Posted on 11/20/2009 11:29:24 AM PST by AtlasStalled
This Sunday the Discovery Channel is running two back-to-back documentaries -- "Did the Mob Kill JFK?" and "JFK: The Ruby Connection" -- exploring the role of the Mafia behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy:
New information and never before heard details of a startling confession raise new questions on just who was behind the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the subsequent killing of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby. * * * "I had the little bastard killed. He was a thorn in my shoe" -- according to a secret FBI informant these were the words of his cellmate, Carlos Marcello, the notorious New Orleans mafia boss (one of America’s most powerful mafia godfathers) confessing to his role in orchestrating the Kennedy assassination and featured in Did the Mob Kill JFK." Almost half a century after the assassination, the informant has come forward to provide an exclusive interview that may solve one of the nation's most enduring mysteries and re-write history. * * * Marcello, who controlled mob operations in Louisiana and Texas, had long been suspected in having a hand in the Kennedy assassination. "Did the Mob Kill JFK?" links Marcello with both Oswald and Ruby, as the godfather reveals in his confession that he brought Lee Harvey Oswald into the plot, telling the informant that "He was my man. He did what the hell I told him to do." Marcello also admits that Dallas strip club owner Jack Ruby was deeply in debt and "owed him big." The special draws on an array of historians, investigators and eyewitness accounts, including interviews with author Lamar Waldron and former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden who claims an aborted attempt on the President's life in Chicago early in November was covered up.
(Excerpt) Read more at tvbythenumbers.com ...
Ok. You may think what you will.
I can tell you: there is business and there is personal. The two do not mix, if there is a cross over a mistake has been made and it is corrected.
Just say I do know what I am talking about here, believe it or not. ;-)
I watched it. She was so sweet and nice had he been alive he might not have even felt the dagger penetrate his back into his aorta
I just returned from Dallas and the LBJ ranch. He was a total hypocrite. He took the people’s money and lived the extreme high life
Mafia types were notorious liars
“The two do not mix, if there is a cross over a mistake has been made and it is corrected.”
Killing a president is just not the sort of mistake one makes. It’s not like when Rocko gets out of line and you’re sick of his BS and want to clean your hands of it even though he’s a good earner. It’s more like if Obama started a war with Russia because he invited Medvedyev over o the White House and suddenly, without warning, got angry and caved his skull in with a paper weight. We might go to war with Russia, but not like that. That’s one of those lessons you never have to learn.
“Just say I do know what I am talking about here, believe it or not. ;-)”
I believe it to a certain extent. but have you paused to consider how out of line it is for mafiosos to use violence against low-level local authority figures, much less The Man. It’s a rule. Brings too much heat. American isn’t Sicily; one cannot treat politicians and cops like transfigured mobsters.
your whole committment obsession
<><><><><><
LOL. My commitment obsession? Don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
I have an opinion about Oswald’s character and intestinal fortitude that clearly differs from yours.
True enough.
I think you’ll have to understand that kids at age 15 don’t sit listening to the radio talk shows constantly. They have school and other social things going on. I have related what I heard. I obviously didn’t hear all that was going.
I do believe the Clay Shaw problem was contrived. Perhaps all of Garrison’s claims were contrived. I would have to lean that direction based on his lack of charges being brought, the brash claims he made in the day that never panned out. I don’t believe I’m under any delusion with regard to Garrison.
Does it seem rather strange that Garrison would even bring charges against Shaw? What was up with that? There was some strange stuff going on there, whether Garrison was a total nut job or not. I’m a little sketchy on it right now, but didn’t one witness die shortly before the trial, removing what was to be his most powerful resource? I may be wrong about that, but it seems I remember something being mentioned along those lines.
The guy he was left with seemed like a real nut job, or he was being manipulated by Garrison. Either way that evaporated.
I still have to ask myself, why does a guy put his reputation and job on the line for as flimsy a case as he wound up with against Shaw? Very strange.
“My commitment obsession? Don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.”
It’s an exagerration, but you did bring up his committment in more than one post. Seems a particularly weak argument in my opinion. He’s not re-upping for duty in Iraq. What fortitude does it take to fire a gun three times out a window? Not much.
I suggest you look up the personality profiles of “lone nut” gunmen in historical cases that aren’t controversial. Suffice to say they aren’t the brightest, boldest, and most steadast bunch. Mediocre, unassuming, and itinerant is more like it.
I thought it was Joey Bishop. As the least attractive Rat Packer, his days were numbered before JFK took his place.
“Does it seem rather strange that Garrison would even bring charges against Shaw? What was up with that?”
Publicity.
Plus, he had to have something to show for his troubles, didn’t he? That way he can convince some people he wasn’t wasting the taxpayers’ money willy-nilly.
He also might have believed his own BS. He had this legal theory of “propinquity,” which is geographical proximity, whereby demonstrating that people were close to eachother at some point in their lives is evidence of their being in cahoots. Either Garrison was desperate for any threads with which to tie his general notions of conspiracy to a (barely) prosecutable case, or he really thought having post office boxes in the same building meant you were assassin-buddies.
“I’m a little sketchy on it right now, but didn’t one witness die shortly before the trial, removing what was to be his most powerful resource?”
David Ferrie was the crazy-looking guy played by Joe Pesci in Stone’s movie. He lived is supposed to have participated in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy with Shaw and Oswald. Their connection, so far as I can tell, is that they were all gay. Another version of Garrison’s propinquity. Not only were Oswald, Shaw, and Ferrie all in New Orleans at one time, two of them were homos, so I gues that means they conspired together. Oh, and that Oswald’s gay, too.
Ferrie was reportedly a rabid anti-communist, which fit in with Garrison’s picture of the assassination as the job of right-wingers, in this case an anti-Castro cabal backed by the CIA. Oswald was the pro-Castro patsy, whom the reactionaries used to distract the public from the Military-Industrial Complex’s rise to power.
I spare you the details, but some fella named Jack Martin went around telling stories about Ferrie’s ties to Oswald and his part in a conspiracy to carry out the murder. Garrison heard about it, investigated, and cooked up various complex interrelationships in his head. Ferrie was hounded by Garrison but never confessed. Never agreed to be a witness. Was, in fact, afraid he’d be arrested. Then he died.
Died before the trial! Must have been murder, huh? Or suicide. Either They shut him up—just like Oswald was “shut up” 2 days after he was in police custody and Ruby was “shut up” years after he was arrested—or he shut himself up. Only there’s no evidence of murder. Suicide is possible, and there were present what some people think are suicide notes (it’s open to interpretation). If he did commit suicide, it wasn’t necessarily because he was afraid of being discovered. It could be that Garrison hounded him to death. He was a sick man, and could have been sick enough to want to die, the Kennedy-related hoopla not helping.
“The guy he was left with seemed like a real nut job, or he was being manipulated by Garrison”
Garrison’s main witness after Ferrie’s passing, Perry Russo, testified that he was present when Ferrie, Shaw (whom he knew as “Clay Bertram”) and Oswald plotted to kill Kennedy. It wasn’t until after Ferrie died that he came forward with this gem. His story was demonstrated to have changed over time, suggesting coaching.
There was another witness, I forget who, who first came up with his testimony while under hypnosis.
“He lived is supposed to have participated in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy with Shaw and Oswald”
Scratch that “lived”.
I’ve got goosebumps after watching that!
Great Post!
“The second shot, the ‘magic’ bullet shot, Did enough damage to Kennedy that he would not have survived.”
That’s all well and good, and I suppose it’s silly to say that a kill shot was a miss. However, I was assuming Oswald wasn’t simply aiming to kill, wherever that happened to be, rather he was aiming for a specific part of Kennedy’s body. Namely the head. If so, he missed his target twice.
It’s not an important disctinction, though. Save perhaps to counter conspiracists’ claims that his marksmanship was too good to be true.
Very much so. Credible sounding witness too.
They wanted two co-ordinated volleys of shots at Kennedy to insure a kill. The link describes the sequence.
“They wanted two co-ordinated volleys of shots at Kennedy to insure a kill”
Why bother? The Book Depository provided a perfect shot, with the car moving straight away from the shooter at a gradual downward slope. Already basically a stationary target. Much simpler than coordinated volleys and paralyzing darts shot from umbrellas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.