Buy the only book about David Ferrie--suspect in the Kennedy Assassination

DAVID FERRIE: MAFIA PILOT PAPERBACK, AUTOGRAPHED

Buy ME & LEE here! (Not USA? Add $10 at Donate Button for Shipping!)

Order your AUTOGRAPHED ME & LEE here!
BUY ME & LEE IN MANY WAYS!
Shipping Included.MANY THANKS!

Help out! DONATE! (and get a personal thank-you from Judyth)

Thursday, September 15, 2016

TREASON IN GOVERNMENT AGAINST JFK OCCURRED THE DAY BEFORE HE DIED


  THE VIETNAM WAR WAS AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST KENNEDY. COPY THIS, SO YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WILL KNOW! A major reason for Kennedy’s assassination was to guarantee the Vietnam war. JFK’s NSAM #263 of October 11, 1963, would have put the brakes on US involvement in Vietnam. But McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy’s National Security Adviser, gutted that plan ONE DAY before JFK died, BEHIND THE PRESIDENT'S BACK. Author James Douglass in his book JFK and the Unspeakable, identifies Bundy’s action as treason. So does researcher Greg Burnham. As for Lyndon Johnson, he kept Bundy in his powerful cabinet position.
The day before Kennedy died, while his boss was busy in Texas, Bundy was in the White House, secretly preparing a document known as National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #273. Bundy wrote it as if it was Kennedy’s own directive. It changed the course of history. The document called for the escalation of the Vietnam War.
“The DRAFT”
“Perhaps the most powerful evidence indicating that select Senior Administration Officials and Senior Military personnel may have had foreknowledge of the plot to assassinate...Kennedy, is found in the DRAFT of National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) Number 273. There are several smoking guns, but the one that initially stands out as the most obvious is the date of the DRAFT, which was subsequently signed by McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President for National Security. The DRAFT was written and dated November 21st, 1963 less than 24 hours before the assassination. It was ostensibly the result of the meetings that took place the previous day at the Honolulu Conference.”
Burnham lists reasons [edited and numbered for brevity] for suspecting Conspiracy:
(1) “The first sentence is indeed quite revelatory of its dubious nature: “The President has reviewed the discussions of South Vietnam which occurred in Honolulu, and has discussed the matter further with Ambassador Lodge.”
That is false…The conference itself took place on the 20th and part of the 21st. The DRAFT was written on the evening of the 21st. JFK and Jackie left Washington aboard Air Force One [en route to San Antonio, where Kennedy gave a speech at Brooks AFB the afternoon of] the 21st.” (JVB: We know that no such conferences with the President occurred on planes or in his hotel).
The President met LBJ and Gov. John Connally in San Antonio. He and Jackie then left San Antonio and continued on to Houston, where JFK addressed a Latin American citizens’ organization. He then spoke at a testimonial dinner for Congressman Albert Thomas before flying to Fort Worth. It was a very busy day, filled with travel, and JFK would be in a coffin the next day. Burnam tells us that
“[T]he conference took place …without the President in attendance…the President could not have reviewed the discussions conducted in Honolulu in depth, nor could he have spoken with Ambassador Lodge in a meaningful way about the conference before the DRAFT of NSAM 273 was written…
(2) So, to which President does this document refer in its first sentence? The Gravel Edition of the Pentagon Papers states, referring to the Honolulu Conference: “…the meeting ended inconclusively. After [Ambassador] Lodge had conferred with the president a few days later in Washington, the White House tried to pull together some conclusions and offer some guidance for our continuing and now deeper involvement in Vietnam”. [emphasis added] [The President "a few days later" was LBJ]
(3) “[That] could not have been the sitting president, JFK, as he was in Texas at the time…the first and only President to ever review the discussions conducted at the Honolulu Conference and further discuss them with Ambassador Lodge in Washington was LBJ…The only person to whom this DRAFT document could therefore refer…is LBJ…who met with Ambassador Lodge in Washington and… signed the final version of NSAM 273 on the 26th.”
Some “official version” defenders who run websites devoted to the government version of everything describe Kennedy’s long-term plan to withdraw all troops from Vietnam by 1965 as a mere ploy to influence the Diem regime, even though the Diem regime was destroyed by assassinations before Kennedy’s directive was written.
Of curse, JFK assured the American people that their country was in good shape militarily, poised to fight communist aggression worldwide. That didn't include going tpo war in Vietnam. One website tells readers, “...NSAM 273 was drafted during Kennedy’s administration, and then approved by Johnson”iii –going on to quote JFK’s cold war rhetoric in his last days of life--as if this draft reflected Kennedy’s last desires. Now for the truth: Greg Burnham also makes it clear that JFK’s Memorandum 263 — not 273 — was active government policy, as of October 11, 1963:
(4) “As of October 11, 1963 it was the policy of the USG to withdraw the bulk of all US personnel from Vietnam as per [the] EXISTING National Security Action Memorandum (263).”
But a DRAFT --NSAM 273-- would suddenly supersede it, as Burnham explains:
…this DRAFT of NSAM 273 states:
(5) “It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy…”
That’s NOT what President Kennedy had approved. HERE is what he approved:
1. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.
2. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort. (quoted from Section 1, part B)”iv
But Bundy’s Draft (part #2) says “The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.”
But wait. OCTOBER 2 ?
BUNDAY'S MEMORANDUM IGNORED Kennedy’s Oct. 11 memorandum #263. He goes back in time to the McNamara and Taylor report to President Kennedy on October 2, 1963, even though Kennedy approved only a small portion of that report, as seen in the October 11 memorandum.
Burnham comments:
(1) “…consider the simplicity of [Kennedy’s original order --] NSAM 263 -- JFK, after reviewing the McNamara-Taylor Report, approved only the recommendation to WITHDRAW. Done deal... Yet, Bundy’s NSAM 273 draft directs [the US to assist] the South Vietnamese so that they will ‘win their contest against...the Communist conspiracy’ …such a plan was in direct opposition to [JFK’s]…standing order to his military to withdraw.”
Burnham then considers the treasonous implications:
(2) “…the official record serves to confirm these conclusions… the JOINT STATE/DEFENSE Department Cable, dated November 13th 1963, directs the participants as to the topics…to be discussed at the [Honolulu] conference. It does NOT indicate discussions of any reversal or modification of JFK’s Vietnam withdrawal policy... The part of the cable discussing the military (item 2) refers to implementation of the recommendations contained in the McNamara-Taylor Report… but the only part of the McNamara-Taylor Report that the President approved concerning US military policy is the section incorporated by direct reference in his National Security Action Memorandum Number 263 which called for the withdrawal of the bulk of all US Personnel by the end of 1965…”
(3) [Regarding foreknowledge that JFK was going to die]“…[the Memorandum] indicates… [either] foreknowledge by the majority of attendees… [or] foreknowledge by only a few...perhaps only one ... Lyndon Johnson [who] signed the final version of NSAM 273 on November 26th, 1963, just four days after the assassination and one day after the funeral.”
When Lyndon Johnson signed Bundy’s NSAM #273 on November 26, waging war in Vietnam became official policy. As the war escalated under LBJ, many historians mistakenly assumed it was based on Kennedy’s policy because of NSAM #273. Many historians are still unaware of Kennedy’s withdrawal plan for Vietnam because of McGeorge Bundy’s treasonous act.
==from our new book, KENNEDY AND OSWALD: THE BIG PICTURE by Judyth Vary Baker and Edward Schwartz, soon to be published by Trine Day.  Visit me on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/Judyth.vary.baker/posts/10210658276758552 

Saturday, November 24, 2012

The Clinton-Jackson Link to Lee Harvey Oswald and Judyth Vary Baker


The Clinton-Jackson Link to Lee Harvey Oswald
 and Judyth Vary Baker

by Judyth Vary Baker
with commentary by Dr. Howard Platzman

A defining event that established an undeniable link among three individuals
--Lee Harvey Oswald, Clay LaVergne Shaw, and David William Ferrie –long ignored or obfuscated by Warren Commission aficionados – was established when witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana observed them together; less well-known is a more obscure report that Lee Harvey Oswald was associated with an unknown female when he was reported seen in nearby Jackson, Louisiana.  Supporting statements include those offered by employees at the East Louisiana State [Mental] Hospital in Jackson, Louisiana, generally regarded to have occurred no more than a few days after the sightings of Oswald with Shaw and Ferrie in Clinton.
              
               Other sources can supply information about the lives of all three men, amply demonstrating that under ordinary circumstances a disgraced Marine who was a returned “defector” from a stint in the USSR lasting over two and a half years, a pilot of questionable repute, with ties to Mafia boss Carlos Marcello, and a highly decorated World War II veteran --currently the overworked and esteemed Director of the International Trade Mart of New Orleans-- had no reasonable excuse to be seen together in a town 110 miles from New Orleans.

               The three afore-mentioned personages were seen together in Clinton from approximately 10:45 am until about 3:45 pm, in a black Cadillac identified by Clinton Town Marshall John Manchester[1] as belonging to Clay Shaw of the International Trade Mart.[2]  Manchester and Henry Palmer, East Feliciana




Parish’s Registrar, worked together to impede blacks from getting on the rolls. Manchester’s diligence (and racist attitude) concerning handling outsiders is revealed in this quote:

At the instruction of Henry Earl Palmer, John Manchester arrested CORE worker Stephen Lesser on August 28, 1963, allegedly because he refused to leave the courthouse, which housed Palmer's office. Lesser had been escorting in black citizens and helping them register.[3]

Wednesday, August 28, 1963 was the same day Martin Luther King gave his “I Have a Dream” speech in Washington, which galvanized efforts to get blacks registered.  The event of concern in Clinton occurred Thursday, August 29, 1963.  A vigilant John Manchester would be sent by Palmer to check on the identity of the driver of a black Cadillac parked about 50 feet from the Parish courthouse, within which the Registrar’s Office was located.  

Manchester testified to the HSCA after giving interviews to Garrison investigators. In this essay, we will concentrate on the earliest testimonies offered by such witnesses as Manchester, rather than on statements they might have made many decades later.  One reason for doing so is because of the complaint of Jackson barber Edwin Lea McGeehee that he was pressured by researchers to say he saw Lee Harvey Oswald enter a black Cadillac after getting a haircut in his barbershop, when he insisted to the author and a witness[4] that he never saw what vehicle Oswald entered after getting his haircut.

In McGeehee’s testimony in the Garrison trial, an attempt to place the event as late as mid-September was resisted by the barber:

Q: In other words, it could have been as late as September 15?
A: It was more closely, I would say, the last of August and the early part of September.
Q: Now, did you not testify that you had cool nights through the 15th of September?
A: Well, the last part of August we had some relatively cool nights, which was unusual for August, and we commented on that several times in the barber shop. If I had to say it, I would say the last of August.
Q: And you say you discussed this with the farmers in the barber shop? Is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, now, is your testimony the testimony of the farmers in the barber shop or your testimony?
A: Both of us.
Q: Oh, I see. In other words, you are testifying here from the knowledge of the farmers in the barber shop and from yours, is that Right?
A: Well, we discussed it, and they said how cool it was and I agreed.
As a matter of fact, Oswald’s encounter with the barber occurred on the afternoon of August 30, 1963, a Saturday. 

Q: Now let's see if you can be a little more accurate on your description of this automobile…
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was it a large automobile or a small one?
A: If I had to say what it was, it was a -- it resembled a Kaiser or a Frazer or an Old Nash.


Q: Did it appear to be old enough to have been a Kaiser or a Frazer?
A: Yes, that is what I noticed about it.
Next.McGeehee was telling the court that he saw a woman in the old car:
 A: The door was open and I noticed this car drive up. It passed the door a little ways, not too far, where the back end was just a little past the shop, and I did not see the man get out, and the next thing I noticed, there was nobody on the street hardly, not anybody, as a matter of fact, and this man walked in the shop.
Q: Could you describe the car for us at all?
A: Yes, the car was -- it was an old car, it was battered, it was a dark colored car -- it might have been dark green -- but the make of it I just couldn't remember, it was an old car, real old.
Q: Now, Mr. McGehee, to the best of your recollection and knowledge, was there anyone else in that car?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you describe that person?
A: There was a woman sitting on the front seat -- this is after the man was getting a haircut I glanced at the car -- and in the back seat what I noticed was -- looked like a bassinet.
Q: A baby bassinet?
A: Right.
Q: Now, Mr. McGehee, had Oswald entered the shop before this car pulled up?
A: No, after.
Q: Did you ever see that car leave in front of the shop?
A: It eventually left after he left; I didn't notice if he got in the car, I didn't pay any attention.
Q: Well, approximately how long after he left the shop did the car leave?
A: Right away. I noticed -- I heard it pull off, I didn't pay no attention to it, it was gone.
At http://trinedayauthors.homestead.com/JVB/ClayShawTrialWitnesses.pdf the original testimony of Reeves Morgan is on display from Garrison’s trial of Clay Shaw.  Morgan saw Lee Oswald, who visited him after sunset the same evening that the barber had seen Oswald at his barber shop. Morgan says his


daughter Mary was home –an important statement, since she would have returned to her college dormitory at LSU for classes by the first week of September and would not, presumably, have been present in this small rural town.  On June 3rd,1967, Andrew J. Sciambra wrote a Memorandum to Jim Garrison containing the following information:
MEMORANDUM
January 29, 1968
TO: JIM GARRISON, District Attorney
FROM: ANDREW J. SCIAMBRA, Assistant District Attorney
RE: Interview with MARY MORGAN, June 3, 1967
I went back to the home of REEVES MORGAN to talk further with MR. MORGAN about OSWALD's appearance at his home and also to talk with his daughter, MARY MORGAN, who had been at home at the time of the OSWALD visit.
MARY MORGAN informed me that she did not pay much attention to the incident as it was all very normal for lots of people to drop in her dad's home in order to get some help for employment. MARY told me that when OSWALD was in the house talking with her dad, she happened to walk towards the screen door and went onto the porch and just casually noticed that there was a dark colored car parked under the tree in front of the house. It was rather dark and she didn't really pay much attention to the car. She says that as best she can remember, it was an old car and the model was somewhere in the Fifties. She says that she remembers seeing a woman in the car. She did not pay much attention to the whole situation and she did not go out to see OSWALD and the woman in the car drive away.[5]





Edward T. Haslam presented the following material for readers at the site http://doctormarysmonkey.com/jvb/documents.htm

 “At the end of Feb.1969, during the closing arguments of the trial arising from Jim Garrison's investigation into the JFK Assassination, Assistant District Attorney James Alcock mentioned a witness



had reported seeing a woman other than Marina Oswald in a car with Lee Harvey Oswald during the Summer of 1963.
Mr. Edwin Lea McGehee, the barber from Jackson, Louisiana testified that Lee Harvey Oswald came into his barber shop in late August or early September 1963 and that Oswald arrived in an old battered automobile and that "there was a woman sitting on the front seat."
Asst. DA James Alcock concluded his comments by explaining to the jury that the State could not identify the
 woman, but they knew she was not Marina Oswald.
http://doctormarysmonkey.com/jvb/Documents_files/image004.jpg
I wish we could have identified her.

I wish we could have brought her into the courtroom
         and presented her to you.
              
     The “old car” was not a popular item in the researchers’ bag of theories. And the absence of Shaw and Ferrie from the car, to be replaced by a woman, made McGeehee’s and Mary Morgan’s statements difficult to fit into any theory among the researchers.
It seems the easiest way out of the problem was simply to refrain from mentioning the old car at all. In a much later interview, Mary Morgan’s having seen an old car and a woman in it is completely left out of a description in a Jim DiEugenio interview, now widely copied, that her very young brother had seen a black Cadillac pull up to the Morgan homestead.  If DiEugenio did not know about the Sciambra Memorandum of June 3, 1967 (buried under the date of Jan. 29,1968) he would not have thought to ask her again about her sighting of an old car with a woman in it. 
               (August 26 and Sept. 4, 1994 Interviews of Mary Morgan Jenkins and her brother Van, by Jim DiEugenio)[6]


“Morgan’s daughter,Mary, also confirmed seeing Oswald that night – she walked right by him on her way out of the house.”
No mention was made of an old car, tough both the barber Edwin Lea McGeehee and Mary Morgan had both described the same car, and noted the presence of a woman in the car. With Sciambra’s Memorandum lost to these researchers. They proceed to focus on a black Cadillac, and a boy, Van Reeves, complies:
               “Von, himself [was] a young teenager at the time…As is a young boy’s wont, Von was “horsing around” by the cedar trees in the front yard of the Morgan house, when he took notice of the car coming up the drive. He remembered being impressed with the look of the car and waited outside while the visitor talked to his father.”
At this point, we are not given the name of Lee Oswald as having been recognized by the young teenager, but the researcher implies that ‘the visitor’ was Lee Oswald. I would be good to get a direct quotation concerning the identity of the ‘visitor’ but we are not given one in this particular article.  What we read next is puzzling:
“He noticed that the driver of the car waited as well. He couldn’tmake out the features of the driver in the darkness of early evening, but remembered one unforgettable characteristic—a shockof white hair. When the car left, Von asked his faher if the governor had just paid them a visit. When asked why he thought it was the governor, Von replied that he thought only the governor would come to their house in a black Cadillac.” (emphasis by DiEugenio)
Reeves Morgan was a Louisiana State representative twice, most recently from 1960-1964. [7]  A’J. Weberman looked thoroughly into Morgan’s life and background: here are some excerpts from his investigation:
REEVES MORGAN
Louisiana State Representative Reeves Morgan told the HSCA:
“...I called the FBI. They are the only ones I ever related it to. …Well, the fellow I talked to thanked me, but said, 'We already knew he had been up in those parts.' He didn't say he knew he had been to my house. Sometimes afterward, several days or so, I received a call from them and they wanted to know what kind of clothes he had on; whoever it was called me from the FBI…I didn't bother about [contacting the Warren Commission]. I figured I went as far as I wanted to go. If they wanted to know anymore, I figured they'd contact me. My testimony [during the Clay Shaw trial] kind of insinuated that I wanted him to register in [Clinton], when I didn't tell him anything about where to register.”


Weberman tells us that
“Reeves Morgan, 78, had a stroke and was hospitalized in 1993. His grand-daughter, Marguerite Morgan, explained that when Reeves Morgan went to the FBI with his story the Bureau prevailed upon him not to make it public. She added, "My grandfather is an old-style Louisiana politician who worked with Huey Long, a friend of the Long family. He started in St. Helena Parish where he ran a dairy. He was elected to the State Senate in the late 1950's…”[8]
Did DiEugenio interview Reeves Morgan in 1994, so that we could discern ‘who’ drove up in the black Cadillac, and when? Juxtaposing Mary Morgan and Van Morgan together on the same night as having seen “Oswald” (Mary)and “a visitor” (Van) might or might not have been a problem, except that Mary saw an old car with a woman sitting in it –never mentioned by Van—and never mentioned by DiEugenio—while Van said he saw a black Cadillac. We have no statement from Reeves Morgan to clear up the problem.
However, as a witness to the trip to Jackson, having been the occupant of the old car in question, I am able to do so. My statements have never been challenged, though they have been ignored, and persons never interviewed have been substituted for my presence, as explained by researcher Dr. Howard Platzman, in his essay on the subject, repeated here:
Mellen’s Magic Show:
How to Make Two (or Three) Women and an Old Car Disappear
Whatever the merits of Joan Mellen’s A Farewell to Justice -- and there are more than a few -- the author fails utterly to clarify the trip reputedly taken by Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Lee Oswald to the Clinton-Jackson area of Louisiana in the late summer of 1963. Having declared that Clinton-Jackson is her specialty, her account is a monumental disappointment.
Personal note: Joan and I met once, for a long (at least five-hour) discussion during the period in which she was researching her book. I find myself in the unsettling position of having to note several mysterious omissions from, as well as additions to, the final published account. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A man fitting Oswald’s description visited Lee McGehee, a barber, and then Reeves Morgan, formerly a state representative, both (by both witnesses’ testimony) in the early evening of late August or early September 1963. Oswald asked McGehee if there was work to be had at the East Louisiana State Hospital, a mental hospital located in Jackson. McGehee referred Oswald to Morgan and gave him directions to Morgan’s home. 

Rejecting the reports of all researchers and witnesses, Mellen pegs the visits as taking place on September 19, arguing that the weather was too cool for the visits to have taken place during the earlier timeframe. This despite the assertions by both McGehee and Morgan that the date could not have been past September 15.  At the Garrison trial, asked four times if the date could have been as late as “mid-September,” Morgan each time declared: “I don’t believe it could have.” Mellen also doesn’t address the probability that the college students organizing for voting rights in Clinton would most likely have been in school by her late date. This is a small consideration, however, when compared with the chaos that mars the rest of her account.  

Most importantly, a consensus has been developing that the Jackson hospital was a hotbed of MK-ULTRA mind control experiments. After coming awfully close to confirming Garrison’s speculations about companion research being conducted in biological warfare – specifically, one centered on the weaponizing of cancer cells -- Mellen sidesteps the issue. Her discussion of the role played by Dr. Mary Sherman in this intrigue (Sherman’s mysterious death in 1967 lingers in New Orleans lore) simply goes nowhere. Laudably, she arrives at the dots, but, troublingly, she fails to connect them.  



McGehee, Garrison Trial Testimony

Q: Now, Mr. McGehee, can you recall approximately when it was that you saw Leon Oswald?

A: This was -- as near as I can remember, it was in the -- we had some cool weather in the last of August and the early part of September. I barber by myself, and when it is cool I turn the air-conditioning off and keep the door open.

Q: Would that have been the latter part of August, early part of September, 1963?

A: Right.

Q: Now, at the time that Lee Harvey Oswald was in your barber shop, was anyone present besides yourself?

A: No.

Q: Can you recall approximately what time of day or night this was that he was in the shop?

A: This was along toward the evening.

Q: Were you able to see, Mr. McGehee, how Oswald came to the shop, whether he --

A: The door was open and I noticed this car drive up. It passed the door a little ways, not too far, where the back end was just a little past the shop, and I did not see the man get out, and the next thing I noticed, there was nobody on the street hardly, not anybody, as a matter of fact, and this man walked in the shop.

Q: Could you describe the car for us at all?

A: Yes, the car was -- it was an old car, it was battered, it was a dark colored car -- it might have been dark green -- but the make of it I just couldn't remember, it was an old car, real old.

Q: Now, Mr. McGehee, to the best of your recollection and knowledge, was there anyone else in that car?

A: Yes.

Q: Can you describe that person?

A: There was a woman sitting on the front seat -- this is after the man was getting a haircut I glanced at the car -- and in the back seat what I noticed was -- looked like a bassinet.

Q: A baby bassinet?

A: Right.

Q: Now, Mr. McGehee, had Oswald entered the shop before this car pulled up?

A: No, after.

Q: Did you ever see that car leave in front of the shop?

A: It eventually left after he left; I didn't notice if he got in the car, I didn't pay any attention.

Q: Well, approximately how long after he left the shop did the car leave?

A: Right away. I noticed -- I heard it pull off, I didn't pay no attention to it, it was gone.
The street was empty and still, the barber states, except for the arrival and departure of one old car, which parked “just passed the door a little ways, not too far, where the back end was just a little past the shop. That car held a lady passenger, but he could only see the back of her head. The barber appears to be stating his belief that Oswald arrived in this car and left in it, though he didn’t actually see him do either. Notably, his testimony includes no mention of a black Cadillac, although Garrison’s case would be immeasurably strengthened by such a report.

Morgan, Garrison Trial Testimony
Q: (Exhibiting photograph to witness) Mr. Morgan, I will show you now a picture that the State has marked "S-1" for purposes of identification, and ask you if you recognize the individual in that BY MR. SCIAMBRA:
Q: When did this individual come to your home?
A: Had it figured out as the latter part of August or either the first part of September, because I made no dates or no memorandums or nothing on it.
Q: Was this in 1963?
A: '63, 1963.

Q: Tell the Court what you told Lee Harvey Oswald that day that you talked to him in your home.
A: I told him that I could not help him get a job at the hospital ahead of any of my constituents, at the East Louisiana State Hospital, but I was not going to try to prevent him from getting a job, and I told him all the procedures he would have to go through to get in position to get a job, about going and putting in his application and getting set up to take a Civil Service examination, and that you just didn't go over there and get a job and just go to work, you had to go through applications and take a Civil Service examination for a job in the electrical department or something like that. They did have some jobs over there maybe, but I didn't tell him all that, but to get into the electrical department or maintenance you had to have a Civil Service exam, and -- he was from New Orleans -- it wouldn't hurt if he was a registered voter up there, and I told him that I knew a fellow up there once trying to find out what he can from everybody around there, and I told him I knew a fellow up there whose first name was Oswald and I asked him was he any kin to him.
Q: I take it then that the conversation that you had with Oswald was pertaining to a job at the East Louisiana State Hospital?
A: That was practically all we discussed.
Q: And approximately how long did you say you talked to Oswald that day?
A: Well, it wasn't too long, I would say maybe 20 minutes or 25, just talked along there. I wasn't wanting him to get the impression I was trying to rush him off or nothing.
Q: Was anybody at home when Oswald was at your house, besides yourself?
A: Yes, sir, my daughter was there.
Q: Anybody else?
A: I don't remember whether my wife was there or not; I do know my daughter was there though, but I never could place whether my wife was there at the time or not.
Morgan doesn’t mention a car at all or any witness other than his daughter, Mary, who was later interviewed by Andrew Sciambra, Garrison’s lead investigator, on June 3, 1967. In his report dated January 29, 1968, he writes:
“I went back to the home of REEVES MORGAN to talk further with MR. MORGAN … and also to talk with his daughter, MARY MORGAN, who had been at home at the time of the OSWALD visit.  MARY MORGAN…told me that when OSWALD was in the house talking with her dad, she happened to walk towards the screen door and went onto the porch and just casually noticed that there was a dark colored car parked under the tree in front of the house. It was rather dark and she didn't really pay much attention to the car… it was an old car and the model was somewhere in the Fifties. She says that she remembers seeing a woman in the car. She did not pay much attention to the whole situation and she did not go out to see OSWALD and the woman in the car drive away.”
So, at each of the two stops in Jackson, the first reports are of an old car with a woman inside -- no mention of a Cadillac.
Morgan Renovated
However, Mellen relates more recent testimony – by Morgan and by his son, Van.
Without crediting Bill Davy’s fine book, Let Justice Be Done, where Van’s statement is first reported, Mellen describes the boy (age not given) sitting in a tree playing “Tarzan” at the time Oswald arrived in a black Cadillac. Mellen repeats one line from the Sciambra statement, saying that Mary “did not pay much attention to the whole situation.” By “the whole situation,” Mellen must mean the matter of the car(s) and its (their) occupant(s), because Mellen describes the young girl as “anxious to get a look at the young man.” Indeed, the line she leaves out is “didn't really pay much attention to the car” – a bit of fudging. More importantly, if Mellen asked the now grown-up Mary Morgan whether she wanted to retract her early statement to Sciambra about the old car and the young lady, she neglects to mention Mary’s response. Surely she is familiar with the testimony. 
Mellen then adds to Mr. Morgan’s testimony:
 “Morgan had made up his mind. ‘A smart aleck white boy who is a nigger lover appeared in a black Cadillac,’ Morgan said later. When Morgan went outside to see Oswald off, the Cadillac sped off so quickly that he was almost run over in his own driveway.”   
 “Morgan said later” raises three questions.  When is “later”? To whom did he say this? And why didn’t he mention almost getting run over by a Caddy in his earliest statements and testimony? Checking the footnotes to this page, and counting down the lines, as the book’s odd footnoting format requires, reveals no source for this new information.
The main question of course is:
What happened to Mary Morgan?
How did her earlier, detailed statement about seeing the old car and the woman passenger disappear? You would think a book so painstakingly footnoted might include a citation, at the very minimum, of this second old car witness. Where is the explanation for her disappearance?
McGehee Renovated
While repopulating the Morgan scene, Mellen also retells the barber’s story:
“As he (Oswald) departs, McGehee, washing his hands, looks out the window. The green car is nowhere in sight. Suddenly a large black car with a big wraparound bumper pulls up from Church Street…Oswald is seated in back, his arms splayed across the back of the front seat. There are two persons in the front, and they are all laughing as the car, pulling onto State Road 10, passes in front of the barber shop on its way to Clinton.
The statement that the old car is “nowhere in sight” suggests that it left before Oswald “departed.” Yet it was McGehee’s testimony that the old car “left after he (Oswald) left.” The car was parked very near to the shop, so a quick departure might be expected. The best that can be said of Mellen here is that the issue, as described by her, is vague and unresolved.


Wonderland

More confounding is that the updated testimonies appear to place a convoy -- consisting of an old car and a new one – at both Jackson sights. The eyewitness testimony at Clinton produces no such oddity. One is tempted to ask: where did the old car go during that long stay?

With respect to the McGehee sighting, a Mellen footnote acknowledges that McGehee “told Moo Moo Sciambra (in a June 17 interview), tentatively, that Oswald had gotten into an old beat-up car, dark in color, a Nash or a Kaiser, with a young woman in the front seat and a bassinette in the back.” But, she goes on, “to the House Select Committee in 1978, McGehee said he saw Oswald neither exit the car nor enter it upon his departure from the barber shop. By the time he turned around after he was washing his hands, the car was gone. Note that McGehee told Robert Buras and Patricia Orr, interviewing him on January 19, 1978, that ‘a big black car pulled away shortly after Oswald left.’ He continues to believe that this is the car Oswald entered.”

Well, he would have to believe this, wouldn’t he? Indeed, given Mellen’s report that McGehee had actually seen Oswald sitting in the car and laughing, her tentativeness seems unwarranted. But this is not the last we hear of the old car and the woman in Mellen’s account. Now it really gets bizarre.

She first denies any connection between Oswald and the old car and the female passenger. Then, later on, a footnote speculates: if there was a woman with him, it would have been one, Gladys Palmer. This makes little sense since she has already stated rather emphatically that McGehee saw Oswald seated and laughing in a black Cadillac. That Mellen is even tempted to raise this possibility is revealing, but let’s play along.

Mellen puts Oswald in a "dating" relationship with Palmer as early as May 1963 (Baker claims to have met Oswald in late April). According to Mellen, Gladys was over 40 (Lee was 23), but still "hot." It would seem that Mellen is trying to keep one, Judyth Baker, out of her account, even if she has to find another love affair to crowd her out. Baker is the only woman ever to claim that she was the passenger in that old car and the only woman to declare that she was Oswald’s lover! A finding that Baker’s story is not persuasive might be intellectually responsible; failure to even consider Baker’s detailed account, even if only to dismiss it with a derisive paragraph or two, is, it seems to me, just plain indefensible.

So Mellen is prepared, if she has to, to concede that there may have been a woman in the car who was associated with Oswald. The question then becomes: if it was Gladys, as Mellen suggests, what happened to her? Did she get antsy while Oswald was chatting up the barber, take the steering wheel, and simply drive off? Lucky for Lee that Caddy showed up! 

But wait, didn't Lee go up in the Caddy? In that case, who drove Gladys to the barber shop? And if Lee got into the Cadillac, who drove her away? And what was she doing there to begin with? Mellen appears to see none of the complications arising from the web of speculations she weaves. 

Curiously, Mellen describes an incident at a Lafayette Holiday Inn bar in which an Oswald impostor might have been involved. A belligerent patron who signed his bar tab "Hidell" swore his hatred of Kennedy. She tells this story and yet doesn’t even entertain the possibility that the Oswald seen with Gladys was her own impostor. Perhaps real Oswald did get in the Caddy and impostor Oswald got in the old car! This version would at least have the advantage of not stranding poor Gladys while the real Oswald drove off with his pals. Or maybe it was the impostor Oswald that drove off in the Caddy (having the last laugh at Mellen?).

One is tempted to ask: whatever happened to Gladys? Having committed no crime, you might think she would have been teased out of obscurity to say she was the one. Is she still alive? Is she the third woman made to disappear conveniently, useful to justify her omission of Baker, discarded when no longer needed for that purpose.

Truly, Mellen is confused.

All this hocus pocus for Lee McGehee?

I think not.


All This for Judyth Baker

Judyth Baker gives an unorthodox spin to the Clinton-Jackson story – a spin that, in fact, jibes with many of Mellen’s most important findings. They are, in fact, so close in their stories that her failure to mention Baker at all, and her footnoted substitute of the elusive Palmer woman, can only be considered perverse. 

Mellen retells Jim Garrison’s JFK investigation and expands on the DA’s suspicions about Dr. Mary Sherman’s and David Ferrie’s involvement in the creation of a cancer bioweapon to be used against Fidel Castro. According to Baker, it was this plot that linked Sherman, Ferrie, and Shaw. Baker claims to have handled the day-to-day operations of two clandestine labs in the apartments of Ferrie and Sherman. The plot was allegedly funded by Texas oil, with Shaw as a conduit in New Orleans. Indeed, Garrison himself raised the specter of a get-Castro cancer plot in his famous Playboy interview. As Baker’s story goes, Garrison had the right characters but the wrong plot.

With Sherman and Ferrie found dead within two weeks of each other in 1967, Garrison would never get hard evidence of a plot to kill Castro, and ran with what (or whom) he had: Clay Shaw in a plot to kill Kennedy.   

I don’t think Mellen ever expected that her attempt to rehabilitate Garrison, a righteous enough cause, would embroil her in the controversy over Baker’s credibility. Unfortunately for her, she can’t claim that she never heard of Baker, because she got Baker’s story from me. But ignoring Baker as she does only causes her to lapse time and again into incoherence. By contrast, New Orleans native Ed Haslam also wrote of Sherman’s private lab and what he calls “the spooky stuff” swirling about her employer, Dr. Alton Ochsner, anti-Castro fanatic, famed cancer expert, and founder of a prestigious clinic in New Orleans. Haslam’s father was Sherman’s colleague and a friend of the family. As a youngster, Ed sat on her lap.

Unlike Mellen, Haslam did not ignore Baker, though initially tempted to. While residing the Bradenton, Florida, where Baker attended high school, he spent hours in the library, pouring over microfiche, to authenticate the many articles written about Baker’s exploits.  
Baker has been dismissed in many quarters as a fraud, but among the conspiracy witnesses to emerge “late,” who hasn’t?  Fraud or not, it seems undeniable that Baker presents a fuller and more coherent narrative than the one Mellen patches together. At the very least, Baker is a more accomplished storyteller. 
To create a coherent story out of Clinton-Jackson, Mellen must at the very least explain away the sightings of an old car with a woman in the passenger seat at each location -- by McGehee and then by Morgan’s daughter. I take it as unlikely that the two vehicles traveled in tandem, with an Oswald – one real, one fake? -- in each car.
It would have been much easier for Mellen to simply deny Oswald’s link to the car and the woman and to state, unequivocally, that an unrelated-to-Oswald driver joined the unrelated-to-Oswald woman, and the two drove off into the sunset together. The best explanation for the persistence of this story, even as Mellen recasts it, is that one or more witnesses continue to resist her attempts to edit the old car story out of the picture, so we get a silly hybrid instead.

Compare this to the more straightforward alternative Baker offers:

n    On Thursday, August 28, the three men set out bright and early in a Caddy, and, after an unexpectedly long layover in Clinton, waiting for test subjects to make their way from Angola Prison to the hospital, proceeded to Jackson. The prisoners had been told falsely that they had cancer and were being given the opportunity of participating in an experimental treatment. And so that day, the guinea pigs were given cancer (with Ferrie administering the lethal dose), after which the three men returned to New Orleans.  

n    Two days later, Oswald and Baker went to the hospital, with two stops in the early evening, to McGehee and then Morgan. They drove an old car belonging to former Banister detective David Lewis and his wife Anna. The bassinette belonged to them. (Anna Lewis has stated and, in the face of harassment and threats, restated her direct knowledge that Judyth Baker was Lee Oswald’s “mistress.”) Baker tested the prisoners to see if the “treatment” had taken. Baker appears to have had the specialized medical training necessary to culture the cells and track their damage in the blood work. Baker is also adamant about the date. This was her last weekend in New Orleans. Within days she moved to Florida, never to lay eyes on Oswald again.   

Mellen might like to know that Baker and a friend, the granddaughter of a US Customs official who was Oswald’s contact in New York and later in Florida, visited McGehee after I visited Mellen. According to the two women, McGehee said he resented the efforts of researchers to get him to change his original testimony. He wouldn’t name names.
Another unasked question: why would a VIP like Clay Shaw be needed to chaperone an outing with the likes of Ferrie and Oswald? Indeed, it would seem imperative that Shaw and Ferrie both make sure not to be seen in Oswald’s company – that, in fact, they not be seen in each other’s company, much less showcased in a gaudy black Caddy. The Oswald-Shaw-Ferrie link was supposed to be secret, wasn’t it? Instead, we get Oswald emerging from a vehicle containing two out-of-place-looking characters very much exposed to public view: a distinguished white-haired gentleman who actually tipped his hat to myriad passers-by, says Mellen, with an unforgettably weird-looking companion. If such a trip took place, it would have to be pretty important to risk anyone recognizing either or, worse, any two of these men.
Further: Mellen doesn’t even try to account for the three days it is commonly alleged this trip took, although she confidently stated to me that the trio stayed at the nearby home of Clay Shaw’s boss, Lloyd Cobb. Apparently that was just speculation proven untrue by further investigation. So, instead, we get no explanation at all, not even the acknowledgement that this piece of the puzzle is missing. In fact, there is barely the shadow of a timeline evident in her account.
Even more worrisome is that, after all her work, she seems entirely clueless concerning the very purpose of the trip.
Her best guess is that the Clinton-Jackson affair was engineered to begin the setting up of Oswald as patsy.  But to accomplish that, nothing so elaborate as a three-day sojourn with an important, powerful, and well-known businessman was necessary. If we edit Clinton-Jackson out of the patsy narrative, we are left with more than enough incidents implicating Oswald; sometimes, I think, too many.
In any case, her depiction of Oswald going into an anti-Castro rant at the Jackson hospital well post-dated his pro-Castro leafleting and radio appearance. Why, at a time when he was clearly repainting himself red, would he revert to anti-Castro colors?  If the idea was to set Oswald up, it would have made much more sense to continue the portrait in red that was begun in New Orleans. Moreover, had this been part of a frame-up, Oswald would have been encouraged to raise a pro-civil rights ruckus at the CORE rally – and his cohorts (manipulators?) would have had it photographed. As Mellen herself notes, CORE’s voter registration drive was getting daily press attention. “The Clinton incident” would then have found a prominent place in the Warren Report, further evidence of Oswald’s pro-Cuba leanings. Yet the Oswald of New Orleans, publicity hound, remained unaccountably camera shy in Clinton.  He didn’t make a scene. He didn’t even hold up a sign in silent protest. Instead, he waited patiently in line for hours -- and the fact that he was ever there at all did not emerge until Garrison’s investigators found “the Clinton witnesses” years later.


The best explanation I’ve heard is Baker’s: as they passed the time, Lee bet Dave that he could register to vote even though he did not live in the district, purely because he was white. Baker claims that Lee was staunchly pro-integration and, in fact, was disgusted by Guy Bannister’s racism.
Another of Mellen’s speculations has Oswald looking for a cover job at the hospital. A cover job for what, one might ask? He had a cover job in New Orleans and then spent a month and a half “uncovered.” His work at Reily’s was done. What work did he have in Jackson? At least at Reily’s, he was a hop away from Eli Lilly, where, according to Baker, he could pick up or drop off materials for her lab work, and two hops from Banister’s shop. Why would Oswald need a cover job in far-away and lightly populated Jackson?  Mellen doesn’t hazard a guess.
Then she wonders, repeating Garrison’s own forlorn query, if Oswald’s getting a job at a mental hospital might somehow be seen as precursor to his becoming a patient there, as if his file were to read “employee” one day, “patient” the next. Even if the intention was to portray Oswald as a “nut” who needed hospitalization, why go to all this trouble? Is a right-wing rant nuttier than a left-wing rant? (Well maybe, but not in Louisiana 1963.) Or was his rant contrived to reveal a split personality? After Oswald made a name for himself in New Orleans as a fighter for “fair play for Cuba,” why would Shaw seek to depoliticize him? Having constructed a pro-Castro persona, he could then go, credentials intact, onto the next scene in the patsy scenario in Mexico City. Finally, if the plan was to hospitalize Oswald, for whatever reason, what happened to scuttle it? Question after question after question, unasked and unanswered.
Mellen is uncertain about the purpose of the hospital visit, and clearly has no idea why Oswald got on that line. She has no idea what he believed he was accomplishing or what his supposed manipulators (Shaw and Ferrie) thought they were accomplishing. As Mellen leaves it, almost nothing is made clearer.
About the only thing one can be sure of in Mellen’s account of the nefarious doings in Clinton and Jackson is that Judyth Baker played no part in them. In a book that has more names than the Mexico City telephone directory, you might expect to see the name Judyth Baker listed in the index, especially as Mellen’s first response upon hearing Baker’s story was that “it makes a funny kind of sense.” But, as we have seen, Mellen is not a particular fan of first responses.
If she has a problem with Baker as a witness, it would appear that “office politics” (an exceedingly kind term) has led her to erase Baker from the plot, as opposed to dealing directly with her “sensible” story.
As noted, the reason for both trips, as Baker tells it, was related to the "black ops" Mellen herself mentions in connection with Dr. Mary Sherman’s work with a linear particle accelerator, the nature and purpose of which she leaves unspecified, though she perfectly well knows Baker's story and, I'm sure, Ed Haslam's research. Unlike Mellen, Haslam took the time to confirm for himself Baker’s independent knowledge of the underground labs at Sherman’s and Ferrie’s apartments.


This is a sad enough execution of Mellen’s powers as researcher and analyst -- especially as she has turns up so much new information, up to and including a role for Bobby Kennedy, which Baker was dimly but surely aware of, and which was confirmed in a meeting with former Interpen leader Gerry Hemming, a self-admitted Mellen source. But it gets sadder.
Had she been the first to uncover Oswald’s ties to the Customs Department, that would be to her credit, but she never mentioned this supposedly key finding to me. She may, of course, have made the discovery after we met, but there are two things I know: I never mentioned it to her (because I didn’t think it was that important, really, given the explosive nature of Baker’s larger story); and I heard about it from Baker way back in 1999. Indeed, according to Baker, it was she who supplied the lead to Mellen in a phone call she made to Mellen after Mellen failed to call her, as I repeatedly urged.
For some odd reason, Mellen chastised me, somewhat genially, for not doing the requisite “field work” and later called my advice to include Baker in her field work “unprofessional.” I could never account for this odd remark, except to surmise that she viewed witnesses as belonging somehow to their researchers, a troubling phenomenon I have encountered elsewhere in the research community – especially troubling as aging witnesses die one after another. In any case, I didn’t own Baker, and if, in any sense, I did, I was offering her to Mellen, asking for nothing in return. (Understand: I wasn’t writing a researcher’s book. I had only agreed to edit Baker’s memoirs. This forced me to do some research, but I had limited time for field work. I simply wanted to alert researcher Mellen to material I thought she should check out, especially as we live in the same general neighborhood, and especially as she was going to do more field work in Baker’s general neighborhood.)
When we met, Mellen either did not have the cancer angle yet or she hid it from me well. As I spoke at length about Ochsner and Sherman, Mellen never uttered a word of recognition. All of a sudden, years later, Ochsner becomes a part of her story and Sherman gets even more pages, all without mentioning Judyth Baker or Ed Haslam. The same is true for the role Bobby Kennedy may have played (according to Hemming, “Lee was one of Bobby’s boys”). Her account could be made to jibe with Baker’s without much difficulty, but she is so determined to edit everyone but the CIA out of the picture that she has the CIA being Ochsner's and Shaw's only sponsors. In fact, Ochsner was best buddies with Clint Murchison, and Baker was told that the cash for her project was funneled from Texas to Shaw. There is no mention of Texas money in A Farewell to Justice. There are, however, several specific denials that the Mafia was involved, save for having foreknowledge (which is Baker’s understanding). She even asserts that it was the CIA that paid Ruby to kill Oswald.
In any case, after we met, Mellen went on to write a book that neither addresses nor cites Baker and Haslam while retelling in a sketchy way the story they tell. Baker and Haslam appear to have been buried together, without ceremony. And nearby lies Mary Morgan.
Perhaps Gladys Palmer -- here today, gone the next -- was a CIA operative.


Over and over again, where Mellen’s meticulously detailed volume turns speculative and stalls, Baker’s testimony and Haslam’s research are there to move it forward. Mellen takes us right up the steps of the U.S. Public Health Service building where Haslam guessed there might be a linear particle accelerator, but she doesn’t open the door. Why? Because Baker and Haslam are the only ones on the other side, figuratively speaking. Not even the peripatetic Palmer woman found her way there.
Make no mistake about it: Baker’s testimony and Haslam’s research well predate Mellen’s book. They just plain got there first.
In any case, Mellen’s intellectual curiosity wanes quite suddenly and she is off on another subject. Her seemingly willful obtuseness on the subject is exceeded only by her scholarly penchant for completeness (if not for clarity). Consider the following, in her footnotes (pp. 364-365), describing an unpublished fictional piece by Garrison, shocking in its content:
Innovative in challenging the boundaries of the conventional short story, the piece is in the form of an "Affidavit."  The author's name appended is not "Jim Garrison," but one Robert L. Russell, "also known as James Alexander II."
Russell is a "wealthy oil man" working undercover for Robert F. Kennedy. He swears under oath that he attended a 1964 meeting with Guy Banister, "known to me at the time as an employee of the CIA."  The murder of Jack Ruby is planned by a method that will be "both undetectable and beyond suspicion of foul play."
In "Affidavit," Dr. Mary Sherman passes information from her cancer researches to David Ferrie, known to "Russell" as a CIA contract employee."  Sherman had created live cancer cells that were injected into Ruby's feet with a long needle between his toes.  Ruby was finished off before he could talk, as history reveals he longed to do near the end, and as one of Bobby Kennedy's closest people suggests he did.
....The motive for Sherman's unsolved murder, he suggests, was the need to keep a secret associated with the assassination.  The planner of Ruby's murder was Dr. West, "who did his best to help people and to work for the security of the United States."  West, of course, is a thinly disguised Dr. Alton Ochsner, who decrees that Ruby must die because if he won his trial, "he would hurt many people, open old wounds."  The witness to the "Affidavit" bears the names of both Garrison's most virulent antagonist, Walter Sheridan, and his assistant, Richard Townley: "Richard Sheridan."
Asked separately by at least two researchers where she came across this item, she did not reply. Perhaps she gave a second thought to her decision to include the piece. Perhaps she blanched because I was one of the researchers who asked.




Office Politics

From what I have learned, Mellen did skirmish with Baker over the latter’s claims concerning her correspondence with philosopher and political activist Bertrand Russell. Mellen insisted that no exchange had occurred, or at least not in the way Baker describes it. How would she know? Her ex-husband is Ralph Schoenstein, who was Russell’s secretary between 1961 and 1965, during which time he allegedly handled all of Russell’s correspondence. Small world!
Indeed, Schoenstein appears to recall seeing one letter from Baker (then Vary, her maiden name), but not a second. Mellen avers that the second piece of correspondence could not have escaped his notice. Yet a statement by counsel for Schoenstein in a libel case he won establishes clearly that it very easily could have.
Although it is correct that the Claimant was a friend and colleague of Bertrand Russell for a ten-year period…the Claimant has always travelled regularly, and it would have been impossible for him to intercept communications to Bertrand Russell even if he had been inclined to control Bertrand Russell [one of the libels], which he was not.
This statement was made in 1999 and the Mellen-Baker spat occurred soon after. So, an integral part of Schoenstein’s complaint directly conflicts with Mellen’s insistence that her ex was privy to everything Russell wrote or received by mail during the period in question. Clearly, Schoenstein’s legal argument, which was victorious, throws a window of opportunity wide open for him to have missed a letter.
Petty, you say?
What the heck does all this have to do with the price of tea in Clinton-Jackson?
Nothing, of course.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mellen has unearthed much in her labors, but her determination to discredit Judyth Baker and Ed Haslam by focusing on side issues, or just plain ignoring the two, leaves the entire Clinton-Jackson saga in a bigger muddle than before she unleashed her expertise on it.
It is my hope that serious researchers will consider the above information and take the contents of the book ME & LEE- How I came to Know,<Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald as seriously as have some excellent researchers in the past who now stand by me as a living witness in the case.




[1] "Every time a strange face enters into Clinton, La., he is stopped and questioned by the town marshal [John Manchester].” Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) Papers, Part 2: Southern Regional Office 1959-1966, August Meier and Elliot Rudwick, ed., University Publications of America, Frederick, MD, Reel 3, Frame 806, Status Report March 1-31, 1964; source: Jerry Shinley, newsgroup post."


[2] "Clinton Marshall John Manchester went over to the black Cadillac & the driver identified himself as a representative of the International Trade Mart & gave his driver's license which said Clay Shaw." Executive Session testimony of John Manchester, March 14, 1978. (HSCA document #008503)



[3] New Orleans FBI files revealed: "John Manchester was the Subject of a case in August 1963 entitled, 'Henry Earl Palmer, et. al; Michael Stephen Lesser - Victim; CR; Bufile 44-22889, New Orleans file 44-1852; A. J. Weberman Web site.
[4] Lafayette, LA resident Kelly Thomas Cousins accompanied the author; interview of McGeehee, at his residence in Jackson, LA,  on tape, 2000, commenced with this statement: 

(McGeehee) “They won’t leave me alone about that damned Cadillac!  And if you want me to say I saw Oswald with his head hanging out the window, laughing, as they came on driving through Jackson, in that Cadillac, why, I’ll say it, but I don’t want to say it, because I don’t remember any such thing.”
(Baker) “We won’t hold you to that, Mr. McGeehee.”
“Then, I’ll talk to you.”  (an attempt to photograph McGeehee failed when the camera’s battery ran out). 

Note that about a year later, when McGeehee was contacted by a friend of the author, he was told that a well-known researcher had urged McGeehee to consider the author as “looney.”  By 2003, when the History Channel documentary “The Love Affair” was being shot by Nigel Turner, McGeehee told Turner the author was “acting crazy.” Fortunately, witness Kelly Thomas Cousins, who was present at the interview, was able to verify that McGeehee merely expressed astonishment at the author’s claim to have been the woman he saw in the old car (“Well, I’ll be damned!”) and that the author’s comportment was normal; the majority of the tape recording was transcribed by Martin Shackelford and Dr. Howard Platzman and was made available to newsgroups.  The value of the recording lies in McGeehee’s picking out, from a set of photos, the hairstyle most resembling that of the woman whose face he could not see.  McGeehee picked out a photo of the author made in July, 1963, a mere month before the Jackson sighting of the woman in the old car. 

McGeehee then asked a question of his own:



(McGeehee) “Let me ask you this.  When Oswald got back in the car, what did you think of his haircut?”
(Baker) “Frankly, I couldn’t tell that he had got a haircut at all.”
(McGeehee) “Why, that’s right.  He already had a good haircut and there wasn’t much I could do with him.”


[6] James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, editors: The Assassinations; probe Magazine on JFK,MLK, RFK and Malcom X.  FeralHouse,  2002, p. 212.


[7] http://www.legis.state.la.us/members/h1812-2012.pdf
[8] http://ajweberman.com/noduleX30-THE%20WARREN%20COMMISSION,%20GARRISON%20INVESTIGATION%20AND%20ROCKEFELLER%20COMMISSION.htm