American Injustice  

Patch Kincaid Series

Volume 4  

Martin Luther King

Robert F. Kennedy  


 Flying to war torn Vietnam Patch Kincaid and Ray Meinkewitz are part of a secret plan,  Operation Bluebird Rescue, to extricate Commander Phineas Beauregard from an American prison near Saigon and question Winkamp, an important player in the death of President Kennedy. An extensive riot ensues as Patch’s flying skills are challenged as Patch, Phinney and Meinkewitz attempt to flee the country and top CIA operative Baker Finch.  

In the next phase throughout Europe Patch searches for the elusive report that specifies how and why President Kennedy was killed. Finding that reports leads to deadly consequences.     LBJ drops out of the presidential race after Senator Robert F. Kennedy from New York announces a run for the presidency. Kennedy’s extraordinary campaign is recorded primary by primary and speech by speech.

  Patch faces Baker Finch at Gibraltar and more intelligence officers at a Christmas gala at a castle in England. He again meets Natalie Tomkins. The torch is lit in their relationship and in the race to find the de Gaulle report on the assassination of President Kennedy.  

This is 1968, a horrendous year of assassinations and further bloodshed in Vietnam. The deaths of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy are detailed with the truth-how they were killed as threats to the existing order. Justice is denied to those who dared to seek it and for those citizens left to absorb the deluge. Once again, an inconsequential event. This one involving Jim Morrison and The Doors changes history.      
Robert P. Fitton

American Injustice

Jim Garrison

Patch Kincaid Series

Volume 3

Patch Kincaid finds himself in late 1966 and he contacts his friend  Johnny Roselli in California to help find Ray Meinkewitz. In doing so Patch becomes part of an ultra-stealth group of individuals called the Milky Way Network. Led by a high-level American politician the network’s goal is to aid Jim Garrison’s investigation in New Orleans.

Within this network is Ray Meinkewitz, Commander of Hughes Air Force Base Phineas Beauregard, and the attractive Lieutenant Natalie Tompkins. Detailed documents and actions of the powers to be are unveiled as attempts are made to forward the new knowledge to Jim Garrison. Being in the Milky Way Network is not without risk as an operative from the Kennedy Assassination takes Patch head on.

Patch, torn by not being able to return to his family at Apex Junction, rebuffs the advances of Natalie Tompkins. When she leaves the safe house Patch remains confused but realizes he did like Natalie.

Jim Garrison
Walter Sheridan

The government, using their minions in the press both written and on the TV networks begin a full-fledged attack on Garrison. As witnesses are eliminated one by one Garrison is characterized as a buffoon by NBC news, a Kennedy insider Walter Sheridan and  Newsweek and The Saturday Evening post provide hit pieces written by Hugh Aynesworth and James Phelan.  Witnesses are intimidated and bribed while Garrison is mocked. An entire task force is set up inside the CIA to thwart Garrison’s attempts at justice.

At the end of 1967 there are hints that Robert F. Kennedy might have some political capital to run for president-but not unless LBJ is out of the race. And the numerous speeches of Martin Luther King are highlighted as Dr. King merges the peace movement with the civil rights struggle. And Patch Kincaid faces the dark clouded future of 1968.

—————–

Subject: Richard Case Nagell

Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Mo.

MEMORANDUM April 18, 1967

 TO: Jim Garrison, District Attorney

 FROM: . William R. Martin, Assistant District Attorney

 SUBJECT: Richard Case Nagell

Federal Prisoner No. PMB-A-16606-H Medical Center for Federal Prisoners, Springfield, Mo.

On Monday morning April 10, 1967, at 7:30 A.M. I departed New Orleans for Springfield, Missouri on board Delta Flight 836. The purpose of this trip was to interview the subject identified above who had offered himself as an informant to this office. Upon arrival in Springfield at 11:17 A.M. I retained yellow cab number 9 and was driven directly to the Federal Center. There I was advised by the guard at the main entrance to the building that he would have to obtain the permission of the classification and parole officer assigned to the subject before I would be allowed visiting privileges. The guard requested that I fill out a “visitors form” and he then took my completed form and the subject’s record jacket elsewhere in the building out of my sight and returned at about ten or fifteen minutes and stated that I would be allowed to visit the subject during regular visiting hours from 1 to 3:00 P.M. By this time, it was 12:20 P.M. so I elected to have yellow cab number 9 wait for me. At five minutes to one P.M. I was ushered, along with several other visitors, into-a—very large and informal waiting room where we were asked to await the arrival of the person whom we had come to visit.

NOTE: Contrary to what I had been told to expect, I was not personally searched nor was my briefcase searched prior to being allowed in to visit ‘the ‘subject. For future reference it should also be noted that the inmates or prisoners of this 1 Federal Medical Center are not allowed in any manner or without the prior consent of their classification officer. All material written or signed by the inmate is censored by the prison. Officials and there exists no privileged communication between lawyer and client at this institution unless special arrangements have been made for a private interview by the inmate himself. The visitor is free to write his own notes during the visit with the inmate and may hand the notes and other documents or papers to the inmate for the inmate to read and this is done without supervision or Censorship but, in no case may the prisoner write or sign his name or deliver a document to the visitor without the aforementioned prior approval.

The following interview with the subject, Richard Case Nagell, took place over a two-day period and a total of four hour of standard visiting hours. The interviews with the subject were made without taking notes since the presence of a note pad and a pencil seem to make the subject nervous and reluctant to speak freely.

The subject was brought into the visiting room promptly at 1:00 P.M. on April 10, 1967, and was brought to my area of the room by the guard supervising the general visiting area.

This visiting area is a large room arranged in an informal manner with many individual clusters of chairs each drawn up to a low table in the center of the cluster of chairs. The visitors face the inmate from their chairs which are drawn up on the opposite side of the small table from the inmate and, I observed that in no case were the visitors allowed to sit side by side with the inmate.

 After shaking hands with the subject, we both took seats on opposite sides of the table and the subject opened the conversation immediately by saying that he was sorry that he had caused me to make this long trip from New Orleans for no purpose at He stated that he had given ‘the matter much thought and that he had  decided that it was useless and in his own best interests for him  to turn over any material or evidence to us. He stated that he was worried about recent events and was at this point afraid to confide in anyone. He elaborated that he had become very suspicious of just about everyone and, was extremely upset by the way “things were being handled”. Further prompted, the subject stated that he had asked his sister to contact Mr. Garrison personally and had given her explicit instructions as to how he had wanted this contact to be established. He said that his sister had gone about things in exactly the wrong way and that she and her husband were trying to play “amateur detective” and that all they were going to succeed in doing would be to get him in even deeper than he was and to stir up more pressure and more trouble. He stated that recently his brother-in-law had visited him in Springfield and had attempted to “interrogate” him very closely about this case and other matter in his past but that he (the subject) had decided to trust absolutely no one and that he would simply let his case and everything pertaining to it remain in the status quo.—-

Richard Case Nagell

 At this point it seemed patently unwise to question the subject or to push him in any manner and our conversation was permitted to drift into other unimportant and miscellaneous channels.

The subject was quite interested and willing to reveal to me certain things about himself and about the depth and complexity of his own case and of his past personal life. He stated to me that he had been “a very bad boy for a very long time and that no one knew of this since he had never discussed his – personal beliefs or his personal activities with anyone and had always concealed his activities with a good cover or front. He stated that he had been involved in certain activities which could get him in a tremendous amount of trouble if the activities became known and that he would probably wind up spending the rest of his life in prison if anyone ever discovered exactly, and could prove exactly, what he had been up to. He stated to me that he had been a Marxist-Leninist for many years and – that he had no particular —-or loyalty to  the United States and was not interested in helping the United States or any Of our Government functions, nor was he interested in helping this office with our investigation, for any reason, or out of any motive whatsoever except insofar as he thought it might be a’ benefit to him personally and that if he ever did decide to help this office in any manner it would only be because he decided that it would help “this number one boy” (at this point the subject pointed to himself).

The subject became intensely curious about our investigation and, as our conversation progressed, he stated that he was pleased to see that I was willing to bring him up to date on our Investigation insofar as the non-confidential aspects were concerned and he stated that he was certain that, at this stage of the game, we too had our hands full with amateur sleuths who were coming out of the woodwork. Our discussion continued along this general pattern until I mentioned to the subject that he really too should not be/disturbed or upset by the conduct or amateurish approach of his sister and brother-in-law since, after all, as the best that could be expected of anyone who was not accustomed to this sort of thing and that they certainly could not be expected to behave as professionals.

At this point the subject stated that this was precisely the professionalism he was looking for when he had asked that he be contacted by Mr. Garrison. He stated that he had kept account  of our progress as best he could through his limited access to newspapers and that, he admired Mr. Garrison for his willingness to undertake this investigation and expose the truth regardless of where it may lead. The subject stated that he had seen Mr. Garrison on television, or had perhaps read a newspaper, Mr. Garrison’s statement that “let justice be done though the heavens crumble” and that he (the subject) had been very much impressed with this statement and had hoped to be able to assist Mr. Garrison and, in so doing, ultimately assist himself and benefit his own position.

‘At this point. I assured the subject that any information or material he released to Mr. Garrison’s office would be handled with the strictest confidence and that it would receive the most competent and professional treatment that the office could make available. Although no further encouragement the subject began to discuss the Kennedy assassination and his own relationship to it.

He stated that there had actually been three separate plots to assassinate President Kennedy. The first was a plan to kill President Kennedy by bombing (a concealed bomb in the speaker’s platform or the speaker’s podium) on the occasion of December or January of 1962 when the President traveled to Miami, Florida to address the group of Cuban prisoners who had taken part in the Bay of Pigs invasion and who had just been released and returned to the States. A second and similar plan to kill the President was to have taken place in June of 1963 when the President had traveled to Los Angeles for an important speaking engagement. The subject stated that the first and second plots (above mentioned) had never really become serious and that the plans never did reach more than just the talking stage. The third and final plot, which did in fact end with the assassination of  President Kennedy, was an offshoot of the other two plans and was planned and put into effect by the same group of people.

 The subject stated that these plots to kill President  Kennedy had each involved several men, some of them Cubans, and that all three plots had been based along the same thinking and logic.

At this point the subject asked me if I was aware of the fact that the Cuban refugees in the United States had formed and organized a great number of movements, organizations, groups, and societies all, of which were, in one way or another, dedicated to the overthrow of Fidel Castro. Most of these organizations, of Cubans are either formal or semi-formal organizations with elected- Presidents and officers and under a variety of names, such as ——————-

The subject made it expressly clear at that time, that none of these organizations, acting as organizations, planned to assassinate, or in fact assassinated, President Kennedy. Rather, he Stated, that the Cubans who took an active part in the assassination acted as individuals and that they did not all belong to one organization or even two organizations, even though they had all come together and become known to each other because of these organizations.

At this point the subject became ‘rather nervous and seem to be reluctant to continue his description of what had taken place in connection with the Kennedy assassination. He asked a variety of questions concerning the theories on which Mr. Garrison had been working and whether or not we had received or had been offered any cooperation by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I assured the subject that insofar as the Kennedy assassination was concerned, that this office was working entirely independently of any other organization and that we did not believe that the FBI or the CIA could be inclined to offer us any assistance. This statement seemed to relax the ‘subject a bit because, as he said, the information he was about to give me, or could give me, was not such that it would enhance the public image of either the FBI or the CIA.

 At this time the guard in the visitors’ room at the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners announced that visiting hours were over and the subject and I were forced to take very rapid leave of each other. Prior to departing the subject asked me if I could possibly stay in town and return during the next visiting hours and I assured him that I had no intention of leaving town until after he had told me everything he had to say. This concluded my first interview with the subject, Richard Case Nagell at 3:00 P.M. on April 10, 1967.

Upon leaving the visiting area of the Medical Center I asked to speak to the prison social director, Matthews and to the classification and parole officer in charge of the subject’s case. Neither of these gentlemen were available to speak to me and I was asked to return later in the afternoon to see them and “was also asked to leave a message as to the nature of the business I had with them. I left word that I wished to make arrangements for a privileged attorney-client interview with the subject since I had not been satisfied with our meeting in a public meeting room. For the rest of the day and during the morning of the next day both of these men successfully avoided and evaded my attempts to see them in their offices.

On Tuesday morning at 8:30 A.M. I returned to the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners and continued my interview with the subject, Richard Case Nagell. Without preliminaries Mr. Nagell continued our conversation exactly where it had been interrupted the day before by asking me what theory Mr. Garrison was working on as regards the assassination of President Kennedy.  The subject apologized to me for having to ask me to explain our theory or theories and explained himself by saying that he was very much concerned lest we involve him by accident in more trouble with the FBI or the CIA. The subject said that he could not afford, at this point, more trouble with either of these organizations and that he had to make absolutely certain that our approach to the investigation of the assassination was not such that, with the information that he could give us, would lead him, in his own words, into more hot water.

At this time -I presented-to-the subject the following possibility:

That early in the Castro regime in Cuba, various efforts were made by patriotic and anti-communist Cubans, to overthrow and/or to assassinate Fidel Castro. That these efforts included small guerrilla raids from the Florida Keys, small attempts to land weapons and————anti-Castro Cubans and efforts on the part of many refugee Cubans in the United States to form large organizations to collect money and weapons and to train forces for an invasion of Cuba to overthrow and/or assassinate Fidel Castro. That much of this anti-Castro work was encouraged, sponsored, and financed by the Central Intelligence Agency and that for all practical purposes these miscellaneous s efforts on the part of the Cubans and the CIA had been totally useless. Adding insult to injury, the Bay of Pigs invasion, an acknowledged CIA-operation, was a total disaster when the Kennedy administration decided at the last minute that they could not afford, publicly, to lend our support to the Bay of Pigs Invasion in the form of Air Support and invading troops which had been promised to the Cuban invaders. That during the long imprisonment of the Cuban troops of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the entire invasion operation-CIA involvement was publicly investigated and openly criticized, and that the Kennedy administration had stated as their final excuse, that world opinion and the opinion, of the American public was insufficiently aroused to justify an armed invasion by the United States of the Island of Cuba. That this rationale so ‘inflamed many of the Cuban refugees that a group of individual Cubans along with a few United States citizens decided to take matters- into their own hands and to perform an act so violent and outlandish in itself, that it would instantly arouse United States and world opinion to such an extreme pitch that an armed invasion by the United States, with United States military forces, would be then justified on the Island of Cuba. This single act, designed to inflame world opinion; was the assassination of President Kennedy: That this assassination was planned originally in such a manner that the assassins and/or their fall guy would be able to take immediate refuge in Cuba and hat this, in addition to other evidence, which was intended to come to light, would make the assassination look as though it had been designed, planned and executed under the orders of the Fidel Castro regime in’ Cuba. This, the involvement of Fidel Castro in the assassination of  President Kennedy, would then justify an immediate invasion of Cuba by the United States military forces.

Throughout my explanation of the above possibility the subject had followed my words with extreme interest and had nodded his head vigorously on occasion. He now stated, “that is absolutely right’, as a general picture, but of course there are some fine  points here and there that you have not covered”. He went on to say that we were obviously aware of many of these fine points, or we would not know as much as we already obviously did. He also stated that the evidence which he wanted to give to Mr. Garrison was of such a nature as to “wrap up and put a seal on” the entire investigation.

In discussing the evidence that he wished to turn over to Mr. Garrison the subject went into some minor detail as to how he came to possess the evidence. The subject stated that for a long time he, as a Marxist-Leninist, had worked for the other side” and had worked under the specific control of the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. In this connection, the subject stated that he had done a variety of work assigned to him out of the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and that he had been briefed by a member of that Embassy as to the Miami and Los Angeles plots to assassinate President Kennedy. As to the assassination in Dallas the subject stated that his only connection was to function as a watchdog for the Soviet Embassy and to inform them of exactly what was taking place and of what progress was being made on a day-to-day basis. The subject was able, in some manner which he did not disclose, to infiltrate the assassination plot and, for a reason of his own which he did not disclose, the subject was able to make a tape recording of four voices in conversation concerning the plot which ended in the assassination of President Kennedy. It is precisely this tape recording which the subject has decided to turn over to Mr. Garrison as soon as he possibly can.

Concerning the Content of the tape recording  in question the subject stated that it was a tape recording made by a conversation of four individuals and that-the tape was primarily in  Spanish although on certain occasions in the tape certain of the participants lapsed into English. When questioned as to the identity of the persons speaking on the tape the-subject stated openly  that one of them as “Arcacha” and another individual whom the subject would only identify only as “ Q “ The subject did not wish to go into more detail concerning the tape at that time since he, all during our previous conversations, had indicated that our conversation could possibly be bugged.

 As to the method of our obtaining the tape recording, the subject advised as follows:

The tape in question, along with a variety of other tape recordings, papers, and other items highly incriminating to the subject, are in a box or small trunk which the subject left in safekeeping and care of an intimate and trusted friend. An arrangement was made between the subject and this friend that under no circumstances was this box or trunk or any of its contents to be release to any person whatsoever, other than the subject, unless the friend were to be approached by a person bearing a handwritten letter in  the handwriting of the subject,  which letter would have to be signed by the subject in a certain secret manner. If anyone were to approach the friend and attempt to obtain the box or any of its contents without first having obtained this letter signed in a secret manner, then, in that case, the friend had instructions to destroy anything and everything that had been left in his safekeeping by the subject.

 Mr. Nagell then indicated to me that he was willing to whisper to me the name, address and telephone number of the friend with whom he ‘had left this evidence but prior to doing so the subject asked to pledge my word that the name, address and, telephone number would not be written down in this report, or copies of this report, could conceivably leave  this office and fall into the hands of the FBI or the CIA. The subject indicated that if this should happen,’ he was sure that the FBI would charge in on his friend, kick in his front door, and harass him into turning over all of the aforementioned material. He stated that this material is my whole future” and indicated  that he had to be particularly careful of how it was handled. This being the case, the name, address, and telephone number of the subject’s friend does not appear in this report but has been turned over to Mr. Garrison for use at his discretion.

The subject and I then entered into a lengthy discussion as to how the letter in question directed to his friend could be placed into my hands; bearing in mind the fact that the subject was not able to deliver to me anything in writing and that all of his outgoing written material was very closely censored. It was resolved that there were two possibilities:

1. That the subject would immediately request of the prison officials at the Medical Center that he be granted privileged attorney-client interviews with me and that if this request were granted, he would then be able to smuggle this letter to me.

 2. The subject stated that he was scheduled to be sent back to Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary within a few days and since privileged communications at Leavenworth were much easier to come by than in the Medical Center, he would be able to hand me the letter in question if I were to visit him at Leavenworth.

The subject asked that I return to Springfield within a few days to attempt to see him under privileged circumstances since in his own words, “time is of the essence”. If this effort is unsuccessful then a second effort will be made when the subject is transferred to Leavenworth.

 IMPRESSIONS AND OPINIONS: The subject, Richard Case Nagell, is an extremely articulate and well-spoken individual who seems to have full command of his senses and total recall of his activities and constantly mention dates and places that pertain to matters concerning this investigation. He is of the opinion that he will be forced to complete his full ten-year prison sentence, of which six years remain, unless he offers to cooperate with the FBI. It is his impression that this cooperation would mean the release to the FBI of all of the material incidental to his association with the Soviet Embassy in Moscow and he is not willing to do this. Mr. Nagell stated to me that in six years from now  (when he is released from prison), he will then be forced /to make a final decision of either leaving this country (United States) forever or remaining in this country in good standing forever. It is his opinion that everything will depend on how the aforementioned box or trunk containing his possessions is handled. I received the impression that Mr. Nagell does not really care, one way or the other, whether he leaves this country or not in six years since he feels that it is possible  for him to live in peace either in the United States or in the Soviet Union depending on the circumstances at that time. Although Mr. Nagell stated to me that he felt no particular loyalty to the United States and had worked with the Soviet Union as a matter of principle and personal convictions, he also stated to me that the release of his tape recording to Mr. Garrison was his first step in seeing what he could do to “square himself” with this country.

 At this point the guard in the visiting area announced the end of visiting hours and the subject and I parted with my promise to return to Springfield within a few days to attempt to see him under privileged visiting conditions.

At approximately 11:00 A.M. on Tuesday April 11, 1967, I returned to my room in the Candlelight Motel in Springfield and made arrangements to travel to Kansas City for the purpose of meeting with Mr. Lawrence Loftus, an attorney practicing in the e of Kansas with Offices in the Hedrick Land Title Bld. in Olathe, Kansas.

 Pioneer Air Taxi Service from Springfield to Kansas City, Kansas departed Springfield Airport at 3:30 P.M. that date and arrived in Kansas City, Kansas at 4:30 P.M. I boarded this flight and was met at the Kansas City Airport by Mr. Loftus.

Throughout the following day, Wednesday. April 12, 1967, law remained with Mr. Loftus in his law offices reviewing the procedural aspects of the handling of prisoners in both Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary and the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield. Mr. Loftus, who has had a good deal of experience with inmates at Leavenworth is of the opinion that there will be no difficulty in obtaining privileged communications with the subject once he is transferred to Leavenworth. He also stated that privileged communications should be able to be obtained in Springfield Medical Center but only at the request of the prisoner. This was basically the same information which had been obtained in Springfield and was confirmed by my research of this date. At 8:15 P.M. I departed Kansas City on 12th of April 1967 to return to New Orleans on Braniff Flight 241.

Every effort will be exerted to obtain the letter in •• question from the subject and, subsequently, to obtain the tape recording referred to by Mr. Nagell.

Quick Synopsis: When You’re Dead, You’re Dead.

When You’re Dead, You’re Dead

AKA 1882

Before I get into the heart of this novel of the old west, let me say that my time in California allowed me to visit Death Valley and portions of Nevada. This experience brought forth this novel.

It was a time when liars were heroes and killers walked free. Jake McBride is a San Francisco assistant district attorney who watches the killer Johnny Rheingold go free on a technicality. Rheingold laughs at Jake in the courtroom and so does his wild girlfriend Pam Grayson. Jake retreats to the rest room and splashes cold water over his face. He can’t believe Rheingold’s lawyers have wiggled out of drug and murder charges.

When Jake turns, a corridor has opened in the tiles and a man in a vested suit, carrying a cane approaches him from inside the mysterious corridor. He is Mr. Melbourne, and he offers Jake a chance to obtain the justice that was denied in the courtroom. He refuses and thinks he has gone mad.

Jake plays hand ball with his best friend Jim Coltraine and doesn’t respond until Rheingold goes on a killing spree.

Again, Melbourne pitches his ability to provide justice.

Finally, an exasperated Jake walks on down the corridor in the wall and is told he must remember that if he dies in this new existence he will indeed as the novel’s title infers, be dead.

He emerges in a western saloon as Marshal Jake McBride from Brinson, Nevada.

 Here’s where the novel Segways into a realistic western story. Jake has no recollection of Melbourne or his revenge against Rheingold.

Silver on the way to the US mint in Carson City disappears from Overland Train 924 outside Brinson.

 Rheingold, also a part of the 1882 cast of characters arrives in town on the evening stage and the quest for justice begins. Rheingold is the outlaw/cowboy Johnny Ringo. There are no reports of Johnny Ringo in the time period from March until June of 1882 which gives me a little more umph to using poetic license.

Remember like the characters in the wizard of Oz movie people in McBride’s San Francisco life are part of the plot, including Jim Coltraine who own’s the town’s hotel. 

Jake tries to make sense of the 924 flipped over in the desert outside of town- all the silver and people missing. And now Johnny Rheingold is in Brinson and the US Army has arrived.

In this book you’ll read about wide areas of Death Valley and isolated stretches of Nevada that I still find fascinating. 

The wagon ruts lead south toward Arizona Territory, but Jake is diverted by the seductive

Pam Grayson through the night at the Coltraine Hotel.

Jake senses something duplicitous about Rheingold before he leaves with Soaring bird, a Shoshone toward Arizona territory to the south. Ubehebe crater, a volcanic remnant in Death Valley is featured in this story. I have hiked into that crater and thus it plays a part in the saga of the missing silver.

Jake believes that someone is tracking them, and it his friend Soaring Bird who saves his life.

The silver has been stolen and it is the comradery of Jake and the townspeople that combines to track down the people responsible for the heist.

I will tease the reader and say there is a great scene involving a runaway railroad train.

Also, the historic figures of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday, under assumed names in Tombstone Arizona aka Rhyolite City are a part of this novel along with the mining camps outside Tombstone, Arizona.

The last portion of this book involves Johnny Ringo and written within the history of 1882.

When human emotions reach a crescendo it’s difficult to separate vengeance and justice. Justice in the old west required honesty, integrity, fortitude, and a moral compass, some Jake McBride was denied in the bureaucratic, politically correct world where bad people are not brought to justice.

When you’re Dead you’re Dead is available on Amazon in kindle and paperback and the audiobook sold on Audible.com.

A Quick Synopsis: Beach House

Let me ask you: Have you ever been alone in an isolated house in the
middle of the night?
If you have you know what I’m talking about. If you haven’t been
alone in a faraway house, then you’re about to experience the pitfalls of such
a venture.

Welcome to the Chesapeake along the Maryland shore. As summer
beckons Mary Ellen brings her children on the boat to Sabines Island. As she
vacations with her children her husband Tony bounces between work and spending
time at their Beach House. 

 Through binoculars, Mary Ellen is stunned to see the orange Mustang in her beach house driveway. Her husband Tony is alone painting the house and the car belongs to a twenty-three-year-old provocative woman, Su Lee. Why would she be visiting Tony?

Later she confronts Tony who is shocked that Mary Ellen knew that Su
Lee was at the Beach house. Tony denies there was anything going on and he saw
he gave her some software after a conversation in the bar where she works as a
bartender.

Mary Ellen tells her concern to Kel, a retired police officer from Philadelphia. Kel helps her investigate the mischievous, Su Lee. Kel, who was unjustly fired, is looking to redeem himself. He slowly uncovers circumstantial evidence around Su Lee that is incredibly
frightening.

Mary Ellen confronts Su Lee who tries to intimidate her. Then she
begins calling the woman when there is evidence of Su Lee being inside the
Beach house. But she never talks to Su Lee on the phone. Rather a message plays
back threatening her and telling Mary Ellen she will be dead.

Confronting Su Lee unleashes catastrophic runaway events for Mary
Ellen and Kel.
She brings her children away from the Chesapeake and back to her
main house in Pennsylvania. What happens next is the unthinkable. And Mary
Ellen ends up alone in the Beach House and fights for her life.

Hitchcock used the technique of knowing something horrendous will
happen. The suspense to the impending event becomes unbearable. That is what I
have emphasized in the House Series and specifically to Mary Ellen along the
Chesapeake. And Hitchcock utilized the visual. Mary Ellen seeing Su Lee’s car
at the Beach house is akin to Jimmy Stewart in rear window who sees more than
he had bargained for…

And in the end, some survive, and others do not.

Beach House is available at Amazon in Kindle and Paperback. The
audiobook is at Audible.com
.

 

The Johnny Carson Show: Guest Jim Garrison

Johnny Carson Intro
Carson-Garrison Audio

NBC Studios

Burbank, California

January 31, 1968

Johnny Carson:
This particular program came around in a peculiar set of circumstances. Ever since the Warren Commission Report came out years ago, we’ve had no guest on who’ll discuss the theories or the assassination itself, because of several reasons. I felt personally as an individual that enough theorists, including Mark Lane, Buchanan, and many many others, Weisberg, had reported enough theories, and the American public was confused enough. And then about a year ago, the District Attorney of New Orleans, Mr. Jim Garrison, came up with something that kind of astounded the world when he’d announced that he’d solved the Kennedy assassination. Mr. Mort Sahl, our guest last week, in the course of the conversation I asked him what he was doing, he said he was now an investigator for Mr. Garrison’s office in New Orleans. And before we knew it, we were talking about some of the theories and so forth. I think I mentioned at that time that I was getting a little weary of listening to theories, and he mentioned that Mr. Garrison had new and vital information. From that point, I said on the air that night, I haven’t all this exact wind, but in sense I said, if Mr. Garrison had new and vital information that would in any way change the evidence — the credible evidence in the case — we would be delighted to have him on the show.

We heard from Mr. Garrison via wire, accepting our invitation, saying that he did have, in fact, new evidence that would cast a different light. And for that reason, we invited him on the show tonight. I hope not to add more confusion. I hope in some way to illuminate what has been going on. Would you welcome please, Mr. Jim Garrison.


Mr. Garrison, I thank you for coming, accepting the invitation, and I hope I did not misstate a moment ago what I tried to state to you in the telegram.

Jim Garrison:
Oh thank you for inviting me, Johnnie. It’s an honor to be here, and I think your curiosity and your fairness are in the interests of the American people.

Carson: Well, as you know, I’m not legally trained, or law oriented, and at one time NBC suggested it might be of some value to have legal council out here. And I did not want to do that for the main reason, I thought it might look like we were ganging up on you; like this was going to become another showdown or something. And I thought as a layman and an interested citizen of the country, it might be a little more casual atmosphere if we just talked in this way. And I hope that’s alright.

Garrison: It’s fine. I wish you’d also ask me any questions, or any kind that occur to you, as long as they don’t touch on Mr. Shaw. I haven’t made a comment about Mr. Shaw since the day we arrested him, and I don’t intend to talk about him.

Carson: Mr. Shaw is under indictment, as is public record, and the trial is to come up sometime in February we believe.

Garrison: We hope.

Carson: We hope. Alright. Is it alright with you if I, first of all, maybe give a little chronology of some of your statements concerning him, at least?

Garrison: By all means. By all means.

Carson: Umm, a year ago I believe it was, in February, you announced that you had solved — now this is not all of the statement of the particular day, but parts of it applies — you announced that you had solved the Kennedy assassination, “I have no reason to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed anyone in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963rd” — that was a news conference a year ago. Then in an AP interview in May, you said, “The President was killed by a bullet that was fired from the front [illegible] pairs that met in the front, that he had at least one man in the back who was shooting at another man, engaged in a row in Dealey Plaza in order to aid those who had guns.” That was AP interview in May. From a television interview in May – these are your quotes by the way – “There were five of them: three behind the stonewall and two behind the grassy knoll, and they’re not quite out of sight, and they’ve been located in photographs by the process of bringing them out, although they’re not distinct enough you can make identification from their faces.” On the NBC show of July, you said “The evidence indicates that he was shot at from two different directions in the rear, and also from the right front.” And then from the Playboy interview you said, “Our officers developed evidence that the President was assassinated by a precision beret team of at least seven men.” December news conference, you said, “It was very large and very well organized.” In talking about the conspiracy you said, “an infinitely larger number of participants than you would dream.” Press release in December, you say “One man may have fired from the sewer in Dealey Plaza, but the development of the likely use of portions of the drainage system does not conflict with the picture of the other major shooting points.” Now, in relation to the people involved, you said in the interview in May, “There was a mixture of individuals, but the point is they were all anti-Castro oriented and had been engaged in anti-Castro training.” On NBC in July you said, “The assassins were men who sought to attain a radical change in our foreign policy, particularly with regard to Cuba, individuals who were once associated with the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency.” In a UPI release, September, you said, “It was a Nazi operation whose sponsors included some of the oil rich millionaires in Texas, and elements of the Dallas Police are clearly involved.” January press release, “The involvement of high-officials of the United States government in the affair becomes more and more apparent.” [pause ….]
Isn’t that terribly confusing? And don’t you seem to be riding off in all directions?

Garrison: It seems like it doesn’t it?

Carson: Yes, it certainly does.

Garrison: Right. Let me ask you first, how many hours do I have to answer this list you’ve just run over?

Carson: Well I know that we have the rest of the program this evening. I understand that we can’t sit here and completely recreate or theorize on what happened, but I just wanted to get the chronology of the statements.

Garrison: Well let me see if I can just put this in focus. If I were to say for example that an elephant has a tail, and he’s gray, and he has four legs, it would be possible for somebody to point out, “Just a minute – you just finished saying an elephant has a tail, now you say he has four legs, and now you say he’s gray?” The point I’m making is that each of these factors is a characteristic of one being, and in a complex situation like this it’s possible to be standing at a different point of view and be describing different aspects. For example, we find that in the group which killed John Kennedy, there are indeed Latins as well as Americans. It is also true..

Carson: You say “we find” – excuse me if I do interrupt so we don’t get..

Garrison: We have identified.

Carson: You say you have identified – and have proof – as a fact?

Garrison: Yes.

Carson: Alright.

Garrison: Secondly, we have found that the Central Intelligence Agency, without any question, had individuals who were connected with it, involved.

Carson: You have absolute facts and proof of that?

Garrison: Without any question.

Carson: Alright.

Garrison: I wouldn’t say so otherwise.
Third, we have found that a number of these individuals are, in their particular political orientation, reactionary. Now that doesn’t mean that there was any single conservative group involved, because there was not. If I’m talking at one press conference and I’m asked “What is the political caste of the individuals involved?”, I may say, well as far as the spectrum is concerned, we found a number who were reactionary. Later on, a month or so later, I might be asked, “Have you found any Latins involved?” I answer yes. So it seems like each one has a different answer, but essentially it’s the same. In other words, there hasn’t been a great deal of change in the matter as we see it in the last nine or ten months. Certainly there have been refinements. My god, an investigation is a developmental thing. If we didn’t know more about it now than we knew thirty days ago we wouldn’t be doing much.

Carson: When you say these things Mr. Garrison, as we have found, and it comes out in print, people accept this as an established fact. And you say it’s an established fact, but it has not been proved in any court of law, has it? I mean, this is – what you are theorizing or saying, but in fact it has not been proved: is that true?

Garrison: It’s totally true except that I’m not theorizing. I’m telling what we know to be fact, as far as court of law.

Carson: But nobody else seems to.

Garrison: Seems to what?

Carson: Seems to know that as a fact.

Garrison: But nobody else has looked into it. This has never been investigated before. It wasn’t investigated by the federal government. That was no attempt to investigate. That was just an operation to conceal the evidence, to conceal what happened. This is the first investigation they’ve ever had in this case.

Carson: What would you call the Warren Commission?

Garrison: I would say that the function of the Warren Commission was to make the American people feel that the matter had been looked into, so that there would be no further inquiries; so that the American people would not find out the involvement of elements of the Central Intelligence Agency, and so that they would think the matter was closed.

Carson: For what possible reason would they wish to do that?

Garrison: First of all I have to identify my answer now as speculation because you’re asking me to go inside of their minds. I think that they could answer this better than I. But if you want to know my opinion, I will say it was probably presented to them as a matter of national security. I’m sure they rationalized it in that way, because these aren’t evil men – these were essentially good men. But the fact remains that their conclusion was totally untrue, patently untrue, and they had to know it. In my judgment..

Carson: That’s your opinion.

Garrison: I think that there is not one person in the United States, Johnny, who has gone through the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission inquiry, who does not recognize that the conclusion of the Warren Commission was totally false – totally.

Carson: You say you don’t believe there’s one?

Garrison: I don’t think there’s one who’s gone through 26 volumes – no.

Carson: Well …I could give you a list of ’em.

Garrison: Go ahead.

[laughter]

Carson: [reading from prepared script]:
“Here are the people who came to the conclusion that no evidence of conspiracy existed, was reached independently by the following persons: Dean Rusk Secretary of State, Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Defense, Douglas Dillon Secretary of the Treasurer, J. Edgar Hoover Director of the F.B.I., John McCone Director of the C.I.A., James Rowley Chief of the Secret Service.”
I’m afraid Jimmy, at that time Robert Kennedy – “The investigation was under the supervision of the Commission, was conducted by approximately 30 attorneys selected from 12 states, and included professors of law, prosecutors, the federal and state law enforcement agencies, and a former police commissioner from the state of New York. In addition, a number of us FBI and Secret Service agents, conducted various phases of the investigation and submitted over 25,000 reports.”
Now, when I read what you say, are you asking the American public to believe that all of these men are of such low intelligence, or could be so easily duped – and not know the facts?

Garrison: I can tell you that none of them have read the Warren Commission or they wouldn’t be taking that position.
Now I don’t pretend to know what motivates these distinguished men, but I can tell you that I’m no longer impressed by the title of a man, and the fact that he’s important in Washington doesn’t mean a thing to me, because I’ve seen what the members of the Warren Commission did. For example, they concluded that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin, and the evidence is clear that Oswald never fired a shot – never fired a shot.
So the fact is that you could give me a list of 1000 honorable men, and that wouldn’t change the fact, that doesn’t make it so.

Carson: Didn’t the Warren Commission say in so far as we were able to determine, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and if there were other assassins we were unable to find them? There is a difference in there, I mean, categorically saying one thing.

Garrison: The difference is kind of marginal. I’d say there is a saving clause when they add those words, but I think it’s much more significant when you consider that the major question by the summer of 1964 was, from how many directions was John Kennedy hit?, and which shot was the fatal shot?, and where was he hit? Now 18 colored pictures were taken of the autopsy and 122 black and white – and not a single member of the Warren Commission looked at it. Not one of them looked at it. And surely the reason for that must be that they knew what they would see. Not a single member looked at it. So consequently, right now, today, these men have not looked at the evidence that shows that the President of the United States was killed by a shot from the front.

On the other hand, there is evidence available to the people of this country, if we can just get it presented to them, that shows that the President was killed from the front, and that is the Zapruder film. The Zapruder film was taken on the 22nd and shows the assassination, and it shows that John Kennedy was hit from the front with such force that he was nearly blasted out of the back of the car. Yet it’s four years since the assassination, and no-one here has seen the Zapruder film, nobody in the country listening to us has seen it, and they probably never will. And the reason they probably never will is because if you look at the Zapruder film you know without any question that the President was hit from the front.

The question is: if all these honorable men are telling the truth, and if they really have looked into it, why is it that NBC for example — I know NBC would love to show it — why can’t NBC show the Zapruder film? What difference does it matter, Johnnie, how many honorable men are involved, when the critical evidence is continually being concealed from the American people? When they can’t see the evidence..

Carson: That’s a big statement isn’t it..

Garrison: No it isn’t.

Carson: ..to say the evidence is being concealed from the American public?

Garrison: No it isn’t. No. No. Let me show you some of the..

Carson: Do we have to interrupt for a second? We’ll come back. I just have to interrupt for a commercial…
——————————————–

Carson: Before you go on to this, I have to say as a layman, I find your statement that all of these people whose names I have mentioned, plus high government officials are trying to hide knowledge of a conspiracy in the death of the President. I don’t see for what possible reason. Secrets in this country have not been notoriously well-kept. Things have a way of getting out any time more than two or three people know it. I just can’t understand how you think that these men think they could get away with this, and for what reason they would do it? If they want to reassure the American public, I hardly think that they would be involved in any kind of complicity, would they, in trying to hide information?
That just doesn’t make sense to me.

Garrison: Well I agree with you. As a matter of fact I have not been exactly famous for rocking the boat: I was a true believer until I stumbled into this thing. But let me answer your question by first of all giving you a list of dozens and dozens of files which are secret until the year 2039. I have an 8 year old boy. The former 8 year old boy can look at these files, some of them having titles like “Lee Harvey Oswald’s Accessibility to the U2”, “The CIA File on Lee Harvey Oswald”, “The CIA File on Jack Ruby” — before my boy can look at these he will be over 70 years old. Now all I can say is there are 4 long pages here, and they are secrets. If there’s nothing wrong, then certainly they can open them up. But I can’t look into their brains, Johnnie, and tell you why they didn’t.

Carson: Does this mean, Jim, that you feel that at any time anyone comes up – say another District Attorney in a few weeks, or another citizen comes up and says, “How do we know only five – three shots were fired. I think there were five” – and now do you expect somebody to be galvanized into action and to make the commission defend itself, when these findings were accepted by all parties concerned, and also accepted by the then Attorney General of the United States, Robert Kennedy? I find it hard to believe that a conspiracy could exist or if anything could be hidden in the Warren Report, the commissions’ findings. They could find no link to Oswald with the CIA, to Oswald with the Secret Service, to Oswald with the FBI.
Why do you insist on the face of that evidence that there was?

Garrison: Of what evidence?

Carson: From their investigation.

Garrison: There was never an investigation. I know you won’t mind my being candid, and say that — actually, you changed the subject and you’ve asked me several questions, one involving the Warren Commission, and the other involving Senator Kennedy. First of all, let’s take the Warren Commission:

I’m not at all impressed with the fact that they could find no evidence of conspiracy. After going through their inquiry I doubt if they could find a streetcar if they had a transfer in their hand to point it out to them. [laughter]
I think that they knew at the beginning what they were going to do, and what they were going to do was to reach a conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin because he was dead, and because the Central Intelligence Agency was deeply involved in the assassination.
Were their actions fraudulent? Yes
Is it unusual for people of such stature? Yes.
But the fact remains that they did it.
Now, with regard..

Carson: Now you say, wait a minute, you say “the fact remains” again, as if it is a fact. You keep saying “we know” and “the fact is.” What makes it a fact? Because you say so?

Garrison: No. Not because I say so, but because the evidence indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire a shot. Will you concede that the Warren Commission reached the conclusion that Lee Oswald shot at the President from the depository?

Carson: I will.

Garrison: Alright. Now let’s look at the facts:
The facts are that they couldn’t find a single witness out of all the hundreds and hundreds of people in the plaza to say that Oswald was at that window until Lee Oswald’s death. And finally one man, who initially had said that he was not Oswald at the window — a man named Brennan — finally agreed that it was. No-one else out of a hundred saw him there. Actually, ..

Carson: I’ll have to take issue with you..

Garrison: What’s the name of..

Carson: Other people did see people in the window – a man in the window – and identified him, his characteristics, his height, his clothing.

Garrison: No, that’s not correct. You’re talking about Arnold Rowland. He said that the man in the window had on a yellow shirt and there was another man, a very dark man, with him. The first part of his statement does not point to Oswald, because he had a dark maroon shirt on, and further it points away from the lone assassin. No-one else other than Brennan indicated that he saw Oswald in the window. And Brennan himself said it was not Lee Oswald at first.

Carson: No, he described the man, and a broadcast was put out for a man of that description.

Garrison: And when he was shown Oswald’s picture he said that it was not Lee Oswald.
That was his first position.

Carson: That was his first position. Yeah.

Garrison: Can you name anybody else who saw Oswald in the window?

Carson: I would have to take out the report. Yes, there were other people who saw a man up there and gave a description of him, and that is why Oswald was picked up.

Garrison: If you take the afternoon paper in Dallas on November 22nd, and read the statement of for example made by Ochus V. Campbell, who was Vice-President of the Book Depository, you will read that after the assassination he went inside the Book Depository and he saw Lee Oswald on the first floor. If you read the statements of officer Marion Baker and Roy Truly, you will read that they came running in shortly after Campbell went in, and in running up toward the roof they saw Oswald on the second floor. If you look at the fingerprint results for the rifle, you will find that Oswald’s fingerprints were not on the rifle.

Carson: Just a palm print.

Garrison: The palm print was not confirmed for the federal government [?21:51], that was an announcement from the Dallas Police. You’ll also find that no test was ever made to see whether the rifle was fired. You will also find that a young lady named Vicky Adams, if you look in Vol. XII, was on her way down from the 4th floor during the time during which Oswald was supposed to have descended, and no-one passed her at all.

Carson: Jim, isn’t what you’re doing — and I’m not saying all of these things are factual — aren’t you taking inconsistencies in testimony during the emotion of the time, even self-contradictory testimony, from even sometimes the most truthful of witnesses, and using that as tainting everything else that is very well explained?
Can we follow that up when we come back in a moment?

——————————————

Carson: We’re back with Mr. Garrison as a kinda -see if [?] where we were…….I wouldn’t have agreed with you. But you point the way ahead, and make this point first.

Garrison: Yes, let me answer your last question. In effect you said, aren’t you taking advantage of the fact that many witnesses were excited in the moment and confused and so forth. Let me reply that I can’t change the fact that it was an unusual moment and there were many people who were emotionally effected by what happened. However, we have located, with no trouble many many people who heard shots coming from the area of the grassy knoll. Practically none of these people were called by the Warren Commission. On the other hand, the Warren Commission merely presented one person, Mr Brennan, who initially insisted that he couldn’t identify Oswald. I’m simply saying that whether they were emotionally effected or not, they should have called in some of the others so that they could have found out what happened.

For example, among the many many people who heard shots coming from the area to the west of the Book Depository are Dorothy N. Garner, Otis Williams, Otis Campbell, Mrs. Avery Davis, Mr. and Mrs. Newman, Mrs. Delores Kounas, Steven Wilson, Danny Arce, Jim Hicks, and many many others. Practically all of these people were ignored by the Warren Commission. My point is they didn’t look into it because they didn’t talk to anybody who heard the shots coming from anywhere else. In other words, they didn’t want to hear a thing that did not incriminate Lee Oswald.

Carson: Isn’t it a fact that many people, depending on where they were standing that day, heard shots coming in relation to where they were standing, as in the unique arrangement of the buildings there? And even in discussion with witnesses they said they really couldn’t tell – it could have been a reverberation, it could have been an echo? But that even again does not change the overwhelming evidence, does it, in any way? I mean, somebody who is not sure where shots come from? How does that in any way change the overwhelming major revelations of the case?

Garrison: First of all, there is no overwhelming evidence that Oswald shot from the Book Depository. The only evidence available indicates that he did not. Furthermore, of all the major conclusions reached by the Warren Commission, the only one that’s true is the conclusion that Jack Ruby shot Lee Oswald. And they had to say that because everyone in the country saw it.
[laughter]

Carson: In your opinion that’s the only conclusion they reached that’s true. [laughter] Hardly the major conclusion that many reasonable people have accepted. Now you cannot say that that’s the only conclusion they came to. They came to many conclusions – or what presumably, or what possibly did happen with all credible evidence available.

Garrison: I haven’t gone through the 26 volumes, Johnnie. I can say that it is not possible for a reasonable man to conclude that the Warren Commission was right.

Carson: Well then you are accusing – if you say there is a conspiracy involved in this, doesn’t this have to be one amazing conspiracy Mr. Garrison? I mean, if you say this is a conspiracy, doesn’t this have to involve the CIA, elements of the Dallas police force, the doctors at Parkland, the doctors at Bethesda, the members of the Warren Commission themselves, the District Attorney – doesn’t it have to involve all of these people?

Garrison: No. Now let me answer this and get this clear once and for all:
The doctors at Parkland found — concluded — that the shots came from the front, to the last man: Dr. Perry, Dr. McLelland – Dr. Mclelland said..

Carson: Why did they come to that conclusion?

Garrison: Because they looked at the body of the President. Now let me finish this point..

Carson: But they didn’t turn it over, did they?

Garrison: John, if there were shots from the front, what difference does it make if there were shots from the back too? Oswald was behind the President. He can’t produce shots at the front.

Carson: Well Mr. Garrison, you are saying that they all agree there were shots from the front. In the confusion of the autopsy, all the doctors involved, and after speculation, including Dr. Perry, admitted that they did not at the time — there were the use, ah, “penetrating wounds” used — some people have changed that to “entrance wounds” — they were involved in saving the President’s lives. But all of the doctors agree that Bethesda, and the final autopsy, the shots came unequivocally from above and behind the President.

Garrison: This is not the conclusion of all of the doctors. For example, if you will look at Commission exhibit 392 you will see the cause of death written down at 4:45 on the afternoon of November the 22nd by Dr. McLelland, and he says the cause of death was a gunshot wound of the left temple. Everybody who has a Warren Commission in their Library can go look at commission exhibit 392 and they will see “gunshot wound to the left temple.” Can I get a drink of water?

Carson: Was that the doctor at Parkland?

Garrison: Yes.

Carson: But that wasn’t the final autopsy, and that was not the final autopsy after you had a chance to do it correctly. That was done very quickly under great strain, with trying to remove the President’s body from Da-
-I think Jim, and I’m sorry, I don’t want to throw something at you and then then cop-out on it, but I think we’re starting to rehash things that have been rehashed so much.

Garrison: We can go on to something else.

Carson: Why don’t we go on to this new evidence that you, eh..

Garrison: Fine. But I must say that when you talk about an autopsy being performed correctly, I take it you’re talking about Commander Hume’s autopsy?

Carson: We’re talking about the doctors at Bethesda who all agree..

Garrison: Bethesda. Yes. This is certainly the first autopsy in history in which the doctor performing it found it necessary to burn his notes afterwards. Now I don’t know what he did that caused him to burn his notes, but I can’t do that as a correct autopsy.

Carson: Is that a fact?

Garrison: Of course it is. It’s admitted in the Warren Report.
Now let me go to something else. Let me show you with a few examples, the technique that the federal government used to distort and conceal evidence. For example, one of the..

Carson: Now again, when you say, “Let me show you a method,” — and I hate to interrupt — but when you make a statement “But let me show you methods that the federal government used to distort,” that is not a fact, is it? Is this what your opinion is, or the way you think it happened?

Garrison: Now you understand that I’m a human being, and it’s very difficult for any human being, including a scientist, to speak with total objectivity. So when I say “let me show you some examples of how distortion was accomplished,” obviously these are examples of how I think it was accomplished. You may or may not agree. Okay?

Carson: Alright. That’s what I wanted to make clear.

Garrison: Alright. Now if you look in the Warren Commission Report, special end exhibits, you will see Julie Ann Mercer’s statement is an affidavit sworn to, and a footnote on the stationery indicates the Sheriff’s Department, County of Dallas. And the fact as its described in the Warren Commission indicates that Julie Anne Mercer an hour or so before the assassination was proceeding by the grassy knoll when she was stopped by traffic. And she happened to be next to a truck. A young man was getting out of it with a rifle. And she was stopped where she had to look inside and see the driver. Now the Warren Commission exhibits indicates to you that she could not see the driver clearly, and that this truck had “air conditioning” written on the side.

Actually, in spite of the fact that this young lady saw a man getting out on the grassy knoll with a rifle, she was never called by the Warren Commission. They didn’t call anybody who had evidence that conflicted with Oswald as the lone assassin. Now,..

Carson: May I interrupt again?
[commercial]
——————————————-

Garrison: Okay, in her affidavit she says, “On the drivers side of the truck there were printed letters in black, oval shaped, which said ‘air conditioning.'” She said, “I could not see the driver too clearly.” And then it has her signature here, and then there’s “certified to by a Notary Public”. When I showed this to Julie Anne Mercer, she stated this: “The signatures on this affidavit are not mine but are very good imitations, except that the capital A is not close.” Incidentally, this is published in the Warren Commission, Decker Exhibit #5323. “I did not sign anything of this kind, and furthermore, there was no woman present at any time while I was questioned. It is not true that the truck had “Air Conditioning” printed on the side. I repeatedly stated that there was no printing on the side. I did not say that I could not see the driver too clearly. The fact is that I looked right in his face, and he looked at me twice. This is why I was able to recognize him when I later saw him shoot Oswald on television. In other words, she was stating immediately that she recognized the driver of the truck from which the man got out with a rifle, as Jack Ruby. As a matter of fact, she stated, and her signature’s right here, that within 24 hours after the assassination the Federal Bureau of Investigation was showing her pictures which included Jack Ruby. And they omitted this from her printed statement. Here’s the FBI statement:

On the driver’s door the words “Air conditioning” were printed in black letters. And then it goes on to state that she saw the driver, but it doesn’t give his name. In a separate FBI report it says she could not identify Jack Ruby’s picture. Her answer is this:

“Four pictures were selected by me as the driver of the truck. One of them was Jack Ruby. I remember seeing his name on the back of the picture when they turned it over. I again recognized Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald, and I said to my family who were watching TV with me, that was the man I saw in the truck.” And she also wrote here, “It was November 23rd, the day before Ruby shot Oswald, when I picked out the picture of Jack Ruby.”

In other words, she was shown Jack Ruby’s picture, with his name on the back, within 24hrs after the assassination, more than 24hrs before Oswald was shot, and there’s not a hint of this in the 26 volumes. This is a..

Carson: Is that Mrs. Mercer’s statement?

Garrison: Yes.

Carson: But it is not..

Garrison: The writing is her true statement. The printing is a false statement.

Carson: Are you saying by that, that somebody changed that testimony?

Garrison: Well, of course. As a matter of fact..

Carson: For what possible reason would they change it?

Garrison: Well I think you’d have to talk to the Sheriff’s Office, Johnnie, and also to the FBI.
The young lady told me, and I have her signature here, that she never said this. I think..

Carson: [Isn’t that..sh[??] at that time.]
This is the same Mercer, I assume, that Mark Lane also interrogated to put his gunmen on the grassy knoll?

Garrison: No.

Carson: It’s not?

Garrison: No. I don’t think anybody talked to Julie Mercer, because she was threatened and left very early.

Carson: Well, in the..

Garrison: I think you’re thinking of someone else. I think you..

Carson: No. Didn’t Mark Lane talk to Mrs. Mercer about an air conditioning truck, in which you said at first her statement, was, she took a toolbox out, and then later it became a gun case? And according to her testimony, that I have read, the Warren Commission later checked and found that the air-conditioning truck belonged to a friend that was laying air-con in a building nearby?

Garrison: Julie Mercer never said at any time that there was “Air Conditioning” on the side of the truck. It was put in. Because later on it was not her statement. She has said here within the last several weeks, and signed her name, that this is not true; it’s a false affidavit; her name was forged; and it was Jack Ruby driving the truck.

Carson: Isn’t also Mrs. Mercer’s statement one of sixty odd also statements, depositions taken by the FBI by other people who saw at one time or another there, people carrying guns, riding various cars, that were also taken by the FBI?

Garrison: I don’t know about all that. Look, let’s not get away from the point..

Carson: No, but let’s put it in context.

Garrison: No. Put it in any context. The point is this lady saw Jack Ruby driving a truck..

Carson: She says she did.

Garrison: She says she did.

Carson: That doesn’t make it a fact, does it. What time does this take place? I don’t mean to sound like an interrogator, I’m only asking questions if I don’t understand. What time was this supposed to have taken place?

Garrison: About an hour before the assassination, but look..

Carson: Well at that time Jack Ruby was in the office of the Dallas Times.

Garrison: How do you know? How long was he there?

Carson: Well he was there between 11 and 11:30 placing an ad for a Master of Ceremonies for his club.

Garrison: Aren’t you aware that there was a space gap between the two newspapers when he went from one to the another – a twenty minute space gap – and they don’t know where he was?

Carson: But you’re going to put him in a truck

Garrison: No. I’m not going to put him anywhere. The point is, she was there, she was there..

Carson: Does that not implicate the Dallas Police?

Garrison: I think you would like pictures better.

Carson: No, but doesn’t that implicate the Dallas Police?

Garrison: They’re implicated.
How do you think they did it?
How do you think they did it?

Carson: I don’t know? Have you taken anybody to court? How can you accuse the Dallas Police of being involved..?

Garrison: Alright. Just one question at a time. You gave me three this time.

Carson: I didn’t mean to.

Garrison: An advertisement, again?

Carson: I’m not an attorney.

Garrison: Okay.

Carson: We’ve got to have some money to keep this thing going.

——————–

Carson: Alright Jim, we’re back now.

Garrison: Let me just make this one point. You said that you, the pieces aren’t coming up.
Let me answer by saying in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Nobody else has charged anybody. We’ve made three charges. One man’s been convicted. We’re trying to get the other man to trial. He postponed the case for 6 months, and..

Carson: They were convicted of treason, were they?

Garrison: Yes.

Carson: Alright.

Garrison: We’ll win the case. And a third man is fighting extradition. We’re going as fast as we can, John, with five men. Remember, it took 6000 men to do nothing.
We’re moving with 5.
If it’s a little bit slow I apologize.
[loud applause]

Carson: You mentioned at the end of your Playboy article in relation to that, “If it takes me 30 years I’m going to bring these men to justice.” That doesn’t sound like you’ve got a very strong case. Can this go on forever? When is somebody going to get this into court and either prove it or not prove it?

Garrison: Let me answer by saying that we took a case to trial last fall and the defendant moved for a six months continuance. I think you could get your answer better by contacting the defense lawyers. We’re trying to get it to trial.

Carson: Oh I’m glad.

Garrison: Now let me read to you an affidavit, which will indicate to you the technique that the federal government used in this investigation. This is an affidavit sworn to by Mark Lane, who is not only a distinguished author, but is working for me as an investigator, for nothing, and helping me. Mark Lane has sworn before a notary that in January 1968 he interviewed William S. Walter in New Orleans, Louisiana.” Mr. Walter informed me and Analise Lane that he has been employed by the FBI during 1963. He said that he was a security clerk and was assigned to the New Orleans office of the FBI. Walter says that during the morning of november 17th 1963 he received a TWX message directed to all southern regional offices of the FBI. The message advised that an an attempt to assassinate President Kennedy would be made in Dallas on Nov 22nd 1963. Walter stated that as he was alone on duty on the midnight to 8am shift, he immediately called a special agent in charge of the New Orleans office, Mr. Maynard, and informed him of the contents of the message. He was then advised – informed – to call a number of FBI agents in New Orleans who maintained contacts with various informants. Walter also told me that an FBI directive ordered the New Orleans office to direct to various agents who had conducted interviews regarding the assassination of president Kennedy, to examine those interview reports to make sure that there were no conflicts contained within them. The agents were ordered to resolve the conflicts, prepare new reports, and to destroy the old ones.” Another example,..

Carson: But what does all of that mean?

Garrison: It means whatever you choose to have it mean. Again, if you ask me..

Carson: But if somebody’s saying something, did that actually happen, or…?

Garrison: [stunned silence]

Carson: I mean you say that Mark Lane said that a man told him. But did it actually happen?

Garrison: If you fly down to New Orleans I can show you these people talking, but you just invited one person up here. I’m telling you what they said. Each time I tell you, you say, “Is that a fact?”..

Carson: Yes.

Garrison: All I can say is that it appears to me to be a fact. If you want to reject it you can.
But let me show you some pictures, and if you want to reject these, go ahead.
In the 26 volumes…

Carson: You’re not on trial, Jim. I’m just asking – really I..

Garrison: Yes, but I’m afraid another advertisement may be coming up.

[applause]

Carson: You’re right about that, too.

Garrison: In the 26 volumes there is no reference to any serious sort of arrests. There are a couple of references to short dialogues, and then the indication is that the man wasn’t of any value, or of any importance at all. Actually, at Dealey Plaza there were 10 men arrested, and this has been kept secret for more than four years. Here are the pictures of 5 of them being arrested, and they’ve never been shown before.

Carson: No, I don’t know any of those men.

Garrison: Several of these men arrested have been connected by our office with the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States government. The probability is that this is why Officer Tippit was killed. Is this speculation? Positively, and I want to identify it as that. But the probability appears to be that the killing of Tippit was a diversion that allowed them to turn loose these tin men. Here are some more. [photo] And here’s ..

Carson: No, really, it won’t show Jim.

Garrison: But why aren’t they mentioned? Why aren’t they mentioned?

Carson: No, but you say speculation and a probability.
Who’s suppressing all this information, on whose order?

Garrison: I’ll tell you who’s suppressing it. The federal government is suppressing it.

Carson: Who in the federal government?

Garrison: The administration. The administration of your government is suppressing it because they know that the Central Intelligence Agency..

Carson: On whose orders?

Garrison: On the order of the President of the United States.
Who do you think issued – let me finish now – before the advertisement – the executive order, which forbids every person in this audience and every person listening to this program, which forbids him to look at this evidence until September in the year 2039, was issued by the President of the United States. Does that answer your question? He’s the President.

Carson: For what possible reason?

Garrison: Why don’t you ask him, John?

[laughter and applause]

Carson: I [inaudible] what you say.
I think he would say, because first of all Mr. Garrison has come up with no credible evidence to support any of his theories.

Garrison: Well let me reply to that, that I am not allowed, as an attorney, to come with evidence until the case comes. Why don’t they just let me fall on my face?

Carson: Are you willing to say tonight, when your trial comes up, that you will secure a conviction without a shadow of a doubt?

Garrison: I cannot make a statement which would reflect on Mr. Shaw. Since the day, I, we charged him and arrested him, I have not made statement which infers that he’s guilty, and I cannot infer that now. But I am trying to tell you that there is no question as a result of our investigation that an element of the Central Intelligence Agency of our country killed John Kennedy, and that the present administration is concealing the facts. There is no question about it at all.

Carson: That’s is your opinion.

Garrison: No. It is not. I know it, and if you will just wait you will see that history will support this as fact.

[dropout]

Carson: Jim, I really don’t know where to go on this. We could pursue this for hours and hours. We’ve been on here almost an hour tonight. And I have to say as a layman I am still quite confused. I don’t understand – as you say, this will come to trial eventually, but it could be years, could it not?

Garrison: Not as far as we’re concerned. We’re pushing for trial now. There won’t be any continuances asked for by my office.

Carson: Could I ask you one other question? One? With the evidence against the commission, which you had nothing to do with, and refute I guess, almost, until [?] outside that Ruby killed Oswald. But in lieu of that evidence, which you say, I think you said was a fairytale, if I’m quoting you right..

Garrison: That’s a conservative description.

[laughter]

Carson: Alright. You are asking us, and the American public to believe that a team of seven gunmen carried this out with precision firing from various points that day in Dallas, which is a remarkable feat in itself, disappeared into thin air — with no witnesses who saw any other gunmen or getaway vehicles — and a gigantic conspiracy in which nobody seems to get proved anything. You ask us to believe that. I find that a much larger fairytale than to accept the findings of the Warren Report.

Garrison: Let me reply to you by saying first of all that these men did not disappear into thin air. A number of them were arrested, and I just showed you pictures of them being arrested. I presume you accept that as a fact. You can see them in the picture.

Carson: No sir, I don’t accept that as a fact.

Garrison: Oh?

Carson: I don’t know who those men are, and I don’t know why they were arrested. And how can you say that the assassins were arrested and then returned loose? Is that what you’re saying?

Garrison: That some of them were arrested, yes. Now let me go on..

Carson: And then were subsequently returned loose?

Garrison: They were turned loose later in the afternoon. Now, yes, let me go to the second point. The second point is
[broken]
..to point out again the fact that you see no evidence and the matter doesn’t seem to come to trial. We are pushing for trial and there’s nothing more we can do than try to get the case to trial. Let me sum it up by saying, “Am I asking the people of America to believe this?” I’m doing more than that. I’m trying to tell the people of America that the honor of this country is at stake, and if we don’t do something about this fraud we will not survive. And there is no way to survive if we don’t bring out the truth about how our president was killed four years ago — and the investigation by the Warren Commission wasn’t even close.

Martin Luther King Remarks- Santa Rita Prison Pleasanton, California January 14, 1968

Let me say how happy I am to see each of you here today. I want to commend your willingness to engage in this vigil today and to stand in the midst of this rather inclement weather to express your support for all of those who have been arrested as a result of their courageous actions resisting the tragic unfair and unjust draft system of our nation.

I’ve just had opportunity of visiting my very dear friend Joan Baez, her mother, and our dear friend Ira Sanfield. And they all send their greetings and their best wishes to you, and I might say they are in good spirits.

You know when you go to jail for a righteous cause you can accept the inconvenience of jail with a kind of inner sense of calm and inner sense of peace. And this is the way they are accepting that experience.

They have supported us in a very real way, in our struggle for civil rights, our struggle for freedom and human dignity all across the South. And I decided that in a way, or rather as an expression of my appreciation for what they are doing for the peace movement, and for what they have done for the civil rights movement, I would take time out of my schedule to come out to see them, to visit them, and let them know that they have our absolute support. And I might say that I see these two struggles as one struggle. There can be no justice without peace. And there can be no peace without justice.

Now people ask me from time-to-time, “Aren’t you getting out of your field? Aren’t you supposed to be working in civil rights?” And they go on to say the two issues are not to be mixed. And my only answer is that I have been working too long and too hard now against segregated public accommodations to end up at this stage of my life segregating my moral concerns. For I believe absolutely that justice in indivisible; and injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. And I want to make it very clear that I’m going to continue with all of might, with all of my energy, and with all of action to oppose that abominable, evil, unjust war in Vietnam.

Now let me say this. I see some very dangerous trends developing in our country – trends of oppression, and repression, and suppression. And I see a definite move on the part of the government to go all out now to silence dissenters and to try to crush the draft resistance movement. Now we cannot allow this to happen. We’ve got to make it clear – we’ve got to make it clear that to indict a Dr. Spock, or to indict a Bill Coffin and the other courageous souls that have been indicted, will mean indicting all of us if they think that this draft resistance movement is going to be stopped. And let us continue to work passionately and unrelentingly to end this cruel and senseless war in Vietnam. I don’t have to go through all of the things that this war is doing to corrode the values of our nation. Suffice it to say that the war in Vietnam has all but torn up the Geneva Accord. It has strengthened the Military-Industrial Complex of our nation. It has exacerbated the tensions between continents and races. The war in Vietnam has placed our country in the position of being against the self-determination of the Vietnamese people. And then it has played havoc with our domestic destinies. And I can never forget the fact that we spend about five hundred thousand dollars to kill every enemy soldier in Vietnam, and we spend only about fifty-three dollars a year for every individual who is categorized as poverty stricken in our so-called war against poverty, which isn’t even a good skirmish against poverty. And I say that there is a great need for a revolution of values. And I say to you in conclusion – and I say to you in conclusion that we must continue to stand up, and we must continue to follow the dictates of our conscience, even if that means breaking unjust laws.

Henry David Thoreau said in his essay on civil disobedience that non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. And I do not plan to cooperate with evil at any point. Somebody said to me, not too long ago, “Uh, Dr. King don’t you think you are hurting your leadership by taking a stand against the war in Vietnam. Aren’t people who once respected you will lose respect for you, and aren’t you hurting the budget of your organization.” And I had to look at that person and say, “I’m sorry, Sir, you don’t know me…” [tape garbled]

Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but he’s a molder of consensus. And on some positions cowardice asks the question “Is it safe?” Expediency asks the question “Is it politic?” Vanity asks the question “Is it popular?” But conscience asks the question “Is it right?” And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right. And that is where I stand today, and that is where I hope you will continue to stand. So that we can speed up the day when justice will roll down like water all over the world, and righteousness like a might stream; and we will speed up the day when men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; and nations will not rise up against nations, neither will they study war anymore. And I close by saying, as we sing it in the old Negro spiritual –  I ain’t gonna study war no more.

American Injustice coming in Spring 2022

A Quick Synopsis: Framed

By

Robert P. Fitton

Framed

If I were filming my novel Framed that story would assuredly be in black and white, a film noir. There is a contained pessimism in this genre.

Double Indemnity (1944)

Body Heat (1981)

Two films come to mind. One from the classic Film Noir era and another from a more contemporary period, but just a cynical and laced with a cold hearted reckless abandonment. I’m talking about Double Indemnity,  story by James Caine and screen play by Billy Wilder and Raymond Chandler.  The second movie is Body Heat. Written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan.

Framed contains elements of both films.

Let’s just start with the name of the lead character-Gordon Butts. How damned frustrating is it to view somebody in reality  or fiction who is oblivious to  life. It’s as if the humanity were removed and the animal instinct prevails. Butts isn’t the only character in the book who’s lost his humanity. They’re all soulless.

Butts is ambitious in his sleazy little corner of the universe. He’s like the guy constantly buying lottery tickets hoping to cash in on the big one- and thinking he’s clever enough to do just that.

Butts sees an opening in a plumbing supply company, owned by an indifferent paper cutout of a man, Walter Thornton. And just as a bonus the lustful Butts has his eyes set on Thornton’s wife, the alluring sex kitten Connie Thornton. Butt’s so called best friend Tom Cowls guides him along. Cowls like Walter Thornton is an empty soul. So are the supporting players.

Soulless human beings are the essence of hell.

Soulless human beings are the essence of hell. All the old sayings apply here. You reap what you sow, you live by the sword you die by the sword….

What makes this novel so fascinating is that most of us never walk the plank into a Film Noir world. Like fighting in a war most people experience the combat and death vicariously. There is one redeeming fundamental if you ride the roller coaster with Gordon Butts. You can get off that ride whenever you want.

The chief investigator on the case Maureen Garrity is the only person who knows the difference between right and wrong-especially when it  comes to murder.

Letting Butts off the hook in this book would be unforgiveable. And I assure the reader or the listener that reckless behavior demands eternal justice. Mr. Gordon Butts should have had the poem The Spider and the fly by Mary Howitt on his summer reading list.

And now, dear little children, who may this story read,

To idle, silly, flattering words, I pray you ne’er give heed;

Unto an evil counselor close heart, and ear, and eye,

And take a lesson from this tale of the Spider and the Fly.

www.amazon.com

A Quick Synopsis: The Kennedy Paradox

By

Robert P. Fitton

The Kennedy Paradox

At the beginning of The Kennedy Paradox President Kennedy is alive in 1986 and there was no Vietnam war. Wow… Would that it could be true. The original book Redshift American cities are incinerated in nuclear attacks led by terrorist Carlos Sanchez. Patch Kincaid is part of a secret experimental time travel project in Colorado. Ray Meinkewitz, in charge of the project desperately sends Patch two months back in time to warn everyone what is about to happen. But as John Lennon said ‘Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.

And alas our hero ends up in 1961. Warning everyone back there would be like spitting into the wind. What Patch does, however, is contact the young Meinkewitz, just beginning his time travel work at a small college in Maryland. After considerable consternation Meinkewitz is convinced that Patch has popped in from the destructive future. Using his contacts Meinkewitz gets into the historical nitty gritty of intelligence operatives of the period, complete with pseudonym cover names.

No one believes the outlandish time travel story and they all think Patch is working for the Russians. Patch, however, figures out the date when the chief bomb maker of the future, Dr. Stephen Higgins defected to the Soviet Union.

The race is on with Meinkewitz and the intelligence boys to stop Higgins off the coast of Florida. For Patch this will save the future. For the intelligence services a notable scientist will be prevented from sharing vital secrets. Higgins does defect which sets the stage for the Bay of Pigs invasion.

When I rewrote Redshift I began studying the period in earnest. The added research merges reality and fantasy. Patch, knowing Carlos Sanchez killed prominent Mafia members in the original timeline meets the Mafia kingpins of the day, becoming close to Johnny Roselli. Both Patch and the Mafia want Sanchez dead. Roselli and the others use their intelligence connections to bring Patch and Meinkewitz into the Bay of Pigs invasion so Sanchez can be killed. Thus, the Mafia leaders will live and the future will be spared a nuclear holocaust.

Through the eyes of Patch and Meinkewitz this book details a vivid and accurate description of the failed invasion, the capture of exiles, and President Kennedy taking responsibility for the debacle.

Here is the central thrust of the book which leads to the second novel in the Patch Kincaid series Return to Dallas: Patch Kincaid going back in time causes JFK to be assassinated.

How would you like that on your resume? Time travel is a risky business.

Available at Amazon and Audible