The ARRB, For Better or Worse

On November 20, 1998, former ARRB Chair John Tunheim appeared in a report aired on WBFF-TV, the Fox affiliate in Baltimore, Maryland. In the course of that story, which essentially recounted the work of the Board, Tunheim said: "At this point I don't see anything in these files that warrants a new investigation into the assassination. I think that this moves into the realm of historical interpretation. And, the researchers and historians are the ones that will have at these materials today."

Take that for what it's worth.

Fair Play recently asked for opinions on the work of the ARRB --- good, bad, or indifferent. Responses follow.

Speaking at JFK Lancer's November in Dallas conference this past November, researcher Steve Jones was one of three panelists presenting data on Ruth and Michael Paine. After speaking for about twenty minutes, Jones said, "The last thing I would like to share with the group in the time I have left is nothing about new evidence, but is what I would call the Review Board's biggest mistake --- or I should even say the Review Board's shame. And that is never having the energy or interest to depose Ruth or Michael Paine for testimony.

"Starting in 1995, Probe magazine started publishing articles that had been written by JFK researchers on the Paines --- very detailed articles. And at the end of all these articles, Jim DiEugenio, who is the editor, always made a little note to the Review Board, 'You guys gotta bring the Paines in for testimony.' The Review Board members all subscribed to Probe. They read this, they must have known about this stuff --- yet there was no interest in interviewing them."

At Jones' request, DiEugenio hand-delivered information on the Paines to Review Board members at a public meeting in Los Angeles in 1996, Jones said. And Jones left voice mail messages for Board staffers on the matter. None of this got him anywhere. "Finally, in August of this year [1998], I, in a last-ditch effort, wrote a letter to Laura Denk, the Executive Director of the Review Board, saying 'time is of the essence. It's critical to get the Paines in, depose them about some crucial things --- the Minox camera, the Soviet Embassy letter, a few other things.' She wrote back, saying 'we just don't have the time to deal with this.'

"Then DiEugenio started a campaign where he eventually got over fifty researchers to flood the Review Board with phone calls, faxes, letters, imploring them to please call the Paines in. So then Laura Denk called him back and said, 'Okay. Show us some more information, and we'll present it to the Review Board.'

The information was gathered and presented, but the response was that the Board couldn't afford to bring the Paines in to testify. Jones said that Vince Salandria, without hesitation, offered to pay for their air fare. The Board was promptly informed. "Then the excuse was, not that they didn't have enough money, but 'Well, we don't have enough time, we just want to get the Final Report out. We don't have the time to deal with this.' So, it just seemed like they were not at all interested."

Later that same day, at the COPA conference, Fair Play was able to put the question to Board member John Tunheim, "Why were Ruth or Michael Paine never questioned by the ARRB?"

Predictably, Tunheim's answer was: "Well, that's --- we had limited time for doing depositions and interviews. There was such an intense focus on the records, and getting the records processed. The Board had to make significant calls on exactly how many people should be interviewed. I think in an ideal world, had we had enough staff and enough time, the Paines certainly would have been interviewed and deposed. We chose, with our deposition process, to focus on the medical question evidence issue, to try to bring some clarification, or more clarification, to that. I think that's an important addition to the body of knowledge about that very mysterious aspect of the assassination. And in an ideal world, the Paines should have been deposed. We just, we ran out of time, and staff, and money, to be able to do all that."

Erick Arthur Bovik is an Austin, Texas attorney and counselor-at-law who describes himself as a "relative newcomer" to the JFK case. He is married to Austin attorney Dawn Meredith, who has been researching the case for many years.

Like others who heard Judge Tunheim speak at the COPA conference on Saturday, November 21, Mr. Bovik wrote down a question he hoped would be asked in a Q&A session following the ARRB Panel. When that Q&A session ended, Mr. Bovik told Fair Play about his original handwritten question, which was not asked, and about a short conversation he had with Tunheim immediately after the session ended.

"The question on the 3x5 card is, 'Why didn't the ARRB include, in its Final Report, information regarding the fingerprint of Malcolm Wallace, found on the Sixth Floor of the School Book Depository? Malcolm Wallace was a convicted murderer and an associate of LBJ. Those fingerprints were requested by your legal counsel, Kim Herd, after they were mentioned in a Petition Submitting New Evidence and Suggesting Further Investigation. That's a legal document, dated May 29, 1998, by Texas attorney Barr McClellan. These fingerprints were part of a report submitted to the Dallas Police Department on the 12th of May, 1998. This is a record.'

"What I asked him, when I went up on the podium afterward, I really wanted to ask him this question, I said, Did you --- why did you not include any mention of the fingerprint material regarding Mac Wallace? He immediately knew what I was talking about, he remembered these documents that he had received.

"And he said, Yes, we should have mentioned those in our report. And he seemed to indicate that it was an oversight on their part. However, then I asked a follow-up question. I said, Well, what happened to these materials? You know, these materials were submitted to you. I said, Are they included in the Archives, where all the other materials are archived? And he said, Yes, they should be in there. And I said, Well, they were submitted back in May. And he said, Well, they should be archived by now. And I said, So a researcher, then, should be able to find these materials by using your index? And he said, Yes, they should be able to do that. And that's the response I got from him. It was an abbreviated form of the question, but he knew what I was talking about. Instantly."

Mr. Bovik added that this was not a definitive statement that the Wallace materials are in the archives, and suggested that someone should check to see whether they are.

Mr. Bovik sent Fair Play the following update via email: "On 11/24/98, I checked the website listing the ARRB materials filed at the National Archives. The Malcolm Wallace materials did not appear in the index. That same day, I called and left a message at Judge Tunheim's chambers in Minneapolis. I left my name and number and reminded him that we had met at the conference. And then I said, 'The Malcom Wallace materials are not in the National Archives.' He has not returned my call."

[Note: See Fair Play Issues #22 & 23 for more on the Mac Wallace case.]

The Nov. 25, 96 issue of the Spotlight newspaper was wrapped with a yellow special wrapper containing a "Flash" message prominently displayed ... as follows:

FLASH!

The fox is minding the chicken coop at the JFK Assassination Records Review Board, which has been charged with the responsibility of releasing thousands of pages of long-secret federal documents that may contain at least a part of the solution to the crime. Appointed by the powers-that-be to head the review board is one David Marwell, formerly of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, the "nazi-hunting" unit that was compromised by KGB disinformation in the now- infamous John Demjanjuk case. Marwell also played a key role in the hunt for Josef Mengele, working closely with Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad. Marwell was also reportedly a key source for JFK conspiracy theory critic Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed, when Posner wrote an earlier book which touted the OSI-Mossad pursuit of Mengele. Critics say that Marwell's close ties to foreign intelligence are a conflict of interest, particularly in light of the charge, leveled in Michael Collins Piper's Final Judgement, that the Mossad had a role in the JFK affair.

Ed Sherry
Florida

PPS Has anyone out there heard anything more on this? He resigned shortly after this was printed.

I could never understand how the Board could open all its NEWS RELEASES with the claim that it was "an independent federal agency ...." That, to me, is a classic oxymoron. For some unknown reason, that strange description of itself was dropped from the Board's NEWS RELEASE which announced the imminent publication of its Final Report.

The ARRB seemed to get off to a very slow start and never began "working" until several months after its formation, losing time that it never satisfactorily regained - despite the one year extension which later proved necessary but which was never long enough. I could smell the HSCA through all this (when the time and money is up, we'll have to close down). I am convinced that this is what has happened.

On the credit side, many important documents have been released and some have been very revealing. We still did not see the release of everything, however. As an example, the Mac Wallace thing, which broke in a big way DURING the ARRB's work, has been ignored.

My overall fear is that when the so-called research community continues to badger officialdom for further releases of documents, etc. the answer will be something along the lines: "Well, you had the ARRB - isn't that enough?" Well, to me it's not enough! Like the HSCA back in the late-70s, the Board's work was never completed. It was brought to a premature and incomplete conclusion.

I realize that the ARRB's aim was never to "solve" the crime but at the end of the day I feel that another "ARRB-style" committee will later be felt necessary. Look at it like this:

     1964: Warren Commission ..... "Oswald did it alone"

     1978: HSCA investigation..... "Probably a conspiracy"

     1998: ARRB ..................  No conclusion (requested or offered)

Ian Griggs

* * *

As a final note, this observation was offered at the COPA conference by Dr. E. Martin Schotz:

"Not one member of the Board is capable of coming before you and stating the most simple and axiomatic truths of this case: there was a conspiracy without a doubt. The Warren Report was an obvious act of criminal fraud. Senator Arlen Specter should be indicted for criminal obstruction of justice.

"Can any member of that Board come before you and say that? Of course not. Because respected members of the legal and academic Establishment who can get the appropriate security clearances to serve on that Board, are incapable of speaking simple truths like this. And if you try to get them to admit this kind of thing, they look at you as if you're some kind of weirdo, or nut."

---

Return to Main Page

---

* * *