Most Official Evidence is required to proving a Feasible Conspiracy

I agree that the "official" evidence is woefully inadequate from a forensics standpoint. And that is specifically because of the part of it that was destroyed, mutilated, and tampered with, by the "officials".

On the other hand, we have more evidence related to this particular murder, than there is for any other murder anywhere in the universe. We have so much evidence, that right now it's taking me months to enter a condensed version of it into a database. There is more than enough evidence, very few lawyers have the benefit of this much evidence in a court case.

Carmine, you speak of "those with a strong opinion" (I'm paraphrasing, stop me if I've misunderstood) - and, this is part of what I noticed too (as a n00b, trying to wrap my mind around the available information), is that "people with a strong opinion" seem to suggest that the various theories and models are somehow "mutually exclusive". You know, like, if Lyndon Johnson did it then Carlos Marcello couldn't have done it, or vice versa.

And, I'm trying to address this on my web site, by a ) cataloguing the various models and theories, and b ) quantifying them, linking directly to the supporting evidence and assigning confidence levels that are "forensic" in nature and have nothing to do with anyone's strong opinion(s). As you know, the forensic picture is not pretty, every conceivable chain of evidence has been mangled or somehow obfuscated, and we're left with a sparse landscape.

But, as I mentioned to Martin, there are "actuals" in play that are pretty darn obvious, that any decent lawyer could argue successfully in front of a jury. So, for instance, let's forget about the Warren Commission for a minute. Was there a second shooter? Sure there was. Most likely there were at least two, based on the physical and eyewitness evidence. There was one in the "HSCA Acoustic Location" which is where we have the picture of the puff of smoke (unless someone's going to tell me that's a flashbulb or something?) - and we also have twenty eyewitness who identify a shooting location behind (and probably to the west of) the western cupola, and although these "sightings" are mainly auditory, they all agree on where the shots came from, and some of them are quite precise in terms of the origin.

So, if the Warren Commission never existed and the landscape of evidence hadn't been poisoned by their idiotic "magic bullets" and the like, what would you see in this picture? My take is there's no way LHO could have been convicted of anything. He would have skated, he would have walked.

The theatrical farce that was the Warren Commission distracted everyone's attention from the real evidence. It took people a dozen years to rebut the worthless magic bullet, and meanwhile Arlen Specter was sitting on some very important Senate committees. And the short version of the larger history is that Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, and Carter tried to fix things (and "began" to clean house a little), but when Bush Sr got in there all bets were off and it was back to business as usual, and now we have a real problem 'cause the principals are entrenched, and they've managed to turn the law into a "vig".

My take is, it's more important than ever - now - to challenge loudly and publicly the prevailing orthodoxy, especially in areas like this (the Kennedy assassination) where there is an "official story line" that simply doesn't jive with the truth. (Benghazi would be another example - there are many examples).

It won't do, for genuine JFK research, when the theories being proposed by the genuine researchers are every bit as crazy as the magic bullets. We should be able to do better than that - we can and we will!

Non,

        I would agree that we must challenge the inadequate and erroneous findings we can prove with substantial evidence. However, I am just relating that many critics and advocates of conspiracy, as you state, have their own mutually exclusive ideas. Some even their own orthodoxy regarding a favorite idea. I do support we shall make mistakes and be willing to admit them and refine our views. 

However, as deficient as the Commission and other investigations were in some findings, some discard all the official evidence that contends their views and that in my view is not reasonable inquiry.  I contend a feasible conspiracy occurred of reasonable size and with the power to assassinate JFK. However, I do not support the many ideas which include unnecessary and unproven claims that are based on personal opposition to most evidence.  

Aversion to contending evidence is not exclusive to one side of the debate, as some advocates discard the Commission evidence, some critics discard the HSCA evidence. I would contend we regard all it and remove only that which is proven to be contended or dispelled by other equally substantial evidence. It is my contention that if we use higher standards than our detractors we can have more compelling insights.

Test all things; hold fast what is good. – 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Carmine Savastano wrote:Non,

        I would agree that we must challenge the inadequate and erroneous findings we can prove with substantial evidence. However, I am just relating that many critics and advocates of conspiracy, as you state, have their own mutually exclusive ideas. Some even their own orthodoxy regarding a favorite idea. I do support we shall make mistakes and be willing to admit them and refine our views. 

However, as deficient as the Commission and other investigations were in some findings, some discard all the official evidence that contends their views and that in my view is not reasonable inquiry.  I contend a feasible conspiracy occurred of reasonable size and with the power to assassinate JFK. However, I do not support the many ideas which include unnecessary and unproven claims that are based on personal opposition to most evidence.  

Aversion to contending evidence is not exclusive to one side of the debate, as some advocates discard the Commission evidence, some critics discard the HSCA evidence. I would contend we regard all it and remove only that which is proven to be contended or dispelled by other equally substantial evidence. It is my contention that if we use higher standards than our detractors we can have more compelling insights.

"I contend a feasible conspiracy occurred of reasonable size and with the power to assassinate JFK. However, I do not support the many ideas which include unnecessary and unproven claims that are based on personal opposition to most evidence."

Hi Carmine, I selected these couple of sentences from your post to discuss. IMO, your first sentence contradicts itself. IMO, a "feasible conspiracy with the power to assassinate JFK" is not one of "reasonable size". In fact the logistics of such a thing quite stagger the mind.

I would divide "the" conspiracy, into two parts: the "before the act" part, and the "after the act" part - in other words, the prep, and the cover-up. And, there is in fact some considerable body of evidence that the game was divided along exactly these lines. "We'll do our part if they do theirs", quotes like that. My best read is that except for the puppetmasters, there are two entirely different groups of people involved "pre" and "post". (Except for the mysterious murders, which call into the category of "clean-up from the pre").

Let's consider a specific example, say, Simkin's "8F group" theory. Fred Black. (Larry Hancock talks a lot about him too). So now, if you start studying this piece, you come across names like Jack Halfen (a direct connection between LBJ and Carlos Marcello) - but you also learn that Fred Black, Bobby Baker, Lyndon Johnson, and J Edgar Hoover were neighbors, they all lived in the same block, next door and across the street from each other. Fred Black is the guy from Serve-U Corporation, the vending-machine people (bang, there's your connection with Jack Ruby).

So, little things matter. Saying things like "The CIA did it" or "The Mafia did it" doesn't cut it, right? Of course the Mafia did it, but we need a little more than that. We need a smoking gun that links the 8F group to Sam Giancana, and so far the only thing we have is rumors of Lyndon Johnson getting kickbacks from wealthy businessmen. Eva (Rubinstein) Grant bears further scrutiny though, she tried to recruit several of Jack's strippers for mafia courier jobs and the things they were asked to transport were always forged. Both Ruby's seem to have been on the advance team when the Chicago Outfit pushed into Dallas in the late 40's, but Eva got there first - she was the advance person before even Jack.

The who's-zoomin'-who thing is important too, isn't it? For instance the rumor is that J Edgar had enough dirt on Johnson to take him down completely (which is why Hoover became Director For Life), but on the other Carlos Marcello had the goods on Hoover - and, to complete the triangle, Johnson could have taken down Marcello if he wanted to. Instead, it looks likely they all got into bed with each other. And, it turns out, Fred Black was a lifelong friend and confidant of Johnny Roselli.

The trouble with all this is - none of this explains Lee Harvey Oswald, where he came from or why he was there. It's a wonderful explanation for the ground game but it doesn't touch upon the question of the multiple Alek Hidell ID's. There's a whole other sub-plot there, isn't there? And, to determine whether the two plots are related, considerable study (and luck) would be required.

Wouldn't it be a little premature to restrict our scope to "small" conspiracies? I mean, unless you want to ignore a whole plethora of geographically distinct episodes of foreknowledge of the assassination (everywhere from California to Indiana to Miami to Louisiana) - and where most of the principals with that foreknowledge end up dead within days of JFK? That sure doesn't sound like any "small, reasonably sized" conspiracy to me - it sounds quite the opposite!

But for the people who'd like to focus on Sam Giancana, I'd ask this question: where was Tony Accardo in all this?

Tony's biggest concern, according to the history books, was laundering about 2 billion dollars a year. (In 1963 money - that would be like 20 billion today). How did Tony accomplish this? Answer: he used Jimmy Hoffa's Teamster pension funds. The Teamsters - they're the ones who install and service the vending machines, and they're also the ones who drive the heroin from Florida to Dallas on their trucks. And Jack Ruby is involved in both of those activities - vending machines, and heroin.

And of course we know about Jack's relationship with the unions... um....

I would say, there are very few conspiracy theories that fit together like the 8F thinking does - but it requires a "large" conspiracy, and it requires logistical support of an extensive and precise nature. It's not required that everyone know the whole scope and the details, but if someone were asked to print up six sets of ID's for an Alek Hidell there would usually be at least a cockamamie explanation of some sort.

But it still doesn't explain Oswald. People like Oswald aren't a dime a dozen, they're pretty hard to find. Someone must have realized early on that he was "perfect for the job". And then created the conditions under which he was, in fact, perfect.

I think there is overwhelming evidence for at least THREE shooters: one in front by the puff of smoke (at the HSCA Acoustic Location), one behind Zapruder et al to the west of the western cupola (approximately behind the stairs by the picket fence, or in that general area), and the one from the back (ostensibly located at the TSBD). And, while three shooters does not a large conspiracy make, it would certainly seem to indicate they intended to finish the job (much as the Tippit Shooter issued the coup de grace).

Non,

          In regard to the first sentence I disagree that a conspiracy of limited size is not feasible. In my view it is far more likely that a small compartmentalized group could undertake the assassination. According the CIA Assassination Guide written in 1954, this is exactly what is recommended. The Guide is among the many programs the Agency feasibly allowed the Mafia and the Anti-Castro Cuban groups to learn in their attempts to murder Fidel Castro. It does not require a huge group to kill the President it requires the right plan an a group of limited size. This is due in my view to three important factors. First, it limits any opportunity for exposure or betrayal. Second, if someone is to testify before an investigation it limits the amount of people that need to be eliminated to secure the plot, such as when Johnny Roselli, Sam Giancana, Charles Nicoletti were all killed just before giving testimony to a Congressional investigation. Finally a limited plot leaves limited trace evidence, many false trials and confessions can be introduced to cloud the truth nearly beyond recognition. Public speculations add to the complexity of the already existing Gordian knot. 

The cover up I agree would involve more people, however in my view most involved are pawns covering their own collective "asses" for illegal programs associated with the conspiracy. I would indicate again the unworkable nature of most large plots, they usually fail and are discovered. For instance Watergate, The Iran Contra Scandal, The Bay of Pigs, the problem with a large plot is too many people. Most large plots fail. In my view it does not require a massive conspiracy to hide the key elements and let others trying to hide their own programs do likewise. 

I would not state it is improbable for Tony Accardo to be involved. However based on the evidence I have reviewed I can put Giancana, Roselli, Trafficante, and CIA members Robert Maheu and William Harvey in repeated contact before, during, and after the assassination. I do not contend that many did not suspect things were amiss, just that those involved were feasibly limited to ensure success.

I would not suggest restricting ourselves to anything except what we can support with evidence.  

Oswald in my view is no special person, he is one of many possible dupes that feasibly may have been used by the Bureau or the Agency during the Cold War. However, if he were in fact a low level contact of either group and not their dupe it would still necessitate a cover up. He in my view has gained notoriety and sympathy and feasibly became something more than he actually was.

You of course have the right to contend there were more than two gunman, I just support two because that is what most evidence offers.

Carmine, I hear you and I appreciate your effort to use Occam's Razor on the theories. I like Occam's Razor very much, I try to adhere to it whenever possible. In this case, two things bother me: a ) the many people with advance knowledge of the specifics of the assassination (most of whom died in mysterious circumstances shortly after opening their mouths), and b ) the level of logistical support involved in concepts like "multiple Hidell ID's".

Brian,

Most people seem rabid to uncover the conspiracy. I, on the other hand, try to solve a murder. Once the murder is solved, one can start to piece together the facts of the conspiracy to murder.

To do otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.

The rather fuzzy concept of "the many people with advance knowledge of the specifics of the assassination (most of whom died in mysterious circumstances shortly after opening their mouths)" needs clarification. Joseph Milteer mentioned killing JFK with a high powered rifle from a window in a tall building. While this is, in essence what is purported to have happened in Dallas, I would not call that anything akin to precise knowledge beforehand. As many are aware, the killing shot appears to have come from in front of the President rather than a high powered rifle from a tall building.

It is that sort of thing that so many people use to claim prior knowledge and therefore a conspiracy. I do not.

As for all the people who had this vital information that were killed, I have seen a lot of energy being put into that angle which I find a bit of a stretch. That there were some deaths that seem indicative of plugging leaks, not all can be so assigned. Some people do die, even under rather extraordinary circumstances, but that does not in and of itself evidence a conspiracy. So many of those that are claimed to have been snuffed to silence them had already imparted the knowledge they had. Killing them afterward would be much like closing the gate after the horse had run off. Or the particular killing could have been done as part of a disinformation campaign, meaning their testimony may have been erroneous to start with but became infused with meaning due to their death. To disallow this notion offhandedly is counter-productive.

Your other point, concerning "the level of logistical support involved in concepts like 'multiple Hidell ID's'" should not be included in the former. To conflate the coverup(s) with the assassination plots lacks standing as all the plots to kill may have absolutely nothing to do with the assassination. Speculation of such is a nice starting point for research but not entirely indicative of any firm connection.

Kennedy pissed off a lot of people and there were many who wanted him removed. They cannot all have been in Dealey Plaza that day nor can they all have contributed materially to the coverup.

Regardless of all the people and plots uncovered against Kennedy it could have been a very small group. Minimalistically thinking, it could have been no more than Emory Roberts, Bill Greer, and two shooters. The Secret Service kept tabs on all the threats against JFK and would have been well-positioned to create a killing in the best possible location to spread the blame around.

As one can witness in the Lincoln assassination, foreknowledge of a plot to kidnap could very easily be leveraged into a murder with someone else holding the bag. And in the Lincoln killing, as we see in the JFK murder, there were many plots rumored that were not complicit in the crime itself. Plotting an act and actually committing the same should be kept entirely separate until evidence of any connection is clearly established.

All notions of conspiracy need to be put on hold until the actual murder can be solved. Only when the actual facts of the killing are determined, should anyone expend the energy toward compiling a roster of conspirators. To reverse the order of precedence results only in a pleasant but distracting parlor game. One might as well start plugging names into an Evica/Draco model in wild abandon. Far too many connections can be inferred given the occupations of several of the suspects.

Not that there is anything wrong with wild rampant speculation but the results of such are far from what is needed to create a case capable of weathering a Grand Jury. And that is what we are trying to accomplish.

Separating the wheat from the chaff in the case is difficult especially given the mountain of evidence we encounter. It is especially noticeable for you as you compile the events and persons on the timeline but one should really start with the case of murder before we spend more time investigating all the peripheral players given us through the various coverup operations.

Terry, 

I could not have stated it better myself. We must separate the probable from the possible to form our most feasible contentions. 


Non,
        In regard to your two concerns, the advance knowledge of methodology was authored in the 1954 in my view in the Assassination Proposals, these same methods were taught to the Mafia and the anti-Castro Cubans, thus hundreds of people knew and could have further disseminated the information to others. In my view while certain people had some of the specifics from association or prior knowledge, yet seemingly no one had the entire plot save those who feasibly undertook it. Additionally I would note those such as James Files and Judyth Baker who attempted to learn certain facts and insert themselves into events. Add decades of speculations and we indeed have many with asserted but little proven direct knowledge. 

I agree with Terry that extensive lists some have compiled of related deaths are not feasible, nor bear direct relation. In my view only five deaths occurred in relation based upon evidence of direct contact with feasible conspirators and related officials. All but one of the deaths I would view as significant were declared officially homicides and evidence also provides support of their connections to a plot. Some of these deaths were individuals directly employed by or related to an official organization. In my view if we place high standards of relevance and evidentiary connections on the huge list some regard as credible, most do not qualify as directly related to the assassination. 

As for the multiple examples of evidence to implicate Oswald I would not dispute repeated suppression and feasible alteration occurred. Yet this would only support they sought to incriminate Oswald, not that these officials had knowledge of the actual plot or were complicit. In my view we cannot attribute complicity to what can be explained by incompetence or suppression to protect the official case. It was corruption but not in my view complicity.

terlin wrote:Most people seem rabid to uncover the conspiracy. I, on the other hand, try to solve a murder. Once the murder is solved, one can start to piece together the facts of the conspiracy to murder.

To do otherwise is putting the cart before the horse.

Terry sold me on this horse-before–the-cart approach after I read his excellent book, The Plot to Kill John Wilkes Booth, by C. Fenway Braxton.
 
There are so many "pixels" of data involved in cases like these that can be manipulated in countless ways to paint plausible sounding theories that ultimately can obscure the real issue—solving the crime which is murder.
 
In leading up to question number 4 of his 1964 "16 Questions on the Assassination" paper, Bertrand Russell said:
 
"At the outset the Commission appointed six panels through which it would conduct its enquiry. They considered: (1) What did Oswald do on November 22, 1963? (2) What was Oswald’s background? (3) What did Oswald do in the U.S. Marine Corps, and in the Soviet Union? (4) How did Ruby kill Oswald? (5) What is Ruby’s background? (6) What efforts were taken to protect the President on November 22? This raises my fourth question: Why did the Warren Commission not establish a panel to deal with the question of who killed President John F. Kennedy?"
 
Kind of makes one go "Duh."
 
By spending all of its energy to disprove a conspiracy, the Warren Commission actually focused on conspiracy over solving the crime. People today are justified in believing there was a conspiracy, but first things first. Solve the crime of murder using what Carmine always hammers home, reliable, primary evidence, then see where that leads.

I dn not agree that Hidell ID's are part of the post-assassination cover-up. I believe they are very much part of the pre-assassination frame.

I also disagree that the CIA taught the Mafia anything. Everything I've studied indicates it was quite the other way around. The Mafia were the seasoned veterans and they ran a tight ship, whereas the CIA were mostly a bunch of drunken cowboys and as an organization they were hopelessly porous. In the relationship between the Mafia and the CIA, the Mafia were the players and the CIA were the playees. The CIA may have believed otherwise at the time, but that does appear to be the reality. The vaunted spymasters got played by a bunch of clever street urchins, is the way it looks. (No great surprise there, happens all the time).

Now, by "pre-assassination conspiracy" are we talking specifically about the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy? If so, you have to think of the SCOPE of such a thing. Let's say, that whoever did this murder, was acting alone (or in a "very small group"). Well, they didn't really know how that motorcade would play out, did they? The route wasn't published till a few days beforehand, there was no possible way they could have positioned Oswald (or anyone else) inside the TSBD in a legitimate role within a seven day window.

If "they" (the supposed conspirators) were really truly interested in getting Kennedy, they would have had to have shooters in other places TOO - at the Trade Mart for instance. (Maybe even at the hotel in the morning, that would be an interesting thing to check into - was anyone casing the joint at that point?). Because they didn't know when and where the opportunity would arise. So, if they DID have multiple shooters positioned in various places, AND each of them was supposed to be a designated patsy..... y'know.... (we're talkin' BIG conspiracy now, right?)

So, if you want to posit a "small" conspiracy, what you're really positing is a PORTABLE conspiracy - one that does not require advance knowledge of the President's location.

The physical element is only a tiny part of a murder. Means, motive, and opportunity are the three cornerstones the law looks for. "Means" in this case, means more than just a weapon - it means money, it means people, it means logistics, it means knowledge - even "special" knowledge that most people don't have.

And, I'm sure you will agree, the level of "coincidence" around this thing is staggering. Who was it that said one's random, two's a coincidence, and three's a conspiracy? Well, you've got three HUNDRED in this one, dontcha? You know... the nuclear codes just HAPPENED to go missing, the electricity in DC just HAPPENED to go dead, some guy just HAPPENED to predict the kidnapping of Sinatra's kid.... y'know....

If I were starting out from scratch as a murder investigator on this case, I would certainly hang my hat first and foremost on the physical evidence. The physical evidence says: Lee Harvey Oswald never fired a rifle that day - but someone else in the same building did, and also someone else across the way on the grassy knoll did too. That's what the physical evidence says - and there's also quite a bit of physical evidence around the actual shots (even the bullet fragments and so on), and NONE of that supports the official story line. So, the first thing I would have to do as a new investigator, is free myself from the shackles of the official story. (Which, thankfully, turns out to be trivially easy to do).

However the physical evidence is what it is - it is neither anything more or less just because of its adoption into the official story (or lack thereof). And besides, there is no a priori reason to separate the pre- and post-assassination conspiracies. That is a supposition based on a conjecture, just like the 8F theory. The nice thing about the 8F is it explains the compartments, whereas most of the others don't.

The logic of "if there was a fourth shot, there was a conspiracy" is true only if you believe the Warren Commission's BS in the first place. Which is kind of a bassackwards and sideways way of arguing logic - you say you disbelieve the Commission yet you use their theory to argue for a conspiracy? Doesn't work, right? As you say, I would prefer to start from scratch. Any two people DOES make a conspiracy. Forget about the idiotic Warren Commission, they're not even worth talking about. You got a front shooter for the head shot and a back shooter for Connally, and that's enough! That's enough for a pre-assassination conspiracy. It's just too darn bad the autopsy got mangled the way it did, otherwise we'd know a whole lot more about the physicals of it, but we don't seem to have the luxury of proceeding along the lines of a normal murder investigation on this one.

I agree that before we start asking "who set Oswald up", we should be asking "was Oswald the shooter". (Or "a" shooter). So, in addition to the pre-assassination conspiracy involving the JFK murder, and the post-assassination conspiracy involving the JFk murder, we have a whole separate pre-assassination conspiracy about "setting Oswald up". They're separate, right? (or at least "separable", for purposes of analysis).

nonsqtr wrote:I dn not agree that Hidell ID's are part of the post-assassination cover-up. I believe they are very much part of the pre-assassination frame.

I also disagree that the CIA taught the Mafia anything. Everything I've studied indicates it was quite the other way around. The Mafia were the seasoned veterans and they ran a tight ship, whereas the CIA were mostly a bunch of drunken cowboys and as an organization they were hopelessly porous. In the relationship between the Mafia and the CIA, the Mafia were the players and the CIA were the playees. The CIA may have believed otherwise at the time, but that does appear to be the reality. The vaunted spymasters got played by a bunch of clever street urchins, is the way it looks. (No great surprise there, happens all the time).

Now, by "pre-assassination conspiracy" are we talking specifically about the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy? If so, you have to think of the SCOPE of such a thing. Let's say, that whoever did this murder, was acting alone (or in a "very small group"). Well, they didn't really know how that motorcade would play out, did they? The route wasn't published till a few days beforehand, there was no possible way they could have positioned Oswald (or anyone else) inside the TSBD in a legitimate role within a seven day window.

If "they" (the supposed conspirators) were really truly interested in getting Kennedy, they would have had to have shooters in other places TOO - at the Trade Mart for instance. (Maybe even at the hotel in the morning, that would be an interesting thing to check into - was anyone casing the joint at that point?). Because they didn't know when and where the opportunity would arise. So, if they DID have multiple shooters positioned in various places, AND each of them was supposed to be a designated patsy..... y'know.... (we're talkin' BIG conspiracy now, right?)

So, if you want to posit a "small" conspiracy, what you're really positing is a PORTABLE conspiracy - one that does not require advance knowledge of the President's location.

The physical element is only a tiny part of a murder. Means, motive, and opportunity are the three cornerstones the law looks for. "Means" in this case, means more than just a weapon - it means money, it means people, it means logistics, it means knowledge - even "special" knowledge that most people don't have.

And, I'm sure you will agree, the level of "coincidence" around this thing is staggering. Who was it that said one's random, two's a coincidence, and three's a conspiracy? Well, you've got three HUNDRED in this one, dontcha? You know... the nuclear codes just HAPPENED to go missing, the electricity in DC just HAPPENED to go dead, some guy just HAPPENED to predict the kidnapping of Sinatra's kid.... y'know....

If I were starting out from scratch as a murder investigator on this case, I would certainly hang my hat first and foremost on the physical evidence. The physical evidence says: Lee Harvey Oswald never fired a rifle that day - but someone else in the same building did, and also someone else across the way on the grassy knoll did too. That's what the physical evidence says - and there's also quite a bit of physical evidence around the actual shots (even the bullet fragments and so on), and NONE of that supports the official story line. So, the first thing I would have to do as a new investigator, is free myself from the shackles of the official story. (Which, thankfully, turns out to be trivially easy to do).

However the physical evidence is what it is - it is neither anything more or less just because of its adoption into the official story (or lack thereof). And besides, there is no a priori reason to separate the pre- and post-assassination conspiracies. That is a supposition based on a conjecture, just like the 8F theory. The nice thing about the 8F is it explains the compartments, whereas most of the others don't.

The logic of "if there was a fourth shot, there was a conspiracy" is true only if you believe the Warren Commission's BS in the first place. Which is kind of a bassackwards and sideways way of arguing logic - you say you disbelieve the Commission yet you use their theory to argue for a conspiracy? Doesn't work, right? As you say, I would prefer to start from scratch. Any two people DOES make a conspiracy. Forget about the idiotic Warren Commission, they're not even worth talking about. You got a front shooter for the head shot and a back shooter for Connally, and that's enough! That's enough for a pre-assassination conspiracy. It's just too darn bad the autopsy got mangled the way it did, otherwise we'd know a whole lot more about the physicals of it, but we don't seem to have the luxury of proceeding along the lines of a normal murder investigation on this one.

I agree that before we start asking "who set Oswald up", we should be asking "was Oswald the shooter". (Or "a" shooter). So, in addition to the pre-assassination conspiracy involving the JFK murder, and the post-assassination conspiracy involving the JFk murder, we have a whole separate pre-assassination conspiracy about "setting Oswald up". They're separate, right? (or at least "separable", for purposes of analysis).

Non,

    I would not begrudge your claim that the wallet and other items are part of the pre-assassination conspiracy, however in my view that is not supported by sufficient evidence. Additionally while you may disagree that the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans received training and access to paramilitary groups the evidence in my view supports this. It was not the Mafia who approached the Agency to murder Castro, while indeed the Mafia could have feasibly already been engaged in ways to remove Castro, it required the planning and the paramilitary resources of the Agency to make this possible. 

While indeed the Mafioso were skilled and possessed wits beyond those most would attribute to them, it requires in my view not just their abilities to complete the style of assassination undertaken. For instance, the Mafia was not in the habit of using rifles at a distance in a predetermined manner within 100 yards as suggested by the Agency Assassination Guide. Oswald is not the regular Mafia dupe in my view but he does closely resemble the "lost assassin" recommended in the Agency Guide. 

I do agree the Agency likely underestimated the power and influence of the regional Mafia bosses, however if they had no use to the Mafia, the Mafia would likely not have engaged in my view. Profit, use of information, and assets would in my view be a reasonable motivation for participation in the Castro meetings. I also do not consider every associated plot directly connected to the assassination. For instance it does not require the complicity of ever person involved in the Castro assassination plots, evidence mishandling, or illegal prior actions peripheral to the assassination for them to suppress any related data. They are separate related illegal plots, in essence a few among many. Interwoven in this fabric of these deceptions could be the true plot, yet discerning one deceit from another is our challenge. 

I disagree about the need for a timeline days before. In this case there could be no perfect timeline. The motorcade being late prevented any preset timeline from functioning. In my view it is more probable the snipers were nearby and waited for the opportunity to fire. The additional levels of complexity required to support your ideas is not necessary in my view. It does not require days to have two snipers in the general required area and to exit following the shots. This lack of any timeline in my view additionally may support Oswald not firing due to the limited window of time and the disjointed Commission timeline. I agree the physical evidence does contend Oswald's guilt, but I would not state impossible, anything is possible. 

A portable conspiracy? Hmm, perhaps not exactly, but I would support it was flexible and could be undertaken and its participants escape was feasibly rapid. This small contained group could operate and vanish without the huge unwieldy problems faced by a large construct. Indeed the plan is more important than the location. If we look to related past allegations this small plot would resemble the couple of Cuban hit-men claimed by Abraham Bolden, supported by Richard Cain a Giancana associate, or the Vallee and Milteer incidents as well. Any place with the proper setting and a difficult security environment would do. If they waited for the perfect chance with many assets conducting dozens of operations it might never occur. 

The physical evidence is important, yet only important when we can verify it. In my view it should be give equal weight with credible groups of witnesses (GK and TSBD) and the many substantial official inconsistencies. 

I would not state conclusively it had to be a small plot, yet it is in my view far more feasible based on the evidence I have reviewed.

Carmine Savastano wrote:

nonsqtr wrote:I dn not agree that Hidell ID's are part of the post-assassination cover-up. I believe they are very much part of the pre-assassination frame.

I also disagree that the CIA taught the Mafia anything. Everything I've studied indicates it was quite the other way around. The Mafia were the seasoned veterans and they ran a tight ship, whereas the CIA were mostly a bunch of drunken cowboys and as an organization they were hopelessly porous. In the relationship between the Mafia and the CIA, the Mafia were the players and the CIA were the playees. The CIA may have believed otherwise at the time, but that does appear to be the reality. The vaunted spymasters got played by a bunch of clever street urchins, is the way it looks. (No great surprise there, happens all the time).

Now, by "pre-assassination conspiracy" are we talking specifically about the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy? If so, you have to think of the SCOPE of such a thing. Let's say, that whoever did this murder, was acting alone (or in a "very small group"). Well, they didn't really know how that motorcade would play out, did they? The route wasn't published till a few days beforehand, there was no possible way they could have positioned Oswald (or anyone else) inside the TSBD in a legitimate role within a seven day window.

If "they" (the supposed conspirators) were really truly interested in getting Kennedy, they would have had to have shooters in other places TOO - at the Trade Mart for instance. (Maybe even at the hotel in the morning, that would be an interesting thing to check into - was anyone casing the joint at that point?). Because they didn't know when and where the opportunity would arise. So, if they DID have multiple shooters positioned in various places, AND each of them was supposed to be a designated patsy..... y'know.... (we're talkin' BIG conspiracy now, right?)

So, if you want to posit a "small" conspiracy, what you're really positing is a PORTABLE conspiracy - one that does not require advance knowledge of the President's location.

The physical element is only a tiny part of a murder. Means, motive, and opportunity are the three cornerstones the law looks for. "Means" in this case, means more than just a weapon - it means money, it means people, it means logistics, it means knowledge - even "special" knowledge that most people don't have.

And, I'm sure you will agree, the level of "coincidence" around this thing is staggering. Who was it that said one's random, two's a coincidence, and three's a conspiracy? Well, you've got three HUNDRED in this one, dontcha? You know... the nuclear codes just HAPPENED to go missing, the electricity in DC just HAPPENED to go dead, some guy just HAPPENED to predict the kidnapping of Sinatra's kid.... y'know....

If I were starting out from scratch as a murder investigator on this case, I would certainly hang my hat first and foremost on the physical evidence. The physical evidence says: Lee Harvey Oswald never fired a rifle that day - but someone else in the same building did, and also someone else across the way on the grassy knoll did too. That's what the physical evidence says - and there's also quite a bit of physical evidence around the actual shots (even the bullet fragments and so on), and NONE of that supports the official story line. So, the first thing I would have to do as a new investigator, is free myself from the shackles of the official story. (Which, thankfully, turns out to be trivially easy to do).

However the physical evidence is what it is - it is neither anything more or less just because of its adoption into the official story (or lack thereof). And besides, there is no a priori reason to separate the pre- and post-assassination conspiracies. That is a supposition based on a conjecture, just like the 8F theory. The nice thing about the 8F is it explains the compartments, whereas most of the others don't.

The logic of "if there was a fourth shot, there was a conspiracy" is true only if you believe the Warren Commission's BS in the first place. Which is kind of a bassackwards and sideways way of arguing logic - you say you disbelieve the Commission yet you use their theory to argue for a conspiracy? Doesn't work, right? As you say, I would prefer to start from scratch. Any two people DOES make a conspiracy. Forget about the idiotic Warren Commission, they're not even worth talking about. You got a front shooter for the head shot and a back shooter for Connally, and that's enough! That's enough for a pre-assassination conspiracy. It's just too darn bad the autopsy got mangled the way it did, otherwise we'd know a whole lot more about the physicals of it, but we don't seem to have the luxury of proceeding along the lines of a normal murder investigation on this one.

I agree that before we start asking "who set Oswald up", we should be asking "was Oswald the shooter". (Or "a" shooter). So, in addition to the pre-assassination conspiracy involving the JFK murder, and the post-assassination conspiracy involving the JFk murder, we have a whole separate pre-assassination conspiracy about "setting Oswald up". They're separate, right? (or at least "separable", for purposes of analysis).

Non,

    I would not begrudge your claim that the wallet and other items are part of the pre-assassination conspiracy, however in my view that is not supported by sufficient evidence. Additionally while you may disagree that the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans received training and access to paramilitary groups the evidence in my view supports this. It was not the Mafia who approached the Agency to murder Castro, while indeed the Mafia could have feasibly already been engaged in ways to remove Castro, it required the planning and the paramilitary resources of the Agency to make this possible. 

While indeed the Mafioso were skilled and possessed wits beyond those most would attribute to them, it requires in my view not just their abilities to complete the style of assassination undertaken. For instance, the Mafia was not in the habit of using rifles at a distance in a predetermined manner within 100 yards as suggested by the Agency Assassination Guide. Oswald is not the regular Mafia dupe in my view but he does closely resemble the "lost assassin" recommended in the Agency Guide. 

I do agree the Agency likely underestimated the power and influence of the regional Mafia bosses, however if they had no use to the Mafia, the Mafia would likely not have engaged in my view. Profit, use of information, and assets would in my view be a reasonable motivation for participation in the Castro meetings. I also do not consider every associated plot directly connected to the assassination. For instance it does not require the complicity of ever person involved in the Castro assassination plots, evidence mishandling, or illegal prior actions peripheral to the assassination for them to suppress any related data. They are separate related illegal plots, in essence a few among many. Interwoven in this fabric of these deceptions could be the true plot, yet discerning one deceit from another is our challenge. 

I disagree about the need for a timeline days before. In this case there could be no perfect timeline. The motorcade being late prevented any preset timeline from functioning. In my view it is more probable the snipers were nearby and waited for the opportunity to fire. The additional levels of complexity required to support your ideas is not necessary in my view. It does not require days to have two snipers in the general required area and to exit following the shots. This lack of any timeline in my view additionally may support Oswald not firing due to the limited window of time and the disjointed Commission timeline. I agree the physical evidence does contend Oswald's guilt, but I would not state impossible, anything is possible. 

A portable conspiracy? Hmm, perhaps not exactly, but I would support it was flexible and could be undertaken and its participants escape was feasibly rapid. This small contained group could operate and vanish without the huge unwieldy problems faced by a large construct. Indeed the plan is more important than the location. If we look to related past allegations this small plot would resemble the couple of Cuban hit-men claimed by Abraham Bolden, supported by Richard Cain a Giancana associate, or the Vallee and Milteer incidents as well. Any place with the proper setting and a difficult security environment would do. If they waited for the perfect chance with many assets conducting dozens of operations it might never occur. 

The physical evidence is important, yet only important when we can verify it. In my view it should be give equal weight with credible groups of witnesses (GK and TSBD) and the many substantial official inconsistencies. 

I would not state conclusively it had to be a small plot, yet it is in my view far more feasible based on the evidence I have reviewed.

Excellent! Thank you Carmine, this is a great discussion. You're raising an excellent point in the early part of your post, and in my view there are basically two ways to approach this body of evidence (and "JFK evidence in general") - one is, that one can be "rigorous", very strict, in terms of what one demands from evidence and the standards one sets for acceptable proof. This is the scientific (hopefully) approach, but then there is also the other approach, which is that anything that remains "plausible" should be on the table. In other words, the standard is looser, it is not "proof" that is being demanded, but merely "plausibility".

Those two approaches, in my view, are complementary, and I use them both. I use the "plausibility" view when I'm working top-down trying to figure out how a theory may have been implemented, and I use the "rigorous" view when I'm working bottom-up and considering whether a particular piece of evidence does or does not support a theory. When one "builds the data tree", so to speak, it seems that repeated traversal is necessary (if only to ensure that one has a robust model, but I also find myself traversing it just in the course of building it, it seems that leaf nodes can often be "attached" to branches, perhaps in much the same way that a jigsaw puzzle is built).

For instance - the wallet is interesting because "if" one accepts that there were in fact two wallets, with two identical or nearly identical sets of IDs (including two Hidell ID's), then there are three possibilities - either Oswald made them himself, or someone else made them for him, OR, he made one and someone else made the other. The claim (of the Warren Commission I think, although I'm not exactly sure where it actually came from), is that Oswald made the ID while working at Jaggars, using his own Selective Service card as a foundation, and likely employing some of Jaggars' advanced photographic equipment to insert the photo and move around a few of the text fields. What's interesting about that though, is the fonts. Have you looked at those? They're quite interesting, there's several of them in there, that weren't in the original Selective Service card, and it's not entirely clear that Jaggars would have had a font library lying around (that's more in the domain of stationary printing outfits and stuff like that, not a company who's doing advanced photographic work for the government, at most you'd expect them to have a basic set of "government fonts" and none of the fancy Gothic stuff and such).

So, I offer the above paragraph as an example of top-down thinking, it starts with the theory and moves into the particulars. It begins with a question along the lines of "self, how would I do this if I had to do it myself", and then it tries to "connect" those branches with the leaf nodes provided by the details of the Selective Service card. And, while admittedly loose and non-rigorous, this type of thinking does sometimes have its advantages when it comes to evidentiary matters - not that it can "create" evidence or conjure any up where none exists, but, the meaning and significance of evidence is often obscured or overlooked, even by the experts and professionals.

And, regarding the CIA-Mafia relationship, everything you say is true! And, I have a high-level take on that, based on "the history of the Mafia" that I've read. My take is, all those CIA methods and manuals came out of the war. Well, the Mafia, it turns out, was already in bed with the US government during WW-2. One of their jobs was to protect the docks, that's how the mob got into the longshoreman's union and vice versa. The US gubmint just didn't have the manpower to do that, and the Mafia provided the organizers, and a grateful government looked the other way while the mobsters skimmed a few extra percent off the till, and took a few boxes out of every cargo container that passed through their hands. The "organizers" is the keyword in this paragraph. The mob was very good at organizing things. That talent gave them a very long reach. I'll bet they knew what was in those CIA manuals long before the CIA volunteered any training.  (Also remember the CIA hired "Colonel Rawlston" to do the training).

Your thinking on the small conspiracy is very interesting, I'd like to consider it some more. I'm having a real problem considering how a couple of cowboys could have done this, though. And any such "minimalist" theory has to explain the Jack Ruby connection, because he did in fact kill Oswald (for reasons know only to Ruby, but definitely not involving any extraordinary sympathy for Jackie). This is where it kind of blows up for me, because Jack Ruby may have been a small-time operator but he was still a mobster, and there's no obvious reason for him to have any ideological ties to Cuba or to any particular politics, other than money. The consistent scuttlebutt seems to be that Jack would work for whomever paid him, and if you're suggesting that someone paid him, then this would be the kind of linkage where I'd want to see some evidence, if you're suggesting that "someone" was someone other than the Mob. I can't envision anyone putting his life on the line for something like this, unless there was a threat involved, a Sword of Damocles of some sort. The only thing I can think of is the mob, I'm not aware of any other connections or anyone else who could make Ruby take a risk like that, are you? This line of thinking leads me to believe that the Mafia "had to" be involved somehow, and if someone paid Ruby then it definitely would have gone all the way up the chain of command (nothing like that happens in Mafia-land without the don's approval, and then we have Campisi visiting Ruby in jail and so on.... "something" went on there, that doesn't happen just for social reasons).

Anyway, a lot of top-down thinking. I'm trying to work bottom-up on the web site, I find that task impossible without a computer (just because of the sheer volume of information). I'm presently looking at "window crossings" which are basically conflicts in the evidence - like when one person is in two different places at the same time. So, I can now create a pretty thorough and pretty rigorous list of "conflicts in the evidence", and some of those have been explained over time, historically, but many of them remain. (It's a long, long list). But let's say you're given this list. Here is a list of all the conflicts - and how are you going to look at this list? Are you going to be rigorous about it and toss out anything that has a conflict? Or, how do you determine when there is "enough" of a conflict to invalidate the evidence or make it suspicious?

If it were me, I definitely wouldn't toss out ANY evidence just because it happens to conflict with another piece of evidence. Because, I have no way of knowing in advance which is more accurate or closer to the truth. And I can't toss both ends of the conflict out either, because then I start "ignoring" important areas of evidence, for which there is evidence, so it seems to me the wisest policy is to keep everything and use a different method to determine the "worth" (or lack thereof) of a particular piece of evidence. On the web site I use "confidence levels", but there are other ways too - and so far it seems that there is yet another necessary method which is "extrapolation" (which is a less rigorous way of saying "curve fitting"). All of these tools can be brought to bear on the data, and in the process of doing that one is both forced to look at it, and forced to think about it.

I fully agree with your point about discerning one deceit from another. It seems that "everyone" lies in this story - even the officials! (Sometimes "especially" the officials - which is noteworthy in and of itself). That is something the computer can't tell us - what people have to hide and why they behave the way they do. It does appear that there was a systematic campaign of witness intimidation at some point, and the interesting thing about that is I'm not aware of any collusion whatsoever between the mafia and the authorities in that regard. It's almost as if the two were operating entirely independently on that particular piece, the mafia had its reasons and the authorities had their reasons and the interests just happened to coincide, and they both felt strongly about it, so they both took it upon themselves to act. If there were collusion on that piece, I think we would have heard about it somehow, that's too juicy for someone in the know not to write a tell-all book at some point.

Non,

        I 'm glad we both agree there is always room for new perspective and ideas. I would agree no method is perfect and all have their benefits and flaws. Yet in my view the minimalist approach allows for the necessary ability to set aside not directly involved connections that often render some ideas and views convoluted or astray from more important evidence. For instance while some of John Armstrong's Mexico City research was excellent, it was all compromised by his failure to later operate with a high standard of evidence regarding multiple Oswalds. 

The WWII operations are definitely feasible, but conclusive proof is does not yet support all these prior alleged associations. Indeed the Mafia had plans, and they likely included most of the Agency desires as well. However, it is the operational information that if not the CIA, then perhaps the Anti-Castro paramilitary forces taught to the Mafia. I would contend it is one thing to tell them, entirely another to teach them military tactics and weapon use with a military style plan. Additionally since certain related Mafia parties were already in the military this too might have given them insights. 

Among the reasons that I support the minimalist view is because of the many official illegal operations a cover up would have eventually become necessary in some respects. However, the massive amount of sloppy mistakes and credible suppression in my view support most related people had no clue the assassination was to occur. Their scrambling and inconsistency support that only a handful actually knew the sequence of a plot. Many suspected and participated in various activities, but the few directly authorizing the many illegal plots are those who had reasonable motivation to obstruct the investigation.

Among this small group in my view would be Allen Dulles who authorized the Castro plots and never said a thing to the Commission about them. In my view with a man like Dulles suppressing information and meeting with other CIA officials at the highest levels he can do what a large group is attributed to do by others who support a large plot. Additionally, with a single man covering so much information it removes the need for lower operatives to act with any knowledge of the assassination being feasibly connected. They were just following orders. 

Remember De Morenschildt did seek to put out a book, it did not end well for him.

Carmine, may I ask you something? If you're inclined towards a minimalist conspiracy, what's your take on Rose Cheramie?

Seems to me, she has one of the most realistic and most believable stories in this whole mess.

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr06.html

The dollar amounts are exactly in the right ballpark, and there was no way she could have known this "randomly".

Back in the 60's, people could easily dismiss stuff like this as "the ramblings of a dope addict", because people in general were completely ignorant of drugs and drug behavior.

Cheramie's story rings true to me, there is no part of it that doesn't.

What do you think?

Non,

        Ms. Rose Cheramie (Melba Christine Marcades) from what I am familiar with eventually claimed that two anti-Castro Cubans were connected to a plot. This is in my view does not preclude the small conspiracy I stated. They did not give specific details, they did not implicate any of the conspirators according to Cheramie, thus in my view they were not directly involved. Some people spoke of Kennedy's plotted demise fo a long duration, some even were similar to the eventually occurrence (Milteer, Sturgis) yet that does not infer they were necessarily involved without substantial evidence. 

Cheramie also did not make the Oswald and Ruby connection until after the Assassination. i. Among he statements of the Assassination was "word from the Underworld", while it is feasible it is not conclusive in my view. The doctor affirmed some aspects of her story before the HSCA, police lieutenant Fruge interviewed stated her original description of the men was Italian or resembling Italians ii. Cheramie includes "kill Kennedy" in her statement to the doctor it is not specific. A week later she asserts the more complete plot for 8,000 dollars. An unlikely sum in my view. 

While her testimony about the drug deal is feasible iii., her asserted first hand knowledge of assassination is not convincing in my view. Further HSCA investigation and testimony indicate that Cheramie story and the number of companions and names of those men changed over time. iv. While her later claims of certain feasible suspects is worth noting, they did not begin with her, nor prove she or her companions had direct knowledge of a plot in my view.  

Aside from Cheramie's assertions in my view the more important detail in this HSCA Appendix is the reminder of credible evidence that associated Oswald and Ferrie in August 1963. v.

HSCA Appendix X


i. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Appendix X, Rose Cheramie, Staff Report of the HSCA Staff, March, 1979, pp. 199, 200 

ii. IBID, p. 200, 201

iii. IBID, p. 202

iv. IBID

v. IBID, p. 203

Yes. Rose Cheramie's story was verified by the manager at the Silver Slipper. Apparently she was telling the truth. Rose, apparently, did not know the men who were accompanying her "well", however the club manager later picked Sergio Arcacha Smith's photo out of a pile, along with that of Emilio Santana (Galindo).

Rose's claim was that she had been coerced into doing these evil deeds, her claim is that someone was holding her child until she completed the job. (What "the job" was, isn't exactly clear - according to Rose's story it had more to do with the heroin money than anything related to Kennedy).

One thing about heroin is, you need it all the time. Every six hours or so. Cheramie allegedly had her last fix at 2pm in the afternoon, meaning she would have been quite ripe by midnight. And, right on schedule, her withdrawal symptoms developed while she was sitting in jail.

http://www.ctka.net/pr799-rose.html

Lt Fruge apparently believed her story, he wrote that she gave "good and true information".

My question is: do we have any information on the child?

It is apparently Fruge rather than Marcades who spreads an embellished story subsequently to the assassination. Fruge is the one who reports that Cherami laughed when she saw the newspaper story where Jack Ruby claimed he didn't know Oswald. The two (Fruge and Marcades) were in the company of two other people, Ben Morgan of the Louisiana State Police and Anne Diechler of the revenue division.

Lt Fruge claims he verified that Cheramie worked as a stripper for Jack Ruby, that claim is contained in a document Fruge wrote at the time of her death.

http://www.jfk-online.com/cherdoc2.html

I may found the son. Michael Glenn Marcades. http://www.advancedbackgroundchecks.com/d/michael-marcades/38210317

The important thing about the Cheramie story IMO, is "not" that Rose had advance knowledge of the assassination.

It's that Sergio Arcacha Smith had advance knowledge of the assassination.

Non,

          Here is the interesting thing, while we disagree about Cheramie, I too believe Smith may have known rumblings or possibly had connection to the actual Conspirators. Smith was approached by Carlos Marcello to fund his group after he was already being funded by the Agency. However, I would contend Bannister, Marcello, or Ferrie utilized Smith without the Cheramie claim. Two different paths but we are seemingly in agreement that Smith is a feasible asset. I am not convinced he was conclusively involved but he was in the right place with the right people, namely Marcello.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Non,

          Here is the interesting thing, while we disagree about Cheramie, I too believe Smith may have known rumblings or possibly had connection to the actual Conspirators. Smith was approached by Carlos Marcello to fund his group after he was already being funded by the Agency. However, I would contend Bannister, Marcello, or Ferrie utilized Smith without the Cheramie claim. Two different paths but we are seemingly in agreement that Smith is a feasible asset. I am not convinced he was conclusively involved but he was in the right place with the right people, namely Marcello.

Yes. This guy Smith is pretty interesting. Just before he died he was apparently giving some quiet but increasingly revealing interviews, and one of the things he intimated is that he was working directly for Bobby Kennedy. (Which would put him on the Harry Ruiz team, wouldn't it?)


Bobby, apparently, invited Smith back east and put him up in a luxury suite and wined and dined him.

This guy's traveling in some pretty high circles for a "lowly air conditioner salesman", right? (Yuk - that's kind of like saying that Carlos Marcello was a tomato grower).


So now, the ex-Senator from Cuba is one of these characters who's always in trouble for money. He's fired from his job for embezzlement, he doesn't pay the rent, there are rumors he's pocketing the anti-Castro donations... his wife says that he was sent to New Orleans without a penny, but meanwhile he's supporting his family just fine and he's hobnobbing with David Ferrie and the Houma crowd. He needs money, why wouldn't he run a few drugs for Jack Ruby?

This thing about the prostitution is interesting, though. I've long heard allegations about "white slavery" and such, and Jack Ruby's involvement in it. I do know that in the 60's there was a time when the mafia was allegedly pumping little girls full of heroin so they'd become addicted, and then shipping them overseas for purposes unknown (from which trip they'd never return). If I were a cop this would be an angle I'd definitely want to follow up on, yes?


According to the LSP Cheramie's story checked out all the way down the line, they actually went to Galveston, found the boat she said would be there, found the guy she said she was supposed to get the dope from... It was enough to turn Fruge from a skeptic into a true believer.

The most astounding thing is Fritz's response: "no thanks, not interested, we have our man".

And apparently the FBI said the same thing.

Very odd, isn't it? They're DELIBERATELY not interested in drug running, prostitution, and possible white slavery, just because they "already have their man" for the assassination.


Here's a pretty good version of the story: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=809.70;wap2

Non,

        Having read the information from the links I am still not persuaded about Cheramie. My reasoning is based upon the years later identification based upon second and third hand accounts. Few of the statements relied upon are directly from Rose Cheramie or legal documents. Thus we must then rely not upon primary but secondary or tertiary sources of less known credibility. 

While I do agree Bugliosi's methods and bias are apparent, his mistakes do not infer that Cheramie's story is more accurate in my view. What additionally troubles me about her death is the assumed nefarious actions. Indeed she was hit by a car, however some assume the driver intentionally hit her. She was lying in the road. Additionally, it is possible that as Dr. Wecht states in one instance she was struck and left to die. Yet if she traveled in drug smuggling rings her death does not require direct associations with the assassination to occur.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Non,

        Ms. Rose Cheramie (Melba Christine Marcades) from what I am familiar with eventually claimed that two anti-Castro Cubans were connected to a plot. This is in my view does not preclude the small conspiracy I stated. They did not give specific details, they did not implicate any of the conspirators according to Cheramie, thus in my view they were not directly involved. Some people spoke of Kennedy's plotted demise fo a long duration, some even were similar to the eventually occurrence (Milteer, Sturgis) yet that does not infer they were necessarily involved without substantial evidence. 

Cheramie also did not make the Oswald and Ruby connection until after the Assassination. i. Among he statements of the Assassination was "word from the Underworld", while it is feasible it is not conclusive in my view. The doctor the HSCA interviewed stated her original description of the men was Italian or resembling Italians ii. Cheramie includes "kill Kennedy" in her statement to the doctor it is not specific. A week later she asserts the more complete plot for 8,000 dollars. An unlikely sum in my view. 

While her testimony about the drug deal is feasible iii., her asserted first hand knowledge of assassination is not convincing in my view. Further HSCA investigation and testimony indicate that Cheramie story and the number of companions and names of those men changed over time. iv. While her later claims of certain feasible suspects is worth noting, they did not begin with her, nor prove she or her companions had direct knowledge of a plot in my view.  

Aside from Cheramie's assertions in my view the more important detail in this HSCA Appendix is the reminder of credible evidence that associated Oswald and Ferrie in August 1963. v.

HSCA Appendix X


i. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Appendix X, Rose Cheramie, Staff Report of the HSCA Staff, March, 1979, pp. 199, 200 

ii. IBID, p. 201

iii. IBID, p. 202

iv. IBID

v. IBID, p. 203

Carmine,


If you wish to dismiss the fact that Sergio Arcacha Smith – a man who had maintained an office at 544 Camp Street where Lee Harvey Oswald placed himself when he stamped that address on his FPCC leaflets – was identified as one of the men who was talking of a plot to kill JFK in Dallas as just another amazing coincidence then obviously that is up to you. I think those of us who live in the real world will think differently and I have no desire to change a closed mind. However, I will point out that in your attempt to discredit Rose Cheramie you have mangled and misrepresented the information found in the report upon which you rely.


You claim that Cheramie's “story and the number of companions and names of those men changed over time”, citing HSCA Vol. X, p. 202, in support. Nowhere on that page does it say anything like that. What that page of the report actually says is that when Francis Fruge followed up on the story on behalf of Jim Garrison four years later, “there appeared to be different versions as to how Cheramie ended up on the side of the road, and the number and identity of her companions.” How you turned that into a claim that Cheramie herself gave differing accounts is completely beyond me.


You note that Cheramie said the men were “Italians or resembled Italians” and try to use in that to support your claim that she changed her story later to include Cubans. Again, nowhere in that report does it say any such thing. It says that the men were identified as Cuban by other witnesses – like the owner of the Silver Slipper Lounge – not by Cheramie herself.


You also claim that Cheramie “includes 'kill Kennedy' in her statement to the doctor it is not specific. A week later she asserts the more complete plot for 8,000 dollars. An unlikely sum in my view.” Again you have it wrong. $8,000 was the amount Cheramie was to be paid for her part in the drug deal. Also, Cheramie was quite specific on November 22, 1963, when watching TV in the Hospital. Watching footage of the President's trip to Dallas, several nurses heard her say “This is when it's going to happen”, or words to that effect.


If you're going to discredit Cheramie, you're going to have to do a better job than this.


You can start by doing us all a favour and reading and citing reports more carefully and accurately.

Martin,

          I did not dismiss Smith. I dismissed the unconvincing stories associated with him and Cheramie. Despite your allusion to my view, I in fact live in the real world. In the real world you need evidence not just a single second or third hand story years later. Substantial evidence in my view is required. What you instead chose to do is attempt to reproach me for not embracing the speculation that you believe. That in my view is unreasonable. 

I did not attempt to discredit rose Cheramie, her story in my view is not convincing, if you have evidence to demonstrate that I am in error I would be happy to review it. However your claims that I have some agenda against any possible witness is incorrect. I find Cheramie's claims just as untenable as Arlen Specter's claims that Agents Siebert and O' Neill took no autopsy notes, the facts do not support either claim in my view. 

It is not a closed mind that will not accept new evidence without substantial verification, it is a critical mind that is aware of the many deceptions and misinformation offered by some advocates and critics of conspiracy. 

The story changed over time and had different details (as you quoted). Despite your view that is what the documents state. The manner and exact amount of change is not the issue, the changes were recorded and noted. I made no claim beyond the facts in the story are not consistent in my view. Perhaps you might consider your ideas are part of your view. I see no additional evidence to support your claims.

I do not need to discredit Cheramie, as I stated earlier I do not find her a compelling witness based on the evidence. It is everyone's right to assess the evidence,  if you disagree then please offer the evidence to back your ideas, instead of attempts to attack my methods with your opinions. Additionally, my accuracy has been consistent as has my offering evidence. If you disagree with my view, that is your right, but I would contend my view of the evidence is contextual and reasonable. Perhaps if you focused on the evidence and less on the people you disagree with your ideas would be more compelling.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Martin,

          I did not dismiss Smith. I dismissed the unconvincing stories associated with him and Cheramie. Despite your allusion to my view, I in fact live in the real world. In the real world you need evidence not just a single second or third hand story years later. Substantial evidence in my view is required. What you instead chose to do is attempt to reproach me for not embracing the speculation that you believe. That in my view is unreasonable. 

I did not attempt to discredit rose Cheramie, her story in my view is not convincing, if you have evidence to demonstrate that I am in error I would be happy to review it. However your claims that I have some agenda against any possible witness is incorrect. I find Cheramie's claims just as untenable as Arlen Specter's claims that Agents Siebert and O' Neill took no autopsy notes, the facts do not support either claim in my view. 

It is not a closed mind that will not accept new evidence without substantial verification, it is a critical mind that is aware of the many deceptions and misinformation offered by some advocates and critics of conspiracy. 

The story changed over time and had different details (as you quoted). Despite your view that is what the documents state. The manner and exact amount of change is not the issue, the changes were recorded and noted. I made no claim beyond the facts in the story are not consistent in my view. Perhaps you might consider your ideas are part of your view. I see no additional evidence to support your claims.

I do not need to discredit Cheramie, as I stated earlier I do not find her a compelling witness based on the evidence. It is everyone's right to assess the evidence,  if you disagree then please offer the evidence to back your ideas, instead of attempts to attack my methods with your opinions. Additionally, my accuracy has been consistent as has my offering evidence. If you disagree with my view, that is your right, but I would contend my view of the evidence is contextual and reasonable. Perhaps if you focused on the evidence and less on the people you disagree with your ideas would be more compelling.

Carmine,


It's amazing how much you managed to write, how long you were able to waffle on for, without actually responding directly to a single one of the points I raised. I'm almost impressed. Of course, we both know that you couldn't refute anything I said because it was 100% accurate. Your inability to respond is tacit acknowledgement of that fact.


What's equally as amazing is that you managed to do to my post what you did to the HSCA report which was to mangle and misrepresent the content. I never said that you dismissed Smith, I said that you dismissed the identification of Smith by the owner of the Silver Slipper Lounge. Which you did. And you therefore have to accept the unbelievable coincidence that the bar owner just happened to select from a stack of photos the one man who had an office in the very building from which Lee Harvey Oswald is known – from multiple witnesses as well as his own stamped literature - to have operated.


Your insinuation that, instead of evidence, I “embrace speculation” is absolute bullshit. SHOW ME THE SPECULATION PRESENTED IN MY PREVIOUS POST. Alternatively, admit your errors like a man and apologize.


Despite your assertion that you “made no claim beyond the facts in the story” you most certainly did, and I demonstrated that you did. What you wrote was at odds with the report. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else reading this exchange.

Martin,

     Again you seem unable to actually focus on the asserted problems you have with my methods and ideas, instead of the fact I disagree with you. Despite your ideas without evidence they remain simply your ideas. Martin claiming you are accurate and actually proving it are two separate things. Again you do not offer evidence but your opinions. You can state the HSCA supports you , I disagree. Everyone can check the evidence and see who they agree with. That is the seeming difference between us, I do not demand others conform to my ideas but offer my view. 

Additionally you seem woefully unconcerned with the fact that you can be incorrect, and in this case I would contend is one of those times. Again you speculate, you do not address the flaws in the evidence you claim is so evident, where is your substantial evidence to contend Cheramie is more compelling. 

You did not demonstrate in my words that I attacked or unreasonably decided this idea that you support is incorrect. Claim what you like prove what you can.