First, I want to take the time to thank those who have been complimenting me lately for my coverage of the Assassination Records Review Board and their activities. I do indeed appreciate it. However, I do not believe this is the way the research community should work. For a variety of reasons no one is properly covering the Board and informing the research community as to what is going on. I am trying to change that. In order to change that I have to criticize some people and organizations now. This is not meant in any mean spiritedness. There is a problem here and it needs to be addressed and rectified very soon. Board Chairman John Tunheim repeatedly mentions at every public hearing, "The sun sets on October 11, 1997." After that, we face extremely tough uphill battles to move the case forward, and the federal government and those who will probably still be withholding documents will have a record of lethargy within the American public in general and the research community specifically. They can say with a smile that the American public had an unprecedented openness law, they were invited into the process, but they chose to stay home.
Now for some criticizing. I realize that people have different worries and priorities. I realize that people have to worry about jobs, careers, families, etc. I do understand. I also have no sympathy whatsoever. Their worries existed in the middle sixties, too. People tried to come forward then, and some died doing so. There was not open public support for Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Joachim Joesten and others. There was not strong support for Penn Jones, Jr., who had his press shop firebombed. These people had families and bills to pay, too. They also had passion and determination, qualities that I do not see enough of today in the research community and especially in those who represent, or claim to represent, the research community.
I am speaking largely of those who publish newsletters. There has been scant information about the Board in these newsletters, with the notable exception of CTKA's PROBE. Far too often, these venues of information are full of researcher versus--well, I can't call them researchers. Let's say believers in the official dogma. This is offered as some kind of fairness or objectivity.
Ah, but it is? I say no. This is why we do not have the fair and equal time law any longer. The country discovered that this idea did not enhance debate, it stifled it. Former governor of New York Mario Cuomo gave an eloquent opinion about the welcomed demise of this law. He cited no less of an example than Oliver Stone's JFK in making his point. Can you imagine if we had to have, by law, a movie made, perhaps at taxpayer expense, that was three hours plus to support the Warren Commission? Is this anyone's idea of fairness? Are people who say the Holocaust of the Jews never happened welcomed and respected as representing the other viewpoint? Would Mark Zaid accept this in the name of objectivity? I think not. Yet, he would tell us that we have to be objective in the case of the assassination of President Kennedy.
Mr. Zaid spoke at ASK '93 and said, "There is no available evidence of a fake defector program," while he was sitting between Prof. Peter Dale Scott and John Newman. Prof. Scott mentioned the special treatment that Oswald's file was getting which is detailed in his book, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, as well as hinting at what is now Oswald and the CIA by John M. Newman that Scott certainly helped with. Scott asked, "Is Mr. Zaid still going to call Oswald a lone nut?" If you have this video dig it out and then read Scott's book and then Newman's. Now, would you consider Mr. Zaid to be a good researcher? Would you call him an expert?
The Review Board considered Zaid an expert, and invited him to attend the secret "Expert's Conference" held May 16th in Washington, DC. Mr. Zaid did not attend, however. Mr. Zaid did not show at the first COPA conference last year or at the ASK '94 conference. He has shown up whenever the Board has a meeting or hearing in Washington. He is largely responsible for the new wording the Board chose for its Final guidance or an assassination record. Mr. Zaid showed up at the March 7th hearing that I attended and wrote about [in The Fourth Decade]. Where was Dan Alcorn? Where are all the attorneys in the research community when their input was desperately needed?
What the Board was deciding was what an "assassination record" was to be. This would guide them through their entire existence and guide all the federal agencies. Aside from Mr. Zaid, only John Judge, Jim Lesar and myself showed up. Less than thirty letters were written. The Review Board considered Mr. Zaid an expert because of the lack of involvement from the rest of the research community. Hey, Dr. Wecht, you have a law degree--where was your input? I would still like to see a review of the Final guidance from someone with a legal background before Mr. Zaid writes it, or Gerald Posner does.
Who are these people on these advisory boards and governing boards? Did anyone who is a member and/or give money to these organizations recall voting for this leadership? What are they doing? What work if any has been done with any of COPA's working panels? COPA is one man, John Judge, and he is doing a lot of work. However, COPA needs to be more than one guy. This is not fair to John or to the research community. John is leaving Washington, DC to go to the West Coast soon. Who will replace him?
Why is the Internet's JFK forum, alt.conspiracy.jfk, so full of garbage? For god's sake, ignore the bad stuff! Ignoring the Warren defenders can be effective. Who has seen or heard of Dr. Bob Artwhol or Todd Wayne Vaughn since ASK '93? Why invite people in like this to ridicule us? Would you invite someone into your house who would call you a fool and wreck your home? Would you do it repeatedly?
We have a lot of work to do, damn it! Enough with the nonsense.
For those who are waiting for news about the Board, I ask you: why? Why are you waiting? What is there to wait for? There is no reason to wait for anything or anyone. THE BOARD IS HISTORY ON OCTOBER 11, 1997. Get involved! It's easy! It is so damned easy. Is there anybody who does not know the Review Board's address? I will give it again. Memorize it. I mean it, memorize it.
The Assassination Records Review Board
600 E Street NW
2nd Floor, Suite 208
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: (202) 724-0088 FAX: (202) 724-0457
Write to them. They will send you stuff. They will send you stuff for free! They will send you copies of the transcripts, copies of the written submissions in the thirty day public comment time period following Public Hearings. They will send you notices of meetings and hearings. You can get on their mailing list. All you have to do is write them and ask to be placed on it. Can it be simpler? No, it can't. Don't delay--call, write, or fax today!
And now for something completely different, the review. I did not get notified of exactly where and when the Hearing would be in time to get a decent airplane ticket. They are not great on advance notice of Hearings. Actually, they are not great on most notifications that get published in the Federal Register. At the October 11, 1994 Public Hearing, which they said was their first public hearing (it wasn't), John Judge expressed the concern that "notices that the Board is required to make in terms of the Federal Register doesn't necessarily make the matter public. It is fairly expensive to take a subscription out, and that we [COPA and the research community] might request the Board to consider giving these same notices to, if not particular organizations, maybe an umbrella organization like the coalition which could distribute them and make them more public."
In response to that, on page 41 of the transcript from this hearing, Chairman Tunheim said, "I also appreciate your suggestion about the Federal Register. We are developing a mailing list which is getting larger all the time, and we do intend to send all of our notices to our mailing list contacts as well, so that you would not have to subscribe to the Register."
They have not been doing this. I wrote to Thomas E. Samoluk, the ARRB's Associate Director for Communications, pointing this out. His response (in a letter incorrectly dated June 15) said, "The Review Board is in full compliance with all requirements regarding notification publication in the Federal Register. The Board has determined that it will go beyond those minimum requirements regarding notification and directly mail to interested parties substantive information regarding the Board activities. The Board is under no obligation to send out every notification that appears in the Federal Register."
Mr. Samoluk, you need to read your own transcripts. Your boss, the Chairman, said, "...We do intend to send all of our notices to our mailing list contacts as well, so that you would not have to subscribe to the Register." [emphasis added.]
The problem is if they gave it to COPA and said, "Here, you distribute it," the research community would be hearing about the New Orleans Public Hearing somewhere around St. Patrick's Day.
In fact, the Federal Register notice of the hearing was published Wednesday, June 21, 1995. (Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 119.) A one week notice. And if there were any mail delays in getting that to your local Federal Depository library you had less than a week. So get on their mailing list. The best bet is to do what I do and bug them every other day on the phone, or fax when you know they are up to something. I called and found out the day they sent out their mailing. So since I couldn't get a plane ticket I drove down. Yes, that's right, I drove down to New Orleans from Albany, New York. It took two days. This is a big country, which you sometimes forget when you fly.
I had planned to stay in the French Quarter but with a car to park that was impossible. I arrived a few days early. I had talked to John Judge prior to going. I was trying to find out who would be going. I even posted on the Internet about the Hearing and asked that if anyone was going to please email me. I have met some nice people on the Net but I'll talk of that later. I was disturbed to find out that Jim DiEugenio was not going to attend. I called him. He told me he could not afford it at the time. I even tried to pay for his plane ticket and I tried to get others to help get Jim a ticket but apparently he didn't want to go. I was somewhat angry at this but I did not direct this to him on the phone. I did write to him expressing why I felt it was necessary for him to attend. I felt quite strongly, and still do, that his presence was necessary. He is the expert on the New Orleans angle. The only other person who comes close is Justin D. Bowley, but he is younger than Jim, has not written a book, and lives in England. These are not negative qualities but a little impractical to get Justin over here and get the Board to respect him as they already do Jim.
Mr. DiEugenio did give me some great advice on where records are and what to visit in New Orleans for which I am very grateful. Mr. DiEugenio told me about the Hale Boggs papers at Tulane University, what records were at the Public Library, and about a little place called The Historic New Orleans Collection. I found John Judge while walking around New Orleans on Monday. He showed me where the Crescent City Garage was. It looks like time stopped for the place around 1931. I tried to take a photo inside but was asked not to. I took two outside.
I got nicely sunburned walking around from the Public Library downtown, to trying to find 544 Camp Street at the corner of Lafayette. Yes, I knew that Guy Banister's old office building no longer exists, but the street sign for the intersection does, which is kind of odd as it is not really an intersection anymore either. John walked me over to the French Quarter. He was staying with friends of his. The place where John was staying was one of the nine buildings restored by Clay Shaw.
On Tuesday we went to the Historic New Orleans Collection at 533 Royal Street. I asked for information on Garrison and Shaw and John looked up biographical information on various people in the New Orleans aristocracy. He found proof that Shaw did restore nine buildings and his friend's was one of them. I got copies of articles that New Orleans magazine had on Garrison and Clay Shaw.
The HNOC is divided up into three sections: Library, Curatorial, and Manuscript. I went to people from each division, at least five, and asked if anyone from the ARRB--either a member or staff person--had been in touch with them regarding their holdings. In each case the answer was no. No one from the ARRB had contacted them in any way. I took some flyers and gave them to Samoluk and David G. Marwell, the ARRB Executive Director, on Wednesday. Many thanks to Mr. Jim DiEugenio for telling me about this place. The HNOC Manuscript division has the Alton Ocshner papers, over 400 boxes. The index to them is over 300 pages long.
You see, this is exactly why DiEugenio was needed. He told me on the phone he has been in contact with the Board, but if he was there in person errors and omissions like this could be quickly addressed. I felt like I had to become Jim DiEugenio and be an expert on the New Orleans angle for the sake of the research community. These public hearings are battlegrounds--and the enemy did show up. Gerald Posner showed up. Now ask yourself, why was he there? He was there because a lot of people, like D.A. Connick and Cynthia Anne Wegmann, think Shaw was a victim and will lend their names and records to saying so.
I also visited the public library. They have three rolls of microfilm of Jim Garrison's papers. They are available for $18.50 each. Get them.
I was unaware for most of my visit that New Orleans is in another time zone. Also, my hotel room's clock was broken and I only knew time when I was in my car, which was on EDT. I showed up at the Old Mint Building thinking I was late, and it turned out to be 7:30 a.m. The hearing began at nine.
I was naturally the first one there. I conversed with Samoluk when he came in and got everything settled. He informed me that Lyon Garrison has donated some records that his father kept.
Review Board member Dr. Henry F. Graff was absent again. I spoke with Marwell who told me he'd been reading my stuff on the Internet. I asked him, where is Dr. Graff? I haven't seen him since the Dallas hearing. He said that Graff is not well, and then said maybe he shouldn't be saying that and clammed up. I think it is possible that Dr. Graff may resign or be replaced.
Chairman Tunheim opened the hearing. He said in his opening statement that the Board is on a hunt for records and that they will be placed in the National Archives so that people can "make up their own minds about what happened that tragic day in Dallas thirty-one plus years ago." I find this to be disturbing. I am not happy that the federal government puts forth a lie and when they are confronted by an angry public says, "Well, make up your own mind about what happened." That is not acceptable. The federal government has to tell the truth and explain a lot. This is not a quest for individual satisfaction. Tunheim also said, "It is important for closure to this event to have a complete collection of the records..." Closure? Yes, I agree we need to have a complete collection of records, but we cannot talk of closure for a very long time. These records need to be read, understood, and cross referenced. We are at the the beginning of a process, not the end. Look at what Ray and Mary La Fontaine found in the Dallas City Archives before there was a Review Board and after the "respected news media" went in and said there is nothing there. They found the "ghost of Oswald" photographs arrest records for tramps, and information on John Franklin Elrod. Look at what John Newman has found on Oswald, based largely on internal record keeping routing sheets. This is the beginning.
Mr. Tunheim mentioned that the Board has voted to release sixteen CIA records. A copy of Mr. Marwell's letter to President Clinton was included in the handout of materials. It is dated June 21. If the President does not request postponement they will be released in their entirety on July 21. I strongly urge you to write to the Board and get copies of material related to this release.
The first witness to testify was former Congresswoman Lindy Boggs. What a classy, smart, funny lady. I immediately liked her. I would love to hear her tell stories of New Orleans' social and political history. Mrs. Boggs gave consent for the papers of Hale Boggs, the late congressman and former Warren Commission member, to go into the collection.
Mrs. Boggs mentioned that Hale Boggs created the language that allowed for a unanimous signing of the Warren Report, something to this effect: "according to the evidence submitted to this Commission Lee Oswald has assassinated the President." This is an interesting story that shows that there was dissent to the Commission's findings.
Mrs. Boggs also explained that she supported the extension of the HSCA on the floor of the house during the general debate.
Board member Dr. Anna Nelson asked, "Was there a kind of sense that the Warren Commission was happening so fast that in fact other information wouldn't come out?" Mrs. Boggs answered, "...There were obvious feelings of wanting to know more about certain areas of the investigation, wanting to have filled in some of the unanswered questions. And of course that was why it was necessary for Hale to be able to say that according to the testimony submitted to the Commission that Oswald was the assassin." Well, I found that very interesting and I wished it was developed further, but it wasn't.
The next witness was D.A. Harry F. Connick Sr. Mr. Connick claimed that when he came to office in April 1974, there was only one file cabinet with five drawers of materials. HE went on to say in Q and A that he believes there was a substantial amount of material at one time and most of it was taken before he took office.
I believe this is mostly true. Garrison was a fool for not keeping strict control of his office and his files. I believe many agents of the government infiltrated his office and stole files. I also believe that many assistants to Garrison took files especially after Garrison lost to Connick. If I had been there I would have made damned sure Connick and his crowd never saw so much as one document pertaining to Garrison's investigation and prosecution of Shaw, out of fear what Connick might try to do with any of that information, and that Connick might destroy those very files. I commend any and all of Garrison's staff who did take files. In the context of the times it was the best course of action to take. Only now might it be safe to admit that that was done and to turn those documents over to the Board.
Connick tried to make it sound like he was not responsible for the loss of any record or document. That all missing files are a result of theft by former members of Garrison's staff. This was the media sound bite from the hearing. Connick said he believes that a lot of the records are in the custody of former Garrison staff members.
Dr. Hall asked if there was a record of those employees. Connick said yes--but he did not say he would provide that information, only that he had some of it. He went on to say that there was an index "of everything that came into that office connected with that investigation and that prosecution. And all of those things are gone." Later on he responded to a question by Dr. Hall, "If a public servant removes documents, as they obviously did in Mr. Garrison's office, then that would constitute a violation of our law of theft."
Dr. William Joyce asked a great question. "Mr. Connick, in addition to the Clay Shaw prosecution by Mr. Garrison, have you become aware of other information that might be related to the assassination of President Kennedy that might be local in its orientation that you might have recovered?" Connick answered, "No, not really."
This is hard to believe. There is no way that additional New Orleans information about Clay Shaw or the JFK case has not come to light since 1969. The question was, did any information originate from the New Orleans area concerning Shaw or the assassination? The answer has to be yes. Mr. Steve Tyler produced a documentary on the Shaw affair called He Must Have Something, which was shown on New Orleans television and at a New Orleans film festival. Mr. Garrison gave interviews in his later years. I am sure Jim DiEugenio, who wrote Destiny Betrayed, could refute Mr. Connick's assertion.
Mr. Connick described the record-keeping of Mr. Garrison as "a pretty sorry state of affairs. And we found that it was not a very well managed office. And that things were run in a very slipshod manner." Despite the fact that he had earlier said there was an index of every record that came into this office on the investigation of the assassination and prosecution of Clay Shaw.
Next up was Steve Tilley, JFK Assassination Records Collection liaison. He told the Board that he National Archives is still awaiting the transfer of data disks from the CIA. There are records from the Church Committee that have not been turned over yet. Rockefeller Commission documents at the Ford library have yet to be sent; the remainder is still under review by CIA personnel. A surprise was that there are some federal court records at a National Archives record center in Fort Worth relating to Shaw and Garrison that will soon be added to the collection.
There are gaps in some record groups, notably from the Kennedy library. Robert F. Kennedy's desk diary for 1963 is missing. The library staff says that it was never turned over to the library. Telephone logs for 1962 and '63 are also missing.
Mr. Marwell asked about material donated by private citizens and wondered how they are added. Mr. Tilley replied that the Archives has a small gift collection that they have maintained from before where people have wanted to donate records to the government. IT is received in their projects division. Someone from the Archives staff will do an appraisal on it. This is done to make sure that the records are worthy of retention by the National Archives as history of the federal government. Mr. Tilley thinks that is largely perfunctory for the records received but there is a paper process they go through. They will then be arranged and identified in some fashion. He said this is a time consuming process and they will probably do it in stages.
Mr. Tilley added that James L. Rankin, the son of J. Lee Rankin, the General Counsel for the Warren Commission, has contacted the Archives and has indicated that he wishes to donate his father's papers, which is approximately seven boxes of material.
The next witness was Cynthia Ann Wegmann. She stated that her father "was Mr. Shaw's civil attorney for some twenty years before this tragic event." The tragic event she refers to is not the assassination, but the prosecution of Mr. Shaw. She was making available to the Board records that were maintained and prepared for trial. These are the investigation files and statements taken. Ms. Wegmann stated, "What is amazing to me now, some thirty years later--well, some twenty-five years later--is that despite the fact that in a forty day trial, a fifty-five minute deliberation by twelve jurors, and a resounding acquittal, that Clay Shaw's name remains besmirched, that he can be portrayed as a buffoon in films, that the true nature of the man has been hidden and destroyed." She added, "I would hope that once the public sees that what it was, [how] little it was, that they would allow him to remain at rest."
Dr. Joyce asked if there were other records or materials that she may have that would give any substance to what she had donated. Mr. Wegmann responded by saying that she was uncertain because the contents of her father's records moved to various places. Clay's records moved to Miami. She said she may have one more box that contains the records of the the Civil suit. She believed that Mr. Shaw's will may be in the material she gave to Mr. Samoluk and if it is, she requested that it not be released to the public.
According to a source who emailed me, Mr. Wegmann has records of interviews with people who witnessed Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, and Clay Shaw in Clinton, Louisiana. My source informed me that Gerald Posner was given access to this material. That probably explains Posner's presence at the New Orleans hearing. I believe that Mr. Posner may be trying to undermine this process by going to people and telling them not to donate or mention certain records to the Review Board. In other words, he is searching out records, too! This is part of what I mean when I say that the enemy is out there and these Public Hearings are battlegrounds. This whole process is a battle and the enemy is not lying dormant like so many in the research community are.
The next witness was Mr. Steven Tyler. Mr. Tyler stated his film, He Must Have Something, was never meant to be an investigative journalism piece. "I was never so much interested in Mr. Shaw's guilt or innocence as much as I was the reasons New Orleanians held a view one way or the other...I was particularly interested in how the Shaw case illuminated what it was and is to be a New Orleanian." In what seems like a contradictory statement, Mr. Tyler also said, "My goal in producing the program was to present an Oral History of the case."
I did not like Mr. Tyler. I think his priorities are screwed up. I think his film lacked a focus. How do you do an Oral History of the case without investigating anything, concentrating instead on what it was like to be a New Orleanian and why various members of the public held an opinion? His description gave the impression that he did not talk to anyone directly involved in the case. I feel he deliberately placed limitations on himself, and that this weakened his film.
It was not until Mr. Tyler attended the second ASK conference that his opinions about Mr. Shaw changed. Only at this point did Mr. Tyler decide to learn more about Mr. Shaw and about the assassination of President Kennedy. I think he should have done this basic research long before he decided to film anything for his documentary. He is kind of like the Warren Commission: conclusions first, then investigation.
Mr. Tyler now believes that Jim Garrison did have something, that many of his theories have now been confirmed by evidence not available to him at the trial. Mr. Tyler now believes that there is reason to believe Mr. Shaw was not truthful in his denials of ever having any contact with the Central Intelligence Agency.
Well, this appears to be a victory for the research community.
Mr. Tyler proposed that the Board should locate the following files:
1. All research files composed by District Attorney Garrison and his staff, including those still in the possession of the current D.A. Mr. Connick, and any and all files Mr. Garrison might have entrusted to his Appeals Court staff.2. All classified documents relating to Clay L. Shaw, including Domestic Contact reports made by Mr. Shaw and sent to the CIA in the 1940's and 50's; all files regarding Mr. Shaw's relationship with a CIA project codenamed QK/ENCHANT for which Mr. Shaw was assigned a covert security approval in 1962.
3. The United States Army Intelligence files and any other classified files on European trade organizations known alternatively as Permindex and/or Centro Mondiale Commerciale, on whose boards Mr. Shaw served.
4. The Inspector General's report on the Bay of Pigs, unredacted.
5. The Church Committee's file on the CIA's media assets, unredacted.
6. All files pertaining to INCA, the Information Council of the Americas, including the Alton Ochsner collection.
7. All research compiled by Mr. F. Irving Dymond in preparation for the defense of Mr. Shaw, including the files of Mr. Shaw's original counsel, Guy Johnson.
8. All notes and materials compiled by Messrs. L.J. Dalsa and Robert Buras during their work for the HSCA.
All right, I'll admit it: I never heard of these last two guys. Did I get their names right? This is why we needed an expert on the New Orleans angle at the Hearing. Who are these men? What did they do?
Mr. Tyler did donate a copy of his film and outtakes from the thirty-some on-camera interviews he conducted--some twenty-five hours of film.
Mr. Tyler then ripped Dan Rather and the CBS production, Who Killed JFK: The Final Chapter?, which was broadcast on the 30th anniversary of the assassination.
Using the same figures that the Washington Post used in a survey conducted one month prior to the publication of George Lardner's essay on Oliver Stone's JFK, which was published months before the film came out, Tyler said: "We the people deserve more, and if those 59% of us who believe in some form of a conspiracy, and 81% of us who disagree with the Warren Commission findings, in spite of what the nation's leading media want us to believe, don't constitute an under-served constituency, then I don't know what does."
In a Q and A, Mr. Tyler mentioned that New Orleanians always held it as a badge of honor that Oswald was born there. Not that they approve of the assassination, but they are proud he is from New Orleans.
Mr. Tyler urged the Board to inquire about QK/ENCHANT and about David Ferrie. Mr. Tyler believed that Mr. Ferries is the key to unlocking the whole case. Mr. Tyler was interested in any medical research Ferrie may have been doing, particularly as to whether Dr. Ochsner may have been involved. Mr. Tyler was also interested in Ferries autopsy records that the Orleans Parish coroner has. Records from INCA and Banister's office files were also mentioned as being crucial.
Then Mr. Tyler got stupid. When asked by Chairman Tunheim if the Board should go after material that is in the possession of local and national television stations, Tyler replied, "I frankly would be very dubious of any probative value in that. I think that the most we are going to find there are the images, you know, that we have seen many, many times, sort of like rocks at the bottom of a stream where the water has, you know, flowed over them for so long that their rough edges are gone. I would recommend that more of your efforts be devoted toward trying to find those documents and files that I enumerated earlier."
How arrogant! Mr. Tyler's twenty-five hours or outtakes are worthy of the Review Board's attention and storage in the National Archives, yet untold hours of national network film and video, including outtakes never seen, likewise at the local level across this country in crucial cities as Dallas and New Orleans are not?
The next witness was Dr. Michael Kurtz. I didn't like him, either. Dr. Kurtz started out by pointing out that amazing passage on page 682 of Michael Beschloss' book The Crisis Years, in which Richard Helms had the CIA in 1964 reinvestigate the Warren Commission's findings for the skeptical LBJ. He urged the board to investigate this.
While I certainly feel that this is very worthy of investigation, I felt that Dr. Kurtz' presentation was poor because of overuse of the verb "investigate." The Board does not want to investigate anything. They want a shopping list for documents. They want it made easy for them and we have to do this for them because of time constraints.
Dr. Kurtz wants an investigation to find out exactly how the Kennedy family came into legal possession of the autopsy material, an investigation into certain actions by the Secret Service (namely, why did they remove the President's body from Dallas). He also wants an investigation into why agents were present at JFK's autopsy, what federal statute gave the Secret Service jurisdiction over a corpse, why did SA Roy Kellerman take possession of the autopsy photographs, the unprocessed negatives, and the X-rays at the time of the autopsy. Kurtz also asks what legal authority did Kellerman have to take possession of these materials and then turn them over to Bouck, head of the Protective Research Service of the Secret Service, when at the time Oswald was still alive and legally they were under the jurisdiction of then-Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade. Kurtz wants the Board to find out why agent James Fox made a private set of the autopsy photographs, what legal authority did he have over this set, and why did he sell them to Mark Crouch, who in turn gave them to David Lifton--who published them in his book Best Evidence? Why did Bouck turn over the autopsy materials to Robert Kennedy through Evelyn Lincoln and Angela Novello?
No question about it--there are documents that pertain to these subjects. But the Board doesn't have the time or the resources to familiarize itself with the case and to investigate these matters. If Dr. Kurtz would point out, for example, that there is an Executive Session testimony transcript of Robert Bouck (I happen to know this because of my research into the planning of the Texas trip) that has not been released yet, then the Board can go and get it. The Board cannot investigate Agent Fox because he is dead, a small fact that Kurtz did not mention. The same is true, unfortunately, for Evelyn Lincoln. Many of the questions Dr. Kurtz asked could be answered if he would read a little more. Many of them are, "Why did somebody do this or that?" Answers to his questions to not entirely lie in classified or undiscovered documents, but in a better understanding of the people involved in the case. I would recommend Dr. Kurtz read Harold Weisberg's Post Mortem. We know that people did things, we do not need to go search for the legal authority as to why did they them--it doesn't exist. Rather, in reading and researching the case and in cross-referencing that with the official version, we should know that documents exist that we have not seen yet and tell the Board to go here and search for records or go to the agencies involved and ask for records or why they lied, because we can now prove they lied. This is exactly what author John Newman is doing.
Dr. Kurtz strongly disagreed with Mr. Tyler and urged the Board to acquire the records from the television networks and local stations.
Dr. Kurtz then espoused his biggest interest, which made me lose all respect for him. "...Although conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination abound, many of them ludicrous and ridiculous, one that remains a plausible one supported by a substantial amount of evidence is the so-called Cuban connection to the assassination." Dr. Kurtz seemed to be blaming Castro for the assassination.
Dr. Kurtz wants all records of the CIA, FBI, Defense Department, National Security Agency, State Department and any other agency of the United States government that has records relating to US-Cuban relations from 1959 to 1963 released (great, I do too), "especially any and all incidents concerning assassination plots against the life of Fidel Castro."
Although he limited it to US-Cuban relations and discussions between Jack and Bobby, it was a great idea that the JFK Library should release all White House tapes made during the Kennedy administration. Dr. Kurtz also wanted tapes that may have been made in the Eisenhower presidency, especially related to Cuban affairs, released.
Dr. Kurtz also pointed out that he personally saw Banister and Oswald together in the summer of 1963 in New Orleans. Banister was debating President Kennedy's Civil Rights policies with a group of college students at the Louisiana State University in New Orleans. Kurtz believes that there may be a connection between Banister and the FBI's open hostility against Civil Rights groups. Kurtz requested that the Board peruse FBI files on the Citizens Council of Greater New Orleans, and an FBI file called "Communist Infiltration of the NAACP."
Dr. Kurtz pointed out something interesting. Leon Hubert, a junior counselor for the Warren Commission, was a law professor at Tulane School of Law, so there might be some of his papers at Tulane regarding the assassination or the Commission's work.
Dr. Kurtz mentioned that the preliminary hearing transcripts of the Clay Shaw trial are at the Southeastern Louisiana University and he was working with Samoluk in trying to add them to the collection as they do not lend themselves very well to photocopying.
The first question asked of Dr. Kurtz was by Dr. Hall. "I wonder, have you thought through and addressed the question of the relationship with Mexico to Cuba, and where Mexico stood in light of New Orleans?" Way to go, Dr. Hall! I can't believe Dr. Kurtz would think Castro's Cuba would have anything to do with the assassination of JFK at this very late date, especially with what we now know about Mexico City. Check Dr. Kurtz' reply: "You are talking about the Mexican government now, in your question, not much to be quite honest with you. At the time I don't recall that Mexico itself had any major relationship with the United States, other than what was common knowledge. I did not think of Mexico as a source of any kind of perhaps intelligence activity, and Oswald's famous trip there in September of 1963 has generated a lot of controversy, but I don't really see a great deal of connection there of, directly or indirectly, except that Mexico was a conduit through which the United States could communicate with the Cuban government, of course."
Umm, Dr. Kurtz? Is it beyond your intellectual capability to understand that David Atlee Phillips and other boys at the CIA wanted the world to blame the assassination of JFK on Cuba, thereby getting rid of Castro and Kennedy, full steam ahead into Vietnam, and control over anyone who would investigate the crime because it might lead to World War III?
The next witness was Mr. Wayne Everard, the archivist for the City of New Orleans. Mr. Everard mentioned that the New Orleans Public Library received a series of New Orleans Police Department arrest books, including the volume that contained the record of Oswald's arrest on August 9th. Later accessions included Jack Martin's complaint on November 22 against Buy Banister, and David Ferrie's initial arrest in connection with the JFK case on November 25, 1963. Also in police records is a study of the crime scene photographs of Ferrie's apartment following his death in 1967. The library has several records involving the Ferrie autopsy report, but not the actual report. The library has its own records on the assassination, including when FBI agents came to ask about what books Lee Harvey Oswald took out. Oswald was a patron of the Napoleon branch, where a book Mr. Everard brought with him to the hearing turned up. The Napoleon branch was doing tome cleaning up because they were going to turn part of their facility into a children's library, when a copy of Taylor Caldwell's The Arm in the Darkness turned up. The volume had a little card in the back that said it was due by September 9, 1963, and that it had been checked out by Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Everard did not know if it was real or not.
Mr. Everard then went on to explain how the library came into the possession of Garrison records. Early in 1990 the library received a call from the file room supervisor of the D.A.'s office. They were interested in purging their case files from the 1950's and 60's. Mr. Everard theorized that he was probably talking with the Clerk of the Court, who had donated material to the library the year before. Mr. Everard thought eh D. A. was trying to save money as the records were stored in a private warehouse.
Mr. Everard made an onsite inspection and found that there were three boxes marked "JFK Assassination," and then and there decided to accept the entire collection. Nothing else showed up in the collection pertaining to JFK. As far as Mr. Everard could tell, these files were totally different than the ones that the D.A. still has.
In the three boxes there were indeed original documents from Garrison's investigation. Mr. Everard decided to microfilm the collection before making it available to the public. He sought no publicity that the library had these materials. He did make mention of it in local, state and regional archival newsletters. These are things the research community should be reading!
Apparently the library has an inventory on the World Wide Web. Is this true? If anyone has seen this, please let me know.
In 1993 there was held n New Orleans the Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archivists. It is because of this meeting that Mr. Everard was inspired to contact the New Orleans Police Department and District Attorney Connick seeking any additional records relating to Shaw, Garrison or the assassination in general. Both replied that they did have records.
"And it seemed to me that there was more than one file cabinet but I didn't really have a lot of time to look..." Remember Connick saying there was only one file cabinet? Everard has a different recollection. Interesting.
"We discussed the possibility of those records being added to the donation that we already received from the District Attorney's office but nothing further came from that discussion."
Dr. Hall was very confused about the distinctions between the city, parishes, and the state. He was particularly interested in how the records came to the library, owing to the desire of the D.A. to purge the files.
I ask you to contrast Connick's desire to purge the files with his claim that former Garrison staffers stole files.
Dr. Hall then asked Mr. Everard, How do you do business here in New Orleans? There was resounding laughter at this question. Everybody burst out laughing. Mrs. Boggs, who was sitting behind me, looked like she was ready to fall out of her chair.
Mr. Everard explained to the Board that there are conflicts between different agencies from different levels of government.
Dr. Hall made an excellent point when he stated, "It is an interesting situation, though, when the District Attorney comes and testifies, and says that at least when he came into office, the records that would be especially pertinent to us were in a state of disarray and some confusion, that there may in fact [have] been public materials that were put in private hands, and he used the word `thievery' to describe that activity, and then to realize as well that the legal authority by which those records are maintained in Louisiana seems to be at least confused as to where they are ultimately to be looked at. And that we could in fact be in the position where a fair amount of material some of which turned out to be prudent to understanding the assassination or potentially might have been destroyed save for the good judgement of some of the staff in your office."
Someone is playing a game with how many records existed, how many are left, who has them, who is supposed to have had them, and who now has what is left.
I believed Dr. Hall surmised this when he said, "...I think that is something worth being explored because the Criminal Court records as I understand it in Louisiana are in an anomalous archival position." Dr. Hall was inquiring about the location of the grand jury materials which Mr. Everard thinks is in the hands of the D.A.
There was one addition to the witness list, Mr. Elton William Killam, who I had the chance to briefly meet. He is a distant cousin to Henry Thomas Killam, who as one of the first suspicious deaths in the wake of the assassination. Mr. Elton Killam is a criminal defense lawyer in Pensacola, Florida, specializing in homicide cases. He explained that prior to Mr. Henry (Hank) Killam's death, and just after the assassination, his household received numerous calls looking for Henry Thomas Killam. Hank Killam had lived in Dallas and was married to a long time employee of Jack Ruby, Joyce Davis. Henry Thomas Killam had himself worked for Ruby at the Carousel Club, as a bouncer or a bartender or a hanger out of sorts. Immediately after the assassination Killam was questioned by the FBI in Dallas. Prior to living in Dallas Killam was on probation in Pensacola where he acted as an informant for the Sheriff's Department and the county solicitor's office. The Dallas FBI requested that the Pensacola County Solicitor pick up Killam after the assassination. Killam may have been a tenant at 1026 North Beckley at the same time Oswald was living there.
Elton Killam told the Review Board that within one week of the assassination Hank Killam returned to Pensacola a very frightened man. He claimed he had special knowledge and carried around a large wallet filled with newspaper articles on the assassination. Killam had stated that he had been in New Orleans and Dallas, where the assassination had been discussed. Killam was also a frequent visitor to the New Orleans Show-Bar, and as many may know, that is where the stripper known as Jada (Janet Adams) was employed.
Killam was picked up for violation of his probation in Pensacola in December of 1963. He was in jail for approximately two weeks, but was allowed out of jail in the daytime. He spent his time in a local bar. Killam told the owner he had special knowledge of the assassination. The FBI interviewed and polygraphed him in Pensacola. And they generated memorandums about these interviews.
Mr. Elton Killam stated that he has had FBI agents in Pensacola tell him that they generated such memoranda, which, naturally, Mr. Elton Killam cannot obtain.
Henry Killam left Pensacola for Tampa in order to escape FBI harassment. He was interviewed in Tampa which became Commission Exhibit 1451. According to Mr. Elton Killam, the other interview the FBI did with Henry Killam sharply contrasted CE 1451. Mr. Elton Killam has tried to talk to the FBI agents who interviewed Mr. Henry Killam in Tampa, but they have refused to talk about these interviews.
Elton Killam told the Board that his cousin was forced to move back in with his mother in Pensacola. He stated to the county solicitor investigators that "there were little dark people following him around who he described as either Mexicans or Cubans and that they were out to kill him." There was also a man dressed as a priest who was following him around Pensacola. Mr. Elton Killam personally talked to these investigators prior to Henry Killam's death. Elton Killam believes that the man dressed as a priest could be Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, or Raymond Broshears, all of whom, Elton Killam said, were known to have disguised themselves as priests.
Henry Killam's probation officer took two FBI agents over to see him. After the interview the FBI agents told the probation officer that Killam needed psychiatric help. That help never came, because the next day Henry Killam was dead. He death occurred on March 17, 1964, in the early morning as the result of a single, deep slash into his jugular vein. Officially, the death was ruled a suicide, or an accident--that he had apparently jumped through a plate glass window. There were no other cuts on his body.
In 1967, during the Garrison investigation, his brother Earl tried to have Killam's body exhumed. This was denied, on the grounds that no association between the assassination and Killam's death was known to exist.
Now that is very odd and quite interesting. Why would Mr. Earl Killam have to offer such an association to exhume a blood relative? This is an area I do not understand. When you die, how and why does your body belong to local government? If surviving family gives consent to exhume, how can local authority say no and make it stick?
Elton Killam pointed out that the FBI agents who interviewed Killam are still alive, and under some kind of oath not to talk.
That was basically it for the hearing. I am concerned that these Public Hearings are becoming less and less venues for the average citizen or researcher to communicate with the Review Board. I believe this damages the process and the research community. The Boston hearing and now this New Orleans hearing were dominated by authors of books on the case and/or people who have had some intimate connection to it, as in the case of Ms. Wegmann--in her case, a tenuous connection by a deceased family member. In both hearings there was only one person who spoke who was not preapproved, Mr. Elton Killam in New Orleans, and Mr. Edgar Tatro in Boston.
I was thrilled to see Wallace Millam in attendance. I also saw my friend Malcolm Blunt, who came from Dallas, a twelve hour bus ride. Malcolm was busy up in Washington prying loose some stuff from the Archives in June. We need more researchers to show up at these hearings.
In the Times-Picayune for Wednesday, June 28, 1995, Chairman Tunheim is quoted as saying, "This is a last-ditch effort to get a complete collection of the records." Staff writer David Synder writes that Tunheim said getting all of the facts out is important, because "There was never a closure." The American public will decide when to close the case--no one else.
The same article went on to mention, "Two of those called to testify, who asked not to be identified, called the proceedings `a dog and pony show,' designed to deal with unrest over the failure of the government, primarily the FBI and the CIA, to release Kennedy assassination documents." These two are obviously Connick and Wegmann. Kermit Hall is mentioned as saying that about twenty percent of the ten to fifteen million assassination-related records have been made public.
At ten cents apiece if you copy them yourselves in the Archives, or twenty-five cents by mail, who has the money to acquire them all, let along store them?
The next day in the Times-Picayune, Lou Ivon, a Garrison staffer during the Shaw case, said that hundreds of tapes of interviews are missing. "Gone, too, is a file cabinet containing material pertaining only to David Ferrie."
If anyone in the New Orleans area has any local press coverage of the hearing, be it newspaper, television or radio, I would like a copy.
I believe that the next Public Hearing will be in Los Angeles. I do not know where or when. I only heard rumors that L.A. is the next major city the board wants to visit. I beg the research community to have an extremely strong showing, both showing up in person and adding a written submission, whether you are testifying or not, at the next hearing, regardless of what city it is in. I will do my best to inform you where and when.
* * *