provide information that would refute my conclusion.  You have done neither.  You haven't even tried to do either one.

Your logic falls at the first hurdle and it was noted in my previous post. The CIA vets the people it uses very carefully and it does not use those with a weakness for getting pissed and yapping to reporters.

Here is what I was referring to as far as what you are not mentioning:

Roux stated he never met the reporter. He spoke to him by phone. If that is true, you can forget the description. Roux goes back to being of unknown proportions.

You however, take the reporter at face value without considering or even mentioning Roux's version.

Souetre claimed he never went to the US. 

There was never any evidence that he did - at least in his own name.

Aliases are mentioned because those on clandestine missions are unlikely to travel in their own name, so I am not sure why you object to Roux being looked into by the FBI - especially since they drew a blank on Souetre. If the French did not want those names checked, they should not have mentioned them.

According to you then, Souetre travelled to the US in his own name despite using up to 11 different aliases and having travelled under those aliases in the past, and then you have him in Canada off his tits and spilling his guts to a conspiracy-inclined reporter. 

Forgive me if I don't buy into that. It is conspiracy cud that has been chewed, swalled and regurgitated by the conspiracy ungulates that populate this "community" for far too long. 

Spit it out. Bury it. Take off your sheep skin and join the human race. You are too good to be hangin' out with the likes of those woolly thinkers.

While agreeing I may have gone a little too far by comparing Souetre to the likes of Files et al, I still find this apparent confession highly unconvincing. 

If a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, how strong can a chain possibly be when there's nothing but weak links? 

Yes, reality sometimes is messy. People do the craziest things on the wildest,  most illogical pretexts. But,  the whole Souetre/ Roux/ to alias or not to alias/ deportation etc, imho at least,  is built upon nothing but the quicksand of supposition , and circumstansuality , stretched to its breaking point. 

Each link doesn't follow logically. They follow,  but only just,  if viewed from a certain angle,  dismissing all the other possible outcomes. 

Apologies for being nebulous and for dealing in over generalisations. Making wide swoops when delicate subtle brushstrokes are needed,  but I want to wait until I have finished rereading Coup and going through some detailed background material.

From what ive reread so far, Coup is actually worse than I remembered. Likewise Ganis' nutrition free calorie laden confection. The number of basic errors were shocking 

Skorzeny and his swaggering band of landsknechte freebooters kidnapping Horthy jnr from his father's palace in BUCHAREST,  which,  as all budding kindergarten level geographers know is the capital of Hungary. 

Coup manages to make Sven Hassel and the auteurs behind such nazplotation classics as , Ilsa,  the She Wolf of the SS, They Saved Hitler's Brain and,  not forgetting 50 Shades of Grey Wolf,  the sometimes traumatic post mortem adventures of Adi,  a reclusive ex health spa magnate,  Eva,  his flirtatious  young wife, Uschi,  their beloved daughter and the rest of the death defying entourage,  look like AJP fucking Taylor,  Erickson and company. 

I'd forgotten they'd relied upon a member of Ralph Cinque's OIC as their go to guy for Albert Osbourne..

That's just taking the fucking piss. 

Greg,  is it ok to post a review here, rather than the review section? I should have it finished in a week or so. 

As I said,  its not meant personally. I actually respect Ms Sharp,  for speaking out against that horrific idiot,  Don Jeffries,  and his typically doltish dalliances with holocaust denial. Jeffries is the embodiment,  a shorthand for the lowest common denominator gullibility and all round stupidity of fundamentalist conspiracism. They are simply Judy( how very apt) to their M$Ms Mr Punch, making sure the " truth " is distorted and limited to a choice between two equally repugnant lies...

Imho at least,  wittingly or unwittingly,  whatever their motivations,  a certain,  very voluble,  aggressively vociferous gang of conspiracy mongers hijacked assassination research in the wake of Stone's JFK. 

To this day we are still suffering from the toxicity and the negativity; the fallout of their grotesque brand of uber conspiracism. Anyone who disagrees with us is obviously some sort of enemy agent, and any photo,  film , document, witness statement,  and,  occasionally witness themselves,  that contradicts us must obviously have been faked. 

Irresponsible,  sensationalist, anti intellectual tabloid friendly dross. 

Compared to those clowns and their subsequent enablers,  disciples and acolytes the lone nutists have been a minor irritant. They haven't needed to lift a finger 

Except occasionally lean out the 6th floor window, " the SBT was theoretically possible " watching in glee as the intrepid stalwarts begin arguing about making a new 3D model of Dealey Plaza..

Miliceman Speer " Maybe this time we'll actually debunk it,  but always remember mein leib kamaraden,  they might be right "

Speer represents the false dichotomy within the false dichotomy. 
Plate spinner in chief,  endless waffle and procrastination. If it ain't in his fucking website ( perhaps  THE embodiment of mediocrity as a metaphysical concept) it doesn't exist. 

Like the equally insufferable Palamara,  " Secret Service Expert " he's in this primarily because he's helplessly infatuated with the sound of his own fucking typing. 

His ego big enough to believe he's more than capable of making the world small enough to fit inside his own mind

If Soutre was involved in the assassination at the behest of the CIA, why would he be expelled, a process that leaves a paper trail? Certainly, any government agency behind the assassination would have ways to quietly remove people from the country, even if in a coffin.

Lanceman,

Souetre *was* removed from the country quietly.  There was no paper trail. There is in fact no record he was ever in Dallas. Did you think they bought him a ticket on a commercial airline? The CIA had their own planes and pilots.

Expelling him to a safer place for him was preferable to killing him. There is evidence that the CIA had worked with Souetre before, and considered him a valuable asset.

While agreeing I may have gone a little too far by comparing Souetre to the likes of Files et al, I still find this apparent confession highly unconvincing. 

If a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, how strong can a chain possibly be when there's nothing but weak links? 

Yes, reality sometimes is messy. People do the craziest things on the wildest,  most illogical pretexts. But,  the whole Souetre/ Roux/ to alias or not to alias/ deportation etc, imho at least,  is built upon nothing but the quicksand of supposition , and circumstansuality , stretched to its breaking point. 

Each link doesn't follow logically. They follow,  but only just,  if viewed from a certain angle,  dismissing all the other possible outcomes. 

Apologies for being nebulous and for dealing in over generalisations. Making wide swoops when delicate subtle brushstrokes are needed,  but I want to wait until I have finished rereading Coup and going through some detailed background material.
 
RO:  Read my response to Greg on similar points and respond if you wish.  I'm not sure yet the Dallas expulsion happened, (information about it has been no doubt obliterated or not kept at all), but if it did, I think Souetre was the guy deported, which means he was a JFKA participant.  It's an important question.

Greg,  is it ok to post a review here, rather than the review section? I should have it finished in a week or so. 
 
RO:  I look forward to reading it. 

As I said,  its not meant personally. I actually respect Ms Sharp,  for speaking out against that horrific idiot,  Don Jeffries,  and his typically doltish dalliances with holocaust denial. Jeffries is the embodiment,  a shorthand for the lowest common denominator gullibility and all round stupidity of fundamentalist conspiracism. They are simply Judy( how very apt) to their M$Ms Mr Punch, making sure the " truth " is distorted and limited to a choice between two equally repugnant lies..
 

RO:  I think you should send your review to Leslie Sharp beforehand, assuming it's not so personally critical as to preclude that.  I don't know what her response would be.   In my interaction with her she has always been interesting in learning.

Roger,

this is not to poke the bear, but I wonder if Steve Thomas and the ever charming Ms Sharp have moved your needle on Mertz being the person in the interview "spilling his guts", as I have suggested in this thread? 

If it happened at all (and I still have doubts), Mertz really is the most likely. If it happened at all, it was also an exercise in misinformation.

And Roux's story was different in key elements to that of the reporter, who was said to be someone who would not make a story up out of whole cloth, but would embelish. 

It seems to me if Roux's story is true, the two women in it are key to understanding what this was really all about.

My first reaction, Greg, was why would a claim made 26 years ago in a book written in French with no apparent English translation, which the author admits didn't make it to the US where it received little notice, change my mind without many more details substantiating it. Which Steve did not provide in his cryptic claim. 
 
I suppose you have kept reading the thread on EF and now know it wasn't Phillips who claimed Mertz was in Dallas and was deported, it was a guy calling himself The Avenger. He posted comments to that effect on Phillips' blog in 2006. I'll repeat what he said here for your convenience, including what I said about it:
 
"The Avenger said...Michel Mertz was in Dallas Texas, when JFK was killed, and was arrested by the US Border Patrol within 48 hours afterwards, and thrown out of the Country.
In the opinions of many, Mertz was either
1. One of the gunmen who killed Kennedy
2. The logistics expert in charge of coordinating the Dealey Plaza execution.
Maybe, he was both.
Mertz died in 1995.
 
1:14 AM   The Avenger said...Michel Mertz was in Dallas when JFK was killed.
He was arrested and thrown out of the country by the US Border Patrol within 48 hours after being arrested.
Mertz met with CIA agent E. Howard Hunt and General Edwin Walker just months before the murder of JFK.
Mertz was connected to New Orleans Mafia Godfather Carlos Marcello, Florida Godfather Santo Trafficante, and Chicago Godfather Sam Giancana, who had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK.
Mertz is believed by many JFK assassinaton researchers to have been either:
1. One of the gunmen in Dallas (possibly the "Grassy Knoll" gunman)
or
2. The logistics expert who coordinated the execution in Dallas.
Is it a coincidence that Mertz, a professional drug smuggler, and killer, with CIA and Mafia links, was arrested after JFK was killed?
That he was in Dallas when JFK was killed?
That someone in the Justice Department let him leave the country shortly after he was arrested?
That the French Government contacted the US government and informed them of their suspicions of Mertz having possibly been involved in the JFK murder?
Mertz died in 1995."
 
Notice anything?  Change Mertz to Souetre and you have essentially the same story I posted.  Ok, we know for a fact it was Souetre, not Mertz, who the French identified in their Inquiry.  And the expulsion was preplanned by the perps, not done by "someone in the Justice Dept."    
 
Was it Mertz who told the reporter he was Roux in telling the expulsion story?  Just like Souetre was known to do?
 
In fact, the Avenger's post is another confirmation of the basic story that the person who was expelled that weekend was the one who told the reporter about it less than two months later.  Play around with the names all you want, but we know the French thought that person was Souetre, which is why they asked about him, and only him, in their inquiry. 
 
As for Roux, his story, by which I think you mean the tale of the Dallas expulsion, never was Roux's story. When contacted he denied meeting with the reporter in person, or telling him anything of the sort
 
The source told the reporter he was Roux.  But it seems clear it was Souetre saying he was Roux.   We know that Roux was in the area (and I believe, when the French caught up with him, said he was having lunch with a relative when he heard about the murder). In any case no one I am aware of has seriously tried to claim Roux was  either expelled or involved in the murder.
 
The source saying he was Roux easily led the French to conclude, as I do, that was Souetre using his Roux alias. Which puts Souetre in Dallas with a gun in his hand.  This was less than 2 months after the murder.  Who else but the person being expelled and those doing the expelling would know the story at that point?  The expulsion was done secretly.  the story led the French to ask the Americans why Souetre (and only Souetre) was expelled and to where.
 
You say Mertz is the most likely source if the encounter happened at all.  We're supposed to believe Mertz, not Souetre, told the reporter about the expulsion.  The French missed the story by so much they didn't even include Mertz as a subject they were asking the US about?
 
So what does it take to make sense out of your assertion that Mertz was the most likely to be the source?   Would he have had to have been the person who was expelled?  How would he have known about the expulsion less than 2 months later otherwise?  What role in the JFKA assassination for Mertz have you worked out to lend credence to the claim that Mertz was the source for the article?
 
Could Mertz have simply been another diversion from Souetre when the Roux diversion didn't work?  An experienced researcher like Larry Hancock swallowed the Roux diversion, claiming it showed somehow that Souetre was not in Dallas.    
 
Has this story reached the point where it doesn't matter whether a person named Souetre or Mertz was expelled from Dallas?  As long as the basic contour of the story holds up.  We will then have a pretty good idea who ran the murder, wouldn't we?  That's what is most important isn't it?
 

Perhaps some day I'll tell you about my interaction over this story with the charming Ms, Sharp.  Not now; I'm too mad about it.

The evidence that I give most weight to:

1. The timing of the interview with the reporter seems to coincide with Roux's travels. 

2. He was not "expelled" but may have been under threat of expulsion over working without the proper papers.  



3. The French authorities stated that the reporter was conspiracy-minded and had a tendency to embelish stories.

So one example of his embelishment might be in claiming that Roux was expelled from Fort Worth (or Dallas) straight sometime over the assassination weekend to Mexico or Canada. Whereas the truth was that Roux had voluntarily left on Dec 6 for a job in Mexico  while the visa he needed for the US was being processed. 

4. Mertz was living in Canada at the time.

5. Souetre as far as I know, had no ties to Canada.

Anonymous letters signed with monickers like "avenger" are inevitably from genuine crackpots, what we would now call "trolls" or from those deliberately attempting to muddy the waters. 

Here is an example: https://apnews.com/article/0cd962699f44f131c25d71bc2591f256

You seem to give the words and actions of the French authorities much weight, except when it comes to their assessment of the reporter.

Here is an affidavit given by Roux. It outlines his version of events.

It was taken in Paris on March 7, 1964. 

Roux states that his full name is Michel Pierre Gabriel Louis Roux, born August 31, 1940, at Soyaux (Charente) . Then gives name of wife, one child, address in Paris. . 

Military service in 1st Kept, at La Reghiaa (Algeria) in 1961-62. Demobilized in Paris on Oct. 7, 1962, with the grade of Sergent. 

"I have learned of the article of Mr. Louis Assemat-Tessandier , published Feb. 19, 1964. 

"I contest all of the facts reported there. I will tell you the conditions under which I undertook my trip to North America where I went to try to find work. 

"I left Paris on November 19, 1963, destined for Houston. I was to present myself to the Gaschman Company in Ft. Worth for a job that I received. Then, two or three days later, I returned to Houston where  I found no work. About a week later, I went to Mexico City, also to find work, notably at the Bamer Hotel. I left the U.S. because my passport was stamped "visitor" and not "immigrant." I was unable to find work in Mexico. 

As my financial resources were diminishing , I left that city on January 8 , 1964, and I crossed the U.S. border by bus, at Laredo, on January 10, 1964. 

I crossed the Canadian border on January 13, 1964, at Windsor. From the 12th to the 30th. of January I resided at Montreal, 12-39 Dorchester-West. Toward the end of January, X became sick and took a flight to Paris. 

"One day, date unknown, I went to the Texaco Building in Montreal, to look for seme road maps. I made the acquaitance of two young ladies, 

"Jean" and "Eva," whose last names I do not know. As they were simpatico, 

I asked them to have a drink. It was then that they told me of a Frenchman named Louis who was in Montreal and whom I should meet. I told them I would be happy to meet him. They invited me to come have a drink in their apartment at an address which I do not remember, but I believe it was on Pill Street. There "Jean" called Louis on the telephone and said to him: *1 have with me a Frenchman who has arrived from Paris. I am going to put him on the phone. 1 

I took the phone and told him that I had just arrived from Mexico after a stay in Fort Worth, where I was the day of President Kennedy's murder. 

Louis asked me what I thought of that affair. I responded that, in rny view, Oswald could not have acted alone. I had read the local papers which had given contradictory details. We then spoke of the trip that General de Gaulle was to take to Mexico in March, and I said something to the effect: They 
should reinforce security, because in Mexico people kill at the drop of a hat. They even pay Indians to kill people. ' 

"I wish to make clear that my only contact with Louis was limited to this one phone conversation. I never saw the man, and I never knew his name until you gave me his article to read. Therefore, I deny the interpretation that Louis gave to my statements. I request to be confronted by him. And I 
reserve the right to initiate against him any and all legal actions which I judge useful. 

"I have nothing to add. I remain at your disposal in case you have further need of me. 

"Read, verified, and signed in our presence. 

Le Commissaire Principal 



/s/ Michel Roux" 

The one item that sticks out and nails Roux as the person talked to was the claim that he mentioned to the reporter that they pay Indians to kill people. 

The reporter claimed that what was said to him was that the assassin would shoot from a crowd of Indinas while disguised as one (or something similar; my memory may not have it exactly as stated).

Look, there is plenty of grist for rumination in the wider story. But the stuff of Souetre being a hitman in Dallas just doesn't rate as anything other than mischief or deliberate misinformation. 

I have question marks over all the players in this from the reporter to the US friends of Roux and Souetre through to the two young ladies.

Roger Odisio wrote:Perhaps some day I'll tell you about my interaction over this story with the charming Ms, Sharp.  Not now; I'm too mad about it.

LOL. I can imagine how that went. Her reputation truly exceeds her. 

From this distance and based on personal experience through online interaction, there seems to be a reality deficit in Texas which is offset by an ego surplus.

Much of what you say is plausible. Thanks for the Roux statement.  I had seen it before but not thought of it in the context you gave it.  Particularly the part about Roux's stay in Montreal at the time of the alleged interview, among other things.
 
One thing had always bothered me. The reporter said he talked to his source, who gave his name as Roux, in person. The source kept calling back 8-10 times to talk again.  The reporter was afraid of him and avoided him after the first meeting.   
 
That doesn't fit with Roux's story, which I have no reason to doubt at this point, of talking to the reporter once by phone. If both things had happened--an in-person meeting with, say, Souetre saying he was Roux, followed by a bunch of calls from Souetre, and one previous phone call from the real Roux, it's likely the reporter would have realized these were two different people.
 
Apparently the reporter didn't name his source in the article (I've never been able to find the article).  So this problem could initially be obscured.  But when asked by the police around Feb 29, he said his source at the in-person meeting was Roux.
 
Roux gives no explanation why the two women suggested that Roux talk to the reporter. The JFKA could have been the connection. The reporter was known to be interested in it and Roux had been in the area when it happened.  And Roux said the reporter did ask him what he thought about it, lending credence to the idea.
 
GP:  You seem to give the words and actions of the French authorities much weight, except when it comes to their assessment of the reporter.
 
RO:  The first part is right.  The French were scrambling to protect DeGaulle from his enemies, of which they considered Souetre to be one.  They had every incentive to get to the bottom of the reporter's story.  When he told the police his source said his name was Roux, that probably further convinced them that it was actually Souetre and 5 days later they sent the inquiry naming Souetre to the FBI.
 
I Included a note tp Bill and Larry in my EF post suggesting they try to get the French file on their investigation of Souetre and the expulsion as part of the MFF lawsuit.  We of course don't know everything they knew at the time when they concluded that Souetre was expelled.
 
But I didn't discount the second part about the French characterization of the reporter.  I don't know about it.  Do you have a link to that part, or more information about it?  Why do you suppose the French authorities discounted that characterization and went ahead with the inquiry?
 
So you may be more right than wrong.  The reporter may have made most of the story up, hoping to get away with it by not naming his source (a traditional journalistic practice). Maybe there was no drunken Frenchman talking to him of being expelled.  The reporter was good enough to fool the French authorities when they interviewed him, however, inducing them to dash off the note to the FBI asking for information about the expulsion.
 
The two women could add a lot to the story, particularly if they corroborate Roux. but the trail is probably dead.
 
However.
 
I think there actually was an expulsion or two from Dallas after the murder, and it's  one key to unraveling the story. And since no one seems to know where Souetre was during the crucial time, (even Leslie has claimed she doesn't know) it may have actually involved him. That possibility did not die if it can be shown the reporter made up his version.
 
Indulge me for a minute. You're Allen Dulles, hellbent on getting rid of JFK who was singlehandedly standing in the way of your plans for the world.  Lyndon Johnson wants Kennedy out of the way as much as you do, is ready to take over, run the coverup, and get out of your way internationally.
 
You've got Oswald set up as the patsy. You're going to murder, then frame him.  You've got access to the best killers in the world.  You've got a world class psychopath, Bill Harvey, scouring the world to find them and others to train them. Apparently the ZRRifle Project was disbanded some time in 1964, after the JFKA, having existed only a couple of years
 
What do you do with the killers once the job is accomplished?
 

Yep, you hustle them out of Dallas as quickly as is feasible, concealing all evidence that they ever were there. The CIA had the planes, pilots, and resources to do that efficiently. The reporter may have not made up his story out of whole cloth, if he did make it up.  It's a logical part of the conspiracy.

Roger,

I think this is about as far as we can take it on what is avaialble, although further background on the US friends of Roux and Souetre night throw some curve balls.

All from the Malcolm Blunt archives.
Scans by me.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/15nTjhIxMAJx15iSh1lMUFJg_IOUF6PLB/view?usp=share_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hUCGxpuTL7ZSE79i-Oxoh-TMLWxC_Lj4/view?usp=share_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JzeXWZX_tZOeHcaLyFard1etst-DvD3n/view?usp=share_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12KgycZGIjjw5sgEmIWfms6q-1W1GH0Q0/view?usp=share_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wlZjXGiM22K6Y-aSS1KL0GdhPJ8Q3T_R/view?usp=share_link

Thanks very much for these Bart

Out of interest are lines three and four supposed to be identical or should there be a different file linked for one of them ? 

Not a criticism just checking :-) 

David

Hi David, that was my balls up and I have removed the dupe link.

If you use this link
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RrTiwCzJSUFQIjPYvkpBkABwR1dDC291?usp=share_link
You can search thru the whole lot by yourself.

In future keep this link handy for any searches through the Blunt archives.

Indulge me for a minute. You're Allen Dulles, hellbent on getting rid of JFK who was singlehandedly standing in the way of your plans for the world.  Lyndon Johnson wants Kennedy out of the way as much as you do, is ready to take over, run the coverup, and get out of your way internationally.


Vinny:  Do you mean that Dulles and LBJ were the masterminds in the plot to kill JFK?
 
RO:  Yes. I'll go one step further. The JFKA would not have happened without both of them being on board in different ways. Each was the leader of a powerful faction in Washington.  Dulles ran the CIA/war machine that was spanning the world disposing of governments that wouldn't obey them, much to Kennedy's chagrin.  Johnson was a powerful leader of Congress as a former Senate Majority Leader who would become President. Johnson appointed Dulles to the WC to help insure there was no investigation, and in particular. all important information about the CIA was kept out of its proceedings.
 
Dulles, known as the old man around the CIA, still ran the agency from his home in Georgetown after Kennedy fired him.  He spent the weekend of the murder at the secret CIA facility in Virginia, I think directing the beginnings of the coverup.
 
In 1960 when Johnson ran for the Democrats' presidential nomination, it was clear he had little support outside of the South.  He was unlikely to ever become president that way.  So he maneuvered his way on to the ticket--giving up being Majority Leader for a chance at a nothing job like vice president--to be one step away.  A couple of years after the murder, Johnson blurted out to McNamara that he had never agreed with JFK's plan to pull out of Vietnam but kept his mouth shout.  The war machine got its war in Vietnam.  It was clear to Dulles that Johnson was the guy to replace Kennedy.