LEE OSWALD: PRESIDENT KILLER, or LADY KILLER (or both)?

            We rarely think of Lee Harvey Oswald, accused assassin of Pres. John Kennedy, as a stud.  Perhaps, it is time to reconsider.  The following is part of a page from Charles E. Hurlburt’s It’s Time for the Truth: The JFK Cover-up: The Real Crime of the Century (2012), p. 115.

            “Although Oswald espoused a fondness for the Russian language and political system [while in the Marines] so openly that he was given the name ‘Oswaldskovich’ by his fellow Marines, he was assigned duties that allowed him access to ‘top secret’ areas and data.  Atsugi [US base in Japan] was not far from Tokyo, and Oswald often went into town, like most of the American servicemen, to visit the many nightclubs and meet girls.  One such club, named the Queen Bee, was too expensive for low-paid enlisted men like Oswald (one date there could exceed what Oswald was netting per month).  Nevertheless, he was seen there on several occasions in the company of one of the hostesses who, according to another Marine buddy, was questioning Oswald about his work at Atsugi.  Some researchers hypothesize that Oswald was being funded by his superiors to frequent this over-his-head establishment and feed false information to this ‘KGB spy.’  Fueling suspicion that Oswald was more than he appeared tp be was a Marine medical report showing that he was treated for a venereal disease that he contracted ‘in the line of duty, not to his own misconduct.’  His dates with the ‘KGB spy’ may be the explanation for his being treated for gonorrhea contracted ‘in the line of duty.”

            On this blog, I previously posted “Lee Harvey Oswald – Stud?”  I shall add this to that post.  But because that post is older, I am also posting this separately.  Was the US government subsidizing Oswald’s amorous encounter for his role as a spy?  Was Oswald a lady killer, a stud, a cold-war Chippendaler?  Was he a President killer?  A lady killer?  Or both?  Was he a lone nut?  Or someone who spread such cheer, that the government paid for his romances?  (To avoid confusion, "lady killer" is a phrase for a man whom women find very attractive, and whom they want to bed.  It does not mean a man who murders women.)HUGH MURRAY

CHEERING PRES. KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION

    I have already written about where I was and what I was doing when Pres. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas.  I repeat a shortened version of the story to make an important point.  I was teaching at a new school in New Orleans, a private one.  There were 3 classes of 5 grade classes, all near each other.  During time for lunch, Mrs. Flagg had her pupils eat in the classroom (we had no cafeteria) and enjoy a bit of play.  One pupil had brought a small transistor radio, and Mrs. Flagg called me into her room to listen to something special.  The 3 of us craned our necks over the small radio, trying to hear over the din of the rest of the pupils at play.
    I heard the news, and then had to return to my class.  I was absent for only a few minutes, for it is not wise to leave a class unattended for any length of time.  I reentered, closed the door behind me, and announced, "I just heard on the radio that Pres. Kennedy has been shot it Dallas."  Immediately, the kids erupted in cheers and applause.  One girl was the exception; she placed her head on a table and cried.  I was shocked by the reaction, and for once, angry at my pupils.  I said, "You think this is the end of integration.  That segregation in the South is now safe (almost all of us assumed the President had been killed to halt integration.)"  Then I told them of the assassination of Pres. Lincoln at the end of the Civil War, and how some thought that would restore victory to the South.  Instead, it only made the North more determined to destroy slavery and the old Southern way of life.
    I repeat this story because the website vdare has an article by Hugh McInnis who was teaching at a public school in a small town in central Alabama.  When the news came over the loudspeaker that Pres. Kennedy had been killed, his students also cheered.  I recall a guest on a news program earlier this year who was in Florida when Kennedy was killed.  Again, the school children cheered.
    Only with all the news on TV about the 50th anniversary of the assassination did I hear of the story of how CBS reporter Dan Rather was almost fired in November 1963.  Rather, who worked for the Dallas affiliate of CBS, KRLD, reported that school children at a school in Dallas cheered the news of the assassination.  His superiors were outraged.  No.  It must have been that they were cheering the news that they would be dismissed from school early as a result of the assassination.  Apparently, the school officials did not want the reputation of the institution besmirched with such a report about its students.  They were going to fire Rather, when national CBS intervened to save his job.  The pupils WERE cheering the assassination of Kennedy, and then they were happy to be released from school.
    I have heard that there were many schools in the South where students cheered in celebration of the killing of Kennedy and "his integrationist policies."  But there was almost no reporting of this.
    I think that one reason for the silence was that when Oswald was found, and deemed the assassin, he was also labeled a Communist.  And with that news, some people reacted, "Oh, isn't it awful what that Communist did (in killing Kennedy)?  And then they would smile or wink.
    Once the villain was labeled as a Red, those who initially cheered the deed, suddenly pretended to be sad.  The myth was that no one would celebrate the killing of Kennedy and Camelot - except a lone, nut Commie.  I think this refusalt to report the truth about the cheering was one of the first examples of a cover-up in the assassination of Pres. John Kennedy.---------Hugh Murray

PBS FRONTLINE (OFFICIAL LINE): LEE HARVEY OSWALD, 2013

Some Reflections about the program--------Hugh Murray

            There are some obvious questions that rise after viewing the PBS Frontline special on Oswald.  For example, Oswald was arrested in downtown New Orleans in 1963 when several anti-Castroites surrounded him as he distributed his pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee leaflets.  The program interviewed several NOPD officers who handled Oswald.  They wondered why he simply did not pay the $25 and leave.  Instead, he wanted to be finger-printed and booked.  What the program did not show, is that he also requested to be interviewed by the FBI.  That occurred.  Yet, there is no record in the files of what he said.

            Frontline interviewed Dallas FBI Agent Hosty a number of times on the program.  Yet, no one asked Hosty about the time in November 1963 when Oswald visited and left a note at the Dallas FBI office.  After Oswald’s arrest on November 22, J. Edgar Hoover ordered that all such records be destroyed, and Agent Hosty dutifly flushed Oswald’s note down the toilet.

            Another authority interviewed by Frontline was staunch supporter of the Warren Commission’s basic thesis, Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed.  In that book, Posner showed that because of the different dates of activities, David Ferrie could not have been active in the Civil Air Patrol when Oswald was active.  With the photograph showing Oswald and Ferrie, and testimony of former members, it is clear that Posner can be wrong on some things.  Missing were questions about Ferrie as a powerful influence on some youngsters.  The isolation of the young Oswald in New York (discussed by social workers), may have ceased once the teen joined the CAP in NO.  I knew someone who believed his whole life had been turned around for the better because of Ferrie.  Ferrie was gay, but my friend was quite straight.  Still, Ferrie helped to mold him so he would become a success, and today there is a building named after my old friend.  Might Ferrie’s patriotism have inspired the young Oswald to quit Warren Easton High to join the Marines.

            When Oswald left for the USSR, others have noted he was allegedly going to a university in Europe, he flew to Finland on a plane when there were no commercial flights, and so on.  Yet, the CIA asserts he was not an agent.  Of course, some of the files still under wraps are those of the CIA re Oswald.

            Frontline showed Oswald distributing FPCC leaflets in NO.  He was not alone.  He was paying some to leaflet with him.  How many leftists PAY to have others leaflet?  It is absurd.  Just like religious people distribute literature on the street, the point is also to speak and convert the passers-by.  A church would not have an atheist leafleting.  A leftist, who believes in the cause, would want other believers to leaflet, not simply neutrals.  And where did Oswald get the money for the fellow leafleters?  Why were they not interviewed?  Or, were they possibly some of the gay Latinos who accompanied Oswald to the office of Attorney Dean Andrews?  (The attorney who spoke about a Clem Bertrand, whom some think was Clay Shaw).  And some of the leafleting pictured on Frontline just happens to be in front of the old International Trade Mart, whose leader just happened to be Clay Shaw – not mentioned on Frontline.

            There was no discussion of the possibility that Oswald was at a training camp in 1963 in Louisiana for those planning another invasion of Cuba to oust Castro.

            Once Oswald was arrested, he was paraded occasionally before the reporters.  When someone mistakenly linked Oswald by mistake, not with the FPCC, but with a group that was anti-Castro, who corrected the error?  Jack Ruby, in the police station knew the politics of the Cuban groups, and immediately corrected the speaker, that Oswald was not in the anti-Castro group, but was pro-Castro.

            For much of the proof of Oswald’s guilt, Frontline relied on the words of Priscilla McMillan.  After the assassination, when Marina Oswald was probably one of the most hated women in America, McMillan spent much time with her.  McMillan had been in the Soviet Union, too.  There are many who believe she was CIA.  Marina did not partake in the program, but on other programs, she has stated that Oswald was innocent.  Immediately after the assassination, she may have been so frightened she told McMillan what McMillan and the US government wanted to hear.  Marina’s absence should be considered.

            The grassy knoll hardly exists in Frontline.  When people rushed up the hill, they were met by a Secret Service Agent, showing his credentials.  Later, the Secret Service denied having any agent there.  The autopsy questions were sloughed over; NO District Attorney Jim Garrison’s trial placed one of the autopsy doctors, Pierre Finck, under oath, and he admitted when he went to probe the path of a bullet in Kennedy, he was ordered not to do so by the big brass in the room at Bethesda Hospital.

            Frontline, with its emphasis on the defenders of the official line – Posner, Hosty, McMillan, has produced one more defense of the lone-nut theory.  It ignored most of the major critics.  It was a disappointing program.

Martin Bashir - Base Shit

      Martin Bashir, a British journalist who previously reported on ABC-TV's Nightline, and now has his own program on cable television MSNBC is part of the liberal media establishment.  On Friday 15 November, proving his proper credentials, he declared that someone should shit into the mouth of conservative politician Sarah Palin.  By contrast, nothing but shit comes out of the mouth of Mr. Bashir.
      The following week Bashir apologized to Palin.  He keeps his job.  Had Bashir suggested someone shit into the mouth of Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, he would have been fired on the spot.  But it is OK to humiliate a conservative woman.  Like the liberal late-night TV host and comedian, Jimmy Fallon, Bashir keeps his job.  Fallon had invited onto his program conservative Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.  The music that accompanied her introduction on the show as she walked onto the stage was "Lyin Ass Bitch."  Fallon apologized, but no one was fired.  Liberals pretend to be compassionate, yet they are the most vicious people in attacking those with whom they disagree.  They do not debate, they insult and smear and intimidate - and get away with it.
      I am old, and I have never heard in all my years anyone on radio or TV speak of shitting in someone else's mouth.  It is a new low.  Yet, if anyone criticizes Obamacare, or the murders in Benghazi, or the amnesty for invaders proposals, then one is a racist and should be shut up, fired, etc.  Unfortunately, the trend in the West over the past few decades has been away from freedom, away from free speech, and instead toward the humiliation, firing, beating, or worse, for those who oppose the Leftwing orthodoxy.
         Hugh Murray  

OBAMACARE AND THATCHER'S POLL TAX

                                       by Hugh Murray  
      I think there is a comparison to be made between Obamacare, the "Affordable Health Care Act," and the poll tax levied by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government in the UK some years ago.  We normally do not compare Thatcher and Obama, but in this case, it may be apropos.  Obamacare mandates that all Americans purchase insurance.  If they do not, the fines for the first year are small, but they rise to become quite heavy fines after a few years.  When Obamacare was challenged in court, going all the way to the US Supreme Court, the American high court ruled in 2012 that Obamacare was legal, it was simply another tax.  In reality, it is another poll tax.
     Thatcher's tax was the product of the British Tories, and the Labour Party and the Left responeded with massive riots.  Implementation of the act was also very difficult to enforce, with local councils unable to be certain who was staying in the government houses, and if they were students, employed, unemployed, and therefore what rate of the tax they must pay.  Needless to say, Obamacare is off to a slow start.
     Thatcher's poll tax was to take effect in 1990, but riots, its unpopularity, its difficulty in implementing, all weakened her leadership.  She also had other rivals in the Tory Party who disagreed with her opposition to closer relations with "Europe," the expanding Common Market.  While on a visit by P. M. Thatcher to Europe, her Tory opponents led a coup inside the Conservative Party, and deposed her.  Margaret Thatcher was no longer Tory leader; no longer Prime Minister.  Her Conservative successor, John Major, scrapped the poll tax.
    Obamacare will raise the insurance rates on most middle-class Americans.  For some, the rates will rise sharply, AND the co-pay may now be thousands of dollars instead of the previous $50 or so.  Worse, with millions more in the pool, and the same number, OR FEWER DOCTORS WILLING TO PARTAKE IN THE NEW PLANS, it may take far longer to visit a doctor.  In effect, Obamacare, with new delays, will probably institute death panels, even if there are no panels - just millions of more patients with fewer doctors.
     Will there be riots against the new American poll tax?  Will Obama fall like Thatcher?  We shall see.     

OBAMACARE = OBAMONSTROSITY

The more we see of the failure of the Obamacare website, and learning how many cannot keep their present plans, and will be forced to pay for plans that do not apply to them, like men having to purchase maternity insurance, one can see more clearly this is a scheme to hurt most productive Americans.  When 40 million uninsured Americans are added to the pool, but the number of medical doctors remains the same, even if the system were cheaper, there would not be enough doctors.  The waiting time to see a doctor will become much longer.  For the elderly, this will mean just what Sarah Palin said it would mean - Death Panels for the elderly, because the doctors will have to see the young.  Obamacare does demand more affirmative action doctors, but recall Dr. Patrick Chavis, the poster doctor of affirmative action in the New York Times Magazine, proof that a-a worked.   Dr. Chavis, it turned out, was so bad, he performed liposuction on his Black women patients without anesthetic, and finally one died, and he was disbarred.  (For more on this, see the excellent book by William McGowan, Coloring the News.)  Or what about Dr. Conrad Murray, who was the physician for Michael Jackson.  Will these be our new doctors?  Affirmative action means NOT getting the best qualified, but the lesser and the unqualified.  Flooding the hospitals with affirmative action doctors will be another way of creating Death Panels.-------Hugh Murray

HIGH-POWERED BOOK SHOOTS DOWN WARREN REPORT

From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle: A Report to the Public

From an FBI Agent…(Walterville, OR: TrineDay, 2012) by DON ADAMS

Rev. by Hugh Murray

            Don Adams has written a short, repetitious, extremely important book.  The repetition stems from the many FBI documents which support and expand upon material described in the text.

            Why is the book important?  Don Adams was an FBI agent who interviewed a character who may have been involved in the Kennedy assassination.  Adams queried him a week before, and then several days following, the murders in Dallas.  Adams knows what he did and what he was ordered to do.  Yet, it was not until some three decades after the assassination of Pres. Kennedy that Adams began to study some of the FBI documents; only then did he become aware of how his own information, his reports, had been revised, distorted, and falsified.  True, from November 1963 Adams was aware of pressures placed upon him and other agents from supervisors to avoid certain questions and to silence doubts about the official line on the Kennedy assassination.  Only later, however, did he begin to read critics of the Warren Report, and only after that, did he become aware of how his own FBI reports had been warped by his superiors.

            Adams wrote this book from personal experience.  In 1963, as an FBI rookie agent, he was assigned to the small FBI office in Thomasville, Georgia.  Soon after arriving in town, he overheard his local FBI chief warn the sheriff that Adams was “a Catholic, a Republican, and a Yankee.”(p. 30)  On 13 November 1963 Adams was assigned to interview a right-wing, racist, crank, Joseph Adams Milteer of Quitman, Ga.  This was a high priority assignment, for the agency had been alerted that Milteer had threatened President Kennedy.    On Saturday 16 November Adams spoke with Milteer as he distributed right-wing literature on the street.  Milteer quickly disclosed that he hated the Kennedys, Blacks and Yankees, but he issued no threats.  A week later when Adams heard the news from Dallas, Adams worried that Milteer might have been involved, and that he, the FBI agent, might have failed to prevent the murder.

            Adams was not the only FBI agent concerned about the local Kennedy-hating crank.  By 5 pm on 22 November 1963, Adams received orders to locate Milteer immediately, interview him and then hold him for the Secret Service.(8)  Adams rode to Milteer’s home, then to that of his lady friend and all his usual haunts, searching for his VW bus which was covered with right-wing signs.  Neither Milteer nor his vehicle were to be found.  Days passed.  Finally, Adams spotted the propaganda bus, but then, following FBI procedure, had to get another agent to accompany him.  The interview with Milteer began on the night of Wednesday 27 November into the early hours of Thursday the 28^th.  By this time, his superiors had commanded that he ask Milteer five, and only five questions.  Adams wanted to ask many more, but his boss made it clear, these five questions only.  Adams (with his silent colleague present) interrogated Milteer.  One question was, did Milteer have knowledge of the bombing of the 16^th Street Church in Birmingham on 15 September 1963.  Milteer denied any such knowledge.  The fifth question Adams was assigned to ask was, did Milteer ever make threats to assassinate the President, or had he participated in a plot to kill Kennedy.  Milteer adamantly denied ever making such threats or conspiring with others to kill the President.(42)  Case closed, as a prominent author might conclude.

            What Adams did not know at that time was that both the Miami Police Dept. and the FBI knew that Milteer had in October and November 1963 spoken with others on ways to assassinate the President.  Some of these threats were tape recorded on 9 November 1963.  The agency clearly knew of Milteer’s threats.  That is why they dispatched Agent Adams to locate Milteer both in mid-November and again on the day of the assassination.  Yet, the FBI did not inform Adams that the FBI had a copy of the tape of Milteer speaking with an informant and discussing how to take out the president with a high-powered rifle from an office building.  Adams was not informed about the tape, or the threats that Milteer had made, and he was constricted as to what he was allowed to ask Milteer by his FBI superiors.   Thus, when Milteer denied making threats or conspiring, Adams had no information with which to dispute Milteer.  And even if he had had the information, his superiors ordered him not to ask any more questions than the original five.

            Just what kind of investigation of the assassination was this?  It was one in which the FBI chief, J. Edgar Hoover, conferred by phone on 22 Nov. 1963 with newly sworn in President Lyndon Johnson and by 9 pm they had decided that Oswald was guilty and he had performed the deed alone, without conspirators.  Once the FBI Chief had made that decision, all information from the FBI agents was to bolster that view, and any evidence to the contrary was to be dismissed, denigrated, destroyed, forged, or falsified in order to promote the lone-nut Oswald theory.  Adams’ book is an indictment of the FBI in the case of the Kennedy assassination.

            Adams was not the only FBI agent to break ranks.  I recall at the time of the Garrison investigation, an FBI man appeared on local New Orleans television asserting that there had been FBI teletypes warning of an assassination soon before the deed in Dallas.  This was being exposed about the same time as the FBI’s destruction of a note hand-delivered to the Dallas FBI office in November 1963 by Lee Oswald.(52, 94)  Yet, the agency did nothing to reveal that Oswald might be dangerous.  Later, it was revealed that even a page of Oswald’s address book had been removed because it contained information about FBI agent James Hosty.  The page had been removed so the Warren Commission would not see it.

            Adams was slow to publicly question the FBI’s Kennedy investigation.  The FBI was the agency for which he worked for decades, and which he still holds in high esteem.  Yet, he is convinced it failed on this, its most important case.  The Adams’ book is more like the reluctant good soldier who grows to doubt, to question, and then to condemn, his commanders.  Adams condemns the FBI leadership on this most crucial case, crucial for Adams, for the FBI, and for the nation.

            Yet, Adams’ writing style and organization leave many loose ends.  For example, in a memo from the FBI’s Civil Rights Div., the SAC of Atlanta (the larger dist. which included both Agent Adams and the extreme racist Milteer) requested to have Milteer’s long distance phone checked “to ascertain if there were any calls to Dallas or New Orleans, during pertinent period.”(77)  Why the inquiry regarding calls to New Orleans, specifically?   Did the FBI have someone in mind in New Orleans with whom it thought Milteer was conspiring?  If so, who?  Oswald seemingly left NO in September 1963.  If the pertinent period is narrow, and closer to the assassination, who in New Orleans did the FBI have in mind?  (Recall, shortly after NO DA Jim Garrison arrested Clay Shaw, US Attorney General Ramsey Clark proclaimed that the Feds had already investigated Shaw and found no conspiracy.  Might the FBI have been thinking of Shaw in 1963?  Of Banister?  Of whom?)

            Even more intriguing, Adams reveals more about the informant, William Somersett, who spoke with Milteer in Florida where the conversation was taped on 9 November 1963.  This taped discussion provides the title of Adams’ book, for then Milteer spoke of killing the President by using a high-powered rifle from an office building.  He also said a patsy would be quickly arrested to divert the authorities from the real perpetrators.  Adams reports that the same informant, Somersett, continued his contacts with extremists and authorities later in the 1960s.  Writes Adams: “On April 3, 1968, Somersett called the Miami Police Dept. to alert them that he had obtained reliable information that Martin Luther King, Jr. was to be assassinated the next day.  Somersett’s information was ignored.”(117)  King was assassinated 4 April 1968.  One wishes Adams would have written more about Somersett.

            What Adams does expose is how the FBI “mistreated” Somersett.  Somersett not only spoke with Milteer on 9 November concerning the method to kill Kennedy, he met Milteer in Jacksonville on 23 November, where Milteer was “jubilant” about Dallas.  “Everything went true to form.  I guess you thought I was kidding when I said he would be killed from a window with a high-powered rifle.”  Somersett asked if Milteer had been guessing when he had predicted the assassination earlier in the month.  Milteer snapped, “I don’t do any guessing.”(103)

            Milteer’s jubilation and bragging that he predicted the Kennedy assassination reminded me of a personal incident.  I had swum against the stream in high school and college in my native New Orleans.  In 1960 I was one of the early members of New Orleans CORE (Congress of Racial Equality), and in September of that year was arrested in the city’s first lunch-counter sit-in.  Some of my relatives were horrified, and to restore honor to the family, one uncle sent money to George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party.  I rarely saw this uncle, but he would occasionally stop by my parents’ when I was there.  His usual greeting to me was, “How are the burr heads doing?”  This teasing would annoy me, which is what he wanted.  But, in time, the shock wore off, and I shrugged it off as his “hello.”  Nevertheless, there were serious differences between our world views.   In the early 1960s, if he had a few drinks, he would groan, “Ouuu, that Bobby [Kennedy]!  They’re going to get that Bobby.”  I tried to ignore that comment, too.  It was probably in early 1964, the first time I had seen him for awhile.  At some point in the visit, he smiled and said, “Didn’t I tell you!  Didn’t I tell you they were going to get him?!”  It took a moment for his comment to register with me, for at first I did not comprehend his reference.  Then my jaw dropped when I understood.  I replied, “You said they were going to get Bobby.”  “Well, they got the other one instead.”  Exasperated, I finally asked, “Who is this ‘they’ you keep talking about?”  Nonchalantly, he answered, “The mob, out in the parish.”  Out in the parish meant Jefferson Parish, adjacent to New Orleans, and the leader of the mob there was Carlos Marcello.  In early 1964 no one else was linking the Mafia to the Kennedy assassination.  So, in 1964 that remark only confirmed my view that politically my uncle was on another planet.

            Milteer’s teasing and bragging, like my uncle’s, may have been simple bluffing, braggadocio, bull s***, or it might have been…

            Informant Somersett also told the FBI that he received a phone call at 10:30am on Friday 22 November from Milteer calling from Dallas!  Milteer then assured Somersett that Kennedy would never return to Miami.  At 5:30 pm that day, the FBI assigned Agent Adams to locate and interrogate Milteer with only five approved questions.  Adams searched, but was unable to find Milteer at his home in Quitman or at his lady friend’s, driving by many times.  He could not locate Milteer in his Georgia locale until several days later.  However, unbeknownst to Adams, the local FBI office reported that Milteer was in Quitman on 22 November.  Adams maintains that he was the agent assigned to find Milteer, and the vocal racist was not there.  Recall, Somersett had reported that Milteer had called him from Dallas.  Because Somersett’s information contradicted the official FBI story, Adams discloses how the FBI began to undermine Somersett, inserting comments into his files that Somersett was not a reliable informant.  This discrediting of Somersett BEGAN only with the Kennedy assassination.

            The point is that Milteer was let off the hook by the FBI that declared (without good reason to do so) that Milteer was in Quitman, Georgia on 22 November 1963.  This attempt to deflect suspicion from Milteer was in direct conflict with the reliable information supplied by Somersett.  Therefore, Somersett had to be discredited.

            There is a minor discrepancy I should mention in this book.  On Sunday morning 24 November 1963 a young woman rang the doorbell of the Adams’ home in Georgia, and after some fearful misunderstanding, she identified herself as a student at Tulane/Newcomb Univ. in New Orleans.  “Ms. [Vereen} Alexander told me she had come to me because she knew Lee Harvey Oswald…”(39)  Yet, Adams, in his FBI report of the discussion does not report that.  He writes that there was a party in the summer of 1963 at the home of Dave Hoffman, at which Ms. Alexander “had the strong belief that Lee Harvey Oswald was also possibly present at the party.”(70)

            Ms. Alexander identified Al Peccarero as “a leader” and member of a local socialist group in New Orleans.”  Peccarero, in another FBI report, (not in this book), was also presented as the publicity director of the New Orleans Council on Peaceful Alternatives.  Yet, the same Al Peccarero, during the early 1960s, presented a speech before a large audience of the local White Citizens’ Council.  Which side was Al on?  I suspect he may have been on the payroll of Guy Banister, Kent Courtney, or some agency to spy on the student and university left.  (Admittedly, one may change views.  I have changed, and am now a conservative.  But this change took time.  One does not actively partake at the same time in integrationist and segregationist organizations, or, like Oswald, pro-Castro and anti-Castro, unless for covert reasons.)

            There are many other tidbits in this book that provoke thought, and illustrate that even with excellent agents on the ground, the FBI investigation of the Kennedy assassination was flawed, forged, and distorted to support the instantly fossilized presupposition that Oswald was the lone-nut assassin; to do this the FBI ignored, warped, and buried in trivia evidence to the contrary.

            Here are some revelations from Adams’ book, which is excellent for several reasons.  It includes a transcription of the tape in which Milteer on 9 November speaks to informant Somersett on how to kill the President using a  high-power rifle from an office building and then having a patsy arrested while the real culprits escape.  Milteer’s threats were taken seriously enough by the Miami Police Dept. that Kennedy’s itinerary was changed when he visited Miami on 18 Nov. 1963.  The FBI had a copy of the tape, but it did not push any change in the itinerary when Kennedy visited Dallas a few days later.  And when Oswald visited the FBI office to deliver a threatening note, the FBI did nothing to watch Oswald; it did nothing except destroy his note after the assassination!

            On the morning of 22 Nov. Milteer phoned William Somersett from Dallas who assured him that Kennedy would never again return to Miami.  On 23 Nov. the exuberant Milteer met Somersett in Jacksonville, assuring the informant that his prediction of how to take out the President was no guess work.  Receiving such reports from Somersett, the FBI decided to destroy the informant’s credibility.  3 April 1968 Somersett alerted authorities that Martin Luther King would be assassinated the next day.  The warning by the discredited informant was ignored.  King was killed the 4 April 1968.

            Adams produced a short book with numerous photographs and copies of official documents making the text even shorter.  It is repetitious.  There should have been an expanded index.  Yet, this is a book essential to all interested in the assassination of President John Kennedy.