Updates

Probe says one of its readers sent them a videotape of a Los Angeles-area newscast, which stated that the Justice Department showed up at Nagell's place with a subpoena "to take everything out concerning the Kennedy assassination." The Justice Department reps apparently removed some papers and sent them to Washington.

They also report that Nagell's son states in a letter that his late father had shown him unspecified things which substantiated his story.

Additionally, Probe reports that in the Nagell letter published in its November-December issue, reprinted in this issue of Fair Play, the Cuban exile group Nagell calls "Bravo" is in fact a code name for Manuel Artime's Movement for the Recovery of the Revolution (MRR). MRR and Artime had close ties to Howard Hunt and the CIA, Probe notes, after the breakup of Operation Mongoose.

Lastly, Probe says that the "Arturo" that Nagell's letter is written to is, in fact, Arthur Greenstein---the recipient, according to Nagell, of some "forty-odd letters I wrote ... from Leavenworth, most of them written during the period July 25, 1967, through April 20, 1968 ..."

For those of you who have contacted Dealey Plaza witnesses, you know how defensive and evasive they can be. However, James "Ike" Altgens was the exception to the rule. When I first telephoned him at his home in Dallas in August, 1992, he did his best to be cordial and put me at ease. "I've learned a lot from students like you," he said. Not only did he answer all of my questions, but he had a few of his own, which made the interview into a much more informal conversation.

Being an extreme critic of the Warren Commission, I disagreed with his apparent faith in the official version. But rather than argue, we agreed to disagree and had numerous conversations about not only the assassination, but also his experiences as a photojournalist. It was not uncommon to find in the mail a newspaper clipping or other items of interest from Mr. Altgens. On January 28, 1993, he wrote "[i]f some incontrovertable evidence should surface, proving the Warren Report to be in error, I would most certainly have to consider it." To me, it was this open-mindedness that made Mr. Altgens such an exceptional witness to history.

Even after thirty-two years of being contacted by both professional and amateur researchers, he always ended our conversations and letters with something like "[i]f you have any further questions, feel free to get in touch." As a student, his attitude was greatly appreciated and a welcomed change from the reactions of several other witnesses I had contacted.

His overall thoughts on the assassination controversy may best be summed up in the closing paragraph of a February 6, 1993 letter to the author:

As for the Warren Report, it too has many controversial parts. It is in those weak parts that activists think the report is vulnerable, yet no one has been able to shoot it down because of inaccuracies; until they do, The Report will continue to be a target. When the time comes, and, proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I will have to pay attention to the conflicting evidence--just as the Federal Government will also need to do. However, here we are, thirty years after the event and the Warren Report still prevails. Something to think about.

* * *