Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Notes, Footnotes and Links to Valkyrie and Pathfinder at DP - garrison

NOTES, FOOTNOTES AND LINKS TO VALKYRIE AND PATHFINDER AT DP

As Published in garrison (Vol. 3, Nov. 2019) 

1)      Former FBI Agent Bill Turner at COPA Conference in Dallas. Nov. 2003
3)      1975 NPIC Report on Pathfinder found in Security File On Frank Sturgis -https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=104139 - relPageId=13&tab=page
5)      AOTUS recommendations to POTUS
9)      PDS “Negative Template” and Missing JFK Records JFKcountercoup: Missing JFK Assassination Records - Revised and Updated
12)  BK – The Part of the Plot that Failed
13)  MO – Modus Operandi – JFKcountercoup: Maj. Gen. Llewellyn W. Atcheriey & the MO System JFKcountercoup: The MO - How JFK Was Killed
14)  THREE TIME HITS 3X HITS –
15)  SS Ex Case Study Project https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/179981.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/1998/08\    
PART ONE - CIA/MAFIA PLOTS TO KILL CASTRO
16)  Sam Stern HSCA Interviwew
22)  Paul Linebarger – Joseph Smith “Portrait of a Cold Warrior” –http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2017/07/joe-smith-on-paul-linebarger-and-david.html
25)  William Harvey and Desmond FitzGerald at Task Force W. -http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2017/04/william-k-harvey-at-task-force-w-and.html
28)  Charles Ford and J. Walton Moore  Moore, J. Walton and Charles Ford Ford report Sept. 28, 1962 [http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=55224&relPageId=43]
34)  AARC v. CIA for “Detailed Study” of Valkyrie Plot http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2018/07/cia-loses-detailed-study-of-hitler-plot.html
35)  Oral Arguments – Dan Alcorn – Thusday Sept. 12.
37)  Valkyrie 1 – Five Aspects used at DP – Operational  http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/09/valkyrie-at-dealey-plaza-updated.html
38)  Valkyrie 2 – Disgrunted Military Officers
39)  Valkyrie 3 – Victim Approval
40)  Valkyrie 4 – Home Guard – National Guard carry out the operation
41)  Valkyrie 5 – Blame Communits – Castro Cuban Commies
43)  PATHFINDER – Malcolm Blunt gave me the Pathfinder documents.
44)  CIA’s Pathfinder records missing 1975 NPIC Memo - Misfiled in Frank Sturgis’ CIA Security File In this MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD, dated 21 March 1975  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=104139&relPageId=14 ]
45)  List of NPIC Employees and Edward S. Cates CIEG NPIC
46)  Raoul Castro and Rip Robertson -https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKrobertsonW.htm
47)  Pathfinder Folder kept in NPIC Secton of Staton
48)  Carl Jenkins and Veradero the area where attack was to take place
49)  Joseph Seltzer’s CIA response  [  1993.08.05.14:4212;750028 - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=104139 - relPageId=13&tab=page  ]     
50)  Jenkins records not subject to JFK Act
51)  Blakey HSCA letter request
52)  Marvin Smith Operations Group Response [ 104-10059-10397 CIA https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39464 - relPageId=1&tab=page ]
53)  Robertson and Raoul Shooting
54)  Pathfinder “Disaproved by higher authority”
55)  Felix Rodriguez – “The Shadow Warrior” 
56)  Wheaton ARRB and documents
57)  Gene Wheaton Video #1 With Minnesotta film maker. Transcribed excerpt:
58)  Wheaton Video #2  [Wheaton Interview with WML:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DPT9Oc0lsU ]
59)  Wheaton documents provided to Minnesotta film maker
60)  Soldier of Fortune article on CIA Contra Trainers including John I.F. Harper.
61)  NPIC Files on assassination sent to Smithsonian.
62)  Sparticus Encyclopedia – John Simpkins.
63)  Harper email to Stu Wexler.

64)  For more on this see Bill Kelly’s blog Http://JFKCountercoup.blogspot.com

Wednesday, November 6, 2019

The Note

     Note allegedly left by Oswald was hand written in Russian and found ---On December 2, 1963, Mrs. Ruth Paine turned over to the police some of the Oswalds' belongings, including a Russian volume entitled "Book of Useful Advice," that she wanted passed on to Marina. In this book was an undated note written in Russian. In translation, the note read as follows:

1.  This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main post office in the city on Ervay Street.  This is the same street where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located.  You will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4 blocks from the drugstore on that street.  I paid for the box last month so don't worry about it.

2.  Send the information as to what has happened to me to the Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything about me in the newspapers).  I believe that the Embassy will come quickly to your assistance on learning everything. 

3.  I paid the house rent on the 2d so don't worry about it. 

4.  Recently I also paid for water and gas. 

5.  The money from work will possibly be coming.  The money will be sent to our post office box.  Go to the bank and cash the check. 

6.  You can either throw out or give my clothing, etc. away.  Do not keep these.  However, I prefer that you hold on to my personal papers (military, civil, etc.).

7.  Certain of my documents are in the small blue valise. 
8.  The address book can be found on my table in the study should need same. 

9.  We have friends here.  The Red Cross also will help you [Red Cross in English].

10.  I left you as much money as I could, $60 on the second of the month.  You and the baby [apparently] can live for another 2 months using $10 per week. 

11.  If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing the bridge).

     James C. Cadigan, FBI handwriting expert, testified that this note was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Oswald and Walker

Oswald and General Walker

Eight days after the assassination of President Kennedy, on November 30, 1963, Ruth Paine inadvertently discovered evidence that Lee Oswald had attempted to assassinate General Edwin Walker. Among the letters that Ruth Paine repeatedly sent to Marina was a thick book of household advice in Russian. The book contained an undated note left by Lee for Marina on April 10, 1963 (the day of the Walker assassination attempt) which Marina would later testify she had concealed. Before the Kennedy assassination, Dallas police had no suspects in the Walker shooting.

As various sources have reported, Mrs. Ruth H. Paine has been open to talking about the assination and has appeared in Dallas for the premier of a new film “Truth is Our Only Client,” that includes her, and a visit to her former Irving, Texas home that is now a public museum. She will return to Dallas for an appearance at the Sixth Floor Museum at the former Texas School Book Depository and possibly tape a n Oral History for posterity.

When she meets a new inquisitor for the first time, Mrs. Paine has been known to ask the interviewers opinion of the Walker shooting, and has a translated copy of a letter Oswald ostensibly left behind for Marina on what to do in case he was arrested or killed in the course of the Walker Shooting.
She told one visitor that “she will only talk seriously with those who accept that Lee tried to kill General Walker.”

The Walker Assassination Attempt

David Belin called the Tippit killing the "Rosetta Stone" of the Kennedy assassination.  More likely, Oswald's attempt on the life of General Edwin A. Walker actually serves that function.  If  Oswald shot at Walker, it becomes very easy to believe he shot at John Kennedy seven months later.

The Warren Commission account of the evidence follows.  Not a great deal has been added to the evidence since then, but two things can be pointed out:

1.)  Marina Oswald has remained utterly consistent as regards the main points of her testimony.  She repeated them to the House Select Committee in the late 70s, to author Gerald Posner, and even the NBC TV account of her experiences broadcast in November 1993 (which had a strong conspiratorialist bias) repeated her account of Lee coming home late at night and telling Marina he had shot a Walker.

2.)  The House Select Committee analyzed the bullet recovered from Walker's house using Neutron Activitation Analysis, and concluded that the bullet was "probably a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet" (Report, p. 60).

The following is taken from the Warren Commission Report, pp. 183-187.
The Attempt on the Life of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker

     At approximately 9 p.m., on April 10, 1963, in Dallas, Tex., Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, an active and controversial figure on the American political scene since his resignation from the U.S. Army in 1961, narrowly escaped death when a rifle bullet fired from outside his home passed near his head as he was seated at his desk.  

There were no eyewitnesses, although a 14-year-old boy in a neighboring house claimed that immediately after the shooting he saw two men, in separate cars, drive out of a church parking lot adjacent to Walker's home.  A friend of Walker's testified that two nights before the shooting he saw "two men around the house peeking in windows."  General Walker gave this information to the police before the shooting, but it did not help solve the crime.  Although the bullet was recovered from Walker's house (see app. X, p. 562), in the absence of a weapon it was of little investigatory value.  General Walker hired two investigators to determine whether a former employee might have been involved in the shooting.  Their results were negative.  Until December 3, 1963, the Walker shooting remained unsolved. 

     The Commission evaluated the following evidence in considering whether Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot which almost killed General Walker: (1)  A note which Oswald left for his wife on the evening of the shooting, photographs found among Oswald's possessions after the assassination of President Kennedy, (3)  firearm identification of the bullet found in Walker's home, and (4)  admissions and other statements made to Marina Oswald by Oswald concerning the shooting. 

     Note left by Oswald.---On December 2, 1963, Mrs. Ruth Paine turned over to the police some of the Oswalds' belongings, including a Russian volume entitled "Book of Useful Advice."  In this book was an undated note written in Russian. In translation, the note read as follows:

1.  This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main post office in the city on Ervay Street.  This is the same street where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located.  You will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4 blocks from the drugstore on that street.  I paid for the box last month so don't worry about it.
2.  Send the information as to what has happened to me to the Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything about me in the newspapers).  I believe that the Embassy will come quickly to your assistance on learning everything. 
3.  I paid the house rent on the 2d so don't worry about it. 
4.  Recently I also paid for water and gas. 
5.  The money from work will possibly be coming.  The money will be sent to our post office box.  Go to the bank and cash the check. 
6.  You can either throw out or give my clothing, etc. away.  Do not keep these.  However, I prefer that you hold on to my personal papers (military, civil, etc.).
7.  Certain of my documents are in the small blue valise. 
8.  The address book can be found on my table in the study should need same. 
9.  We have friends here.  The Red Cross also will help you [Red Cross in English].
10.  I left you as much money as I could, $60 on the second of the month.  You and the baby [apparently] can live for another 2 months using $10 per week. 
11.  If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing the bridge).

     James C. Cadigan, FBI handwriting expert, testified that this note was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.

     Prior to the Walker shooting on April 10, Oswald had been attending typing classes on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday evenings.  He had quit these classes at least a week before the shooting, which occurred on a Wednesday night.  According to Marina Oswald's testimony, on the night of the Walker shooting, her husband left their apartment on Neely Street shortly after dinner.  She thought he was attending a class or was on his own business."  When he failed to return by 10 or 10:30 p.m., Marina
Oswald went to his room and discovered the note.  She testified: "When he came back I asked him what had happened.  He was very pale.  I don't remember the exact time, but it was very late.

And he told me not to ask him any questions.  He only told me he had shot at General Walker."  Oswald told his wife that he did not know whether he had hit Walker; according to Marina Oswald when he learned on the radio and in the newspapers the next day that he had missed, he said that he "was very sorry that he had not hit him."  Marina Oswald's testimony was fully supported by the note itself which appeared to be the work of a man expecting to be killed, or imprisoned, or to disappear.  The last paragraph directed her to the jail and the other paragraphs instructed her on the disposal of Oswald's personal effects and the management of her affairs if he should not return. 

     It is clear that the note was written while the Oswalds were living in Dallas before they moved to New Orleans in the spring of 1963.  The references to house rent and payments for water and gas indicated that the note was written when they were living in a rented apartment; therefore it could not have been written while Marina Oswald was living with the Paines.  Moreover, the reference in paragraph 3 to paying "the house rent on the 2d" would be consistent with the period when the Oswalds were living on Neely Street since the apartment was rented on March 3, 1963.

Oswald had paid the first month's rent in advance on March 2, 1963, and the second month's rent was paid on either April 2 or April 3.  The main post office "on Ervay Street" refers to the post office where Oswald rented box 2915 from October 9, 1962, to May 14, 1963.  Another statement which limits the time when it could have been written is the reference "you and the baby," which would indicate that it was probably written before the birth of Oswald's second child on October 20, 1963.

     Oswald had apparently mistaken the county jail for the city jail.  From Neely Street the Oswalds would have traveled downtown on the Beckley bus, across the Commerce Street viaduct and into downtown Dallas through the Triple Underpass. Either the viaduct or the underpass might have been the "bridge" mentioned in the last paragraph of the note.  The county jail is at the corner of Houston and Main Streets "right in the beginning of the city" after one travels through the underpass.

     Photographs.---In her testimony before the Commission in February 1964, Marina Oswald stated that when Oswald returned home on the night of the Walker shooting, he told her that he had been planning the attempt for 2 months.  He showed her a notebook 3 days later containing photographs of General Walker's home and a map of the area where the house was located.  Although Oswald destroyed the notebook, three photographs found among Oswald's possessions after the assassination were identified by Marina Oswald as photographs of General Walker's house.  Two of these photographs were taken from the rear of Walker's house.  The Commission confirmed, by comparison with other photographs, that these were, indeed, photographs of the rear of Walker's house.

An examination of the window at the rear of the house, the wall through which the bullet passed, and the fence behind the house indicated that the bullet was fired from a position near the point where one of the photographs was taken.

     The third photograph identified by Marina Oswald depicts the entrance to General Walker's driveway from a back alley.  Also seen in the picture is the fence on which Walker's assailant apparently rested the rifle.  An examination of certain construction work appearing in the background of this photograph revealed that the picture was taken between March 8 and 12, 1963, and most probably on either March 9 or March 10.  Oswald purchased the money order for the rifle on March 12, the rifle was shipped on March 20, and the shooting occurred on April 10.

A photography expert with the FBI was able to determine that this picture was taken with the Imperial Reflex camera owned by Lee Harvey Oswald.  (See app. X, p. 596.) 

    A fourth photograph, showing a stretch of railroad tracks, was also identified by Marina Oswald as having been taken by her husband, presumably in connection with the Walker shooting.

Investigation determined that this photograph was taken approximately seven-tenths of a mile from Walker's house.

Another photograph of railroad tracks found among Oswald's possessions was not identified by his wife, but investigation revealed that it was taken from a point slightly less than half a mile from General Walker's house. Marina Oswald stated that when she asked her husband what be had done with the rifle, he replied that he had buried it in the ground or hidden it in some bushes and that he also mentioned a railroad track in this connection.

She testified that several days later Oswald recovered his rifle and brought it back to their apartment.
Firearms identification.---In the room beyond the one in which General Walker was sitting on the night of the shooting the Dallas police recovered a badly mutilated bullet which had come to rest on a stack of paper.  The Dallas City County Investigation Laboratory tried to determine the type of weaponwhich fired the bullet.  The oral report was negative because of the battered condition of the bullet.  On November 30, 1963, the FBI requested the bullet for ballistics examination; the Dallas Police Department forwarded it on December 2, 1963.

     Robert A. Frazier, an FBI ballistics identification expert, testified that he was "unable to reach a conclusion" as to whether or not the bullet recovered from Walker's house had been fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building.  He concluded that "the general rifling characteristics of the rifle * * * are of the same type as those found on the bullet * * * and, further, on this basis * * * the bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove impressions."  

Frazier testified further that the FBI 'avoids the category of "probable" identification.  Unless the missile or cartridge case can be identified as coming from a particular weapon to the exclusion of all others, the FBI refuses to draw any conclusion as to probability.  Frazier testified, however, that he found no microscopic characteristics or other evidence which would indicate that the bullet was not fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald.  It was a 6.5-millimeter bullet and, according to Frazier, "relatively few" types of rifles could produce the characteristics found on the bullet.

     Joseph D. Nicol, superintendent of the Illinois Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, conducted an independent examination of this bullet and concluded "that there is a fair probability" that the bullet was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy.  In explaining the difference between his policy and that of the FBI on the matter of probable identification, Nicol said:

     I am aware of their position.  This is not, I am sure, arrived at without careful consideration.  However, to say that because one does not find sufficient marks for identification that it is a negative, I think is going overboard in the other direction.  And for purposes of probative value, for whatever it might be worth, in the absence of very definite negative evidence, I think it is permissible to say that in an exhibit such as there is enough on it to say that it could have come, and even perhaps a little stronger, to say that it probably came from this, without going so far as to say to the exclusion of all other guns.  This I could not do.

     Although the Commission recognizes that neither expert was able to state that the bullet which missed General Walker was fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all others, this testimony was considered probative when combined with the other testimony linking Oswald to the shooting.

     Additional corroborative evidence.---The admissions made to Marina Oswald by her husband are an important element in the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot at General Walker.

As shown above, the note and the photographs of Walker's house and of the nearby railroad tracks provide important corroboration for her account of the incident. Other details described by Marina Oswald coincide with facts developed independently of her statements.  She testified that her husband had postponed his attempt to kill Walker until that Wednesday because he had heard that there was to be a gathering at the church next door to Walker's house on that evening.  He indicated that he wanted more people in the vicinity at the time of the attempt so that his arrival and departure would not attract great attention.  An official of this church told FBI agents that services are held every Wednesday at the church except during the month of August.

Marina Oswald also testified that her husband had used a bus to return home.  A study of the bus routes indicates that Oswald could have taken any one of several different buses to Walker's house or to a point near the railroad tracks where he may have concealed the rifle.  It would have been possible for him to take different routes in approaching and leaving the scene of the shooting. 

     Conclusion.---Based on (1)  the contents of the note which Oswald left for his wife on April 10, 1963, (2)  the photographs found among Oswald's possessions, (3)  the testimony of firearms identification experts, and (4)  the testimony of Marina Oswald, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to take the life of General Walker on April 10, 1963.  The finding that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to murder a public figure in April 1963 was considered of probative value in this investigation, although the Commission's conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin was based on evidence independent of the finding that Oswald attempted to kill General Walker.


Ruth Forbes Paine Young - Obit

Ruth F. Young, 94, Founded An Academy to Promote Peace

By Enid Nemy
March 15, 1998

Ruth Forbes Young, who founded the International Peace Academy, an organization that trains negotiators, diplomats and military personnel in peacekeeping and provides meeting grounds for diplomats involved in efforts to prevent hostilities, died on March 5 at her home in Berkeley, Calif. She was 94.

Mrs. Young's interest in peace started with the dropping of the atomic bomb in 1945. She first joined the World Federalists, a group that worked to influence governments toward peace, but came to believe that an organization that directly involved private citizens would be more effective.

''When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, I realized that something enormous had happened, something that had never happened before and that people should take responsibility about what to do about it, for the world would be a really different place from now on,'' she said in a videotaped history of the academy, which is based in Manhattan. ''U Thant was Secretary General of the United Nations at the time. So I asked for a meeting with him. He responded and met me and sat on a bench with me outside. I told him my ideas that an international peace academy could be really useful, but I did not know the right people to start such a thing and how would you suggest I go about it.''

U Thant recommended that she enlist the aid of Maj. Gen. Indar Jit Rikhye, who had been military adviser to U Thant and Dag Hammarskjold. After helping establish the academy in 1970, General Rikhye became its first president, holding that position for 20 years. Mrs. Young provided the start-up money for the organization and, together with several foundations, continued to contribute to its financing.

The academy consists of a few specialists who prepare training models in conflict avoidance, mediation, negotiation, maintaining cease-fires and armistice agreements, negotiation and peacekeeping. There were also off-the-record meetings that brought together United Nations representatives, government officials and an assortment of specialists.

More recently, the group sponsored informal monthly breakfast meetings, also off the record, for such participants and led by Olara Otunnu, the current president, and Rita Hauser, chairwoman of the board.
Unlock more free articles.

''The academy has helped in the career development of hundreds of diplomats and military commanders,'' General Rikhye said from his home in Charlottesville, Va. ''Its pioneering efforts in training future peacekeepers and trainers have had a global impact.''

Mrs. Young was born into a family of diplomats in Milton, Mass., the daughter of Ralph Emerson Forbes and Elise Cabot and a great-granddaughter of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Her uncle Cameron Forbes was the first Governor-General of the Philippines and often entertained government and military officials, including President William Howard Taft and Gen. John J. Pershing.

In the mid-1920's, she married George Lyman Paine Jr., an architect in New York City. They divorced in the 1930's. Two sons, Michael Paine of Harvard, Mass., and Cameron Paine of Tylersport, Pa., and two grandchildren survive.

In the early 40's she married Dr. Giles Thomas, a psychologist in Manhattan, who died several years later. Her third marriage, to Arthur M. Young, who built the first helicopter to be certified for commercial use, was in 1948.

The couple set up the Institute for the Study of Consciousness in Berkeley in 1972, believing that the world had become too focused on material objects and needed a new spiritual and moral order. Mr. Young died in 1995.

Sunday, November 3, 2019

What is a Texas Court of Inquiry?

TEXPLAINER

Texplainer: What is a Court of Inquiry?


Hey, Texplainer: Courts of inquiry have been used to exonerate wrongfully convicted Texans and to look at earlier cases. When does a judge call for a court of inquiry, and what else can judges review in these proceedings?

BY HOLLY HEINRICH JAN. 30, 2012

Send us your questions about Texas politics and policy by emailing texplainer@texastribune.org or visiting texastribune.org/texplainer.

 MORE IN THIS SERIES 

Hey, Texplainer: What is a court of inquiry and when is it used? 

When Texas district judges have probable cause to believe state laws have been broken, they may ask the district’s presiding administrative judge to appoint another district judge to commence a court of inquiry, which reviews the evidence and could issue an opinion reaffirming or disapproving an earlier opinion. The court of inquiry, which was established in 1876, can be called to review a past case or any other criminal matter brought to the district judge. 

Courts of inquiry are unique to Texas, although the U.S. military uses a legal proceeding by the same name to investigate its internal affairs. 

Although the law would allow a district judge to request an inquiry in any instance where state laws may have been broken, Texas judges have in recent years used this obscure and once seldom-used provision to investigate possible wrongful convictions. Courts of inquiry have also been used to investigate a prostitution ring and reports of bribery in a county probate court. 

So why request a court of inquiry instead of going to the police or taking a more typical route through the legal system? The reasons vary from case to case, but individuals could seek courts of inquiry because they believe there is corruption or potential conflicts of interest in the legal or law enforcement institutions they would otherwise turn to. Courts of inquiry can also review evidence that would not be admitted to other courts, such as hearsay. 

Courts of inquiry have a controversial history in Texas. In a 1962 court of inquiry, the individuals who initially brought the case were not allowed to consult with their lawyers during proceedings, defend themselves, cross-examine or confront witnesses that accused them, call witnesses on their behalf or rebut the prosecution’s evidence. As a result, the Texas Legislature amended the law in 1965 to ensure that all witnesses are entitled to the same protections as those in felony prosecutions, and to allow only district judges to request courts of inquiry. Critics argue that courts of inquiry violate the Fifth Amendment right to trial by jury, but based on the Supreme Court decision in Hurtado v. California, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that courts of inquiry are not unconstitutional because under the 14th Amendment, state courts are not required to initiate criminal prosecutions by grand jury indictment. 

Importantly, courts of inquiry do not have the power to sentence those whom they investigate. If the judge in a court of inquiry finds there is reason to believe a crime was committed, the case is referred to a higher court for prosecution. 

After DNA testing led to the 2011 exoneration of Michael Morton, an Austin man who was wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife in 1987, Morton’s lawyers requested a court of inquiry to determine whether his former prosecutor, Williamson County Judge Ken Anderson, deliberately withheld evidence that could have acquitted Morton 25 years earlier. During Morton’s trial, Judge William S. Lott ordered Anderson to provide the court with police reports he had gathered on the case. When Morton’s case file was unsealed in August 2011, his lawyers discovered that key documents were missing from the record, which they believe should have been turned over and could have altered the verdict. 

If the court of inquiry finds probable cause to believe that Anderson committed criminal misconduct, the case would probably be referred to a prosecutor’s office and heard by a grand jury in district court, said former Travis County District Judge Charlie Baird, who has presided over courts of inquiry. But it’s not clear what the outcome would be if Anderson were found guilty of withholding evidence. 

Baird, who is also currently a Democratic candidate for Travis County district attorney, said the result could hinge on how the statute of limitations is defined. Anderson’s lawyers have argued that even if a violation were committed, the statute of limitations on the alleged crime expired years ago, three years after Morton’s trial. But if Morton’s 25 years of wrongful imprisonment are considered an ongoing crime for which Anderson is responsible, then it’s possible he could be charged with a third-degree felony and receive up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. If Anderson is found guilty but it is determined that the statute of limitations has expired, he could still be disbarred as a lawyer, Baird said.

In 2009, a court of inquiry posthumously exonerated Timothy Cole, a man who died in prison a decade earlier while serving a rape sentence. DNA tests revealed that another man, Jerry Johnson, who is in prison, committed the rape in 1985. 

A court of inquiry was requested in 2010 to examine whether Cameron Todd Willingham was wrongly convicted and executed for setting a 1991 fire in Corsicana that killed his three daughters. The inquiry was discontinued after an Austin appellate court ruled that the former Judge Baird, who presided over the inquiry, abused his discretion when he did not recuse himself from considering a motion that challenged his authority to conduct the inquiry. The motion was brought by Navarro County prosecutor R. Lowell Thompson, who asked Baird to recuse himself from the case based on his prior history as a judge. Baird voted to reaffirm Willingham’s death sentence when he served on the Court of Criminal Appeals in 1995, and presided over the court of inquiry that found Timothy Cole not guilty. The Willingham case is currently pending in the 299th District Court. It has yet to be reset on the docket. 


Bottom Line: Courts of inquiry are unique to Texas, and in recent years, they’ve primarily been used in attempts to resolve issues related to wrongful convictions. 

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Feds Investigate Campisi's - for gambling

Feds Investigate Owner of Campisi’s as ‘Large Bookmaker’


By Scott Gordon
Published Nov 1, 2019 at 7:25 PM | Updated at 10:59 PM CDT on Nov 1, 2019

Federal agents say the owner of Dallas' iconic Italian restaurant Campisi's is a large illegal sports bookie with ties to internet bookmaking websites in Costa Rica, according to a search warrant mistakenly unsealed by prosecutors and obtained by NBC 5.

According to the document, in February agents for Homeland Security Investigations and the criminal division of the IRS searched safety deposit boxes belonging to David Campisi, the restaurant owner and great-grandson of its founder.

They also searched the home of an alleged Campisi associate, Christopher "Gus" Schraeder, who has since pleaded guilty to a single illegal gambling charge.

Schraeder, who lives in Fort Worth, admitted he operated as a bookie with at least five other people in an operation that brought in at least $2,000 per day. He faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. A sentencing date has not been set. His plea agreement with prosecutors remains sealed.

Campisi has not been charged or arrested. His attorney, Michael Uhl, said he had no comment.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Dallas declined to talk about the status of the investigation.
A call to a number identified in the search warrant as Schraeder's cellular phone was answered by a message saying his voice mail was not set up. He did not respond to a text message. His attorney, federal public defender Frank Henderson, did not return a phone call.

'Large Bookmakers'

The search warrant, signed by an HSI agent, describes Campisi and Schraeder as "large bookmakers operating in the Dallas and North Texas area" since at least 2005.

Cellphone records cited by law enforcement show the two had numerous contacts with Costa Rican telephone numbers linked to offshore internet-based sports websites.

From November 2015 until September 2018, Campisi called or texted the Costa Rican numbers 190 times and Schrader more than 300 times, the warrant said.

The investigation started after a separate 2012 probe which targeted 20 bookies linked to an illegal gambling operation that took in more than $5.4 billion from 2007 to 2011, according to the warrant. All 20 suspects in that case pleaded guilty to crimes ranging from money laundering to tax violations, according to court records.

During the course of the 2012 investigation, Campisi and Schraeder were identified as "large bookmakers operating in the Dallas and North Texas area," the agent wrote, adding that records seized at one of the suspect's homes "reflected that Campisi and Schraeder were partners in the conduct of their illegal gambling enterprise."

Past 'Mafia Mystique' and Ties to Jack Ruby

Campisi's was opened in 1946 by David Campisi's great-grandfather who had imigrated from Sicily, according to the restaurant's website. The family opened its location on Mockingbird Lane in 1950 and later expanded. Campisi's now operates seven restaurants in Dallas, Fort Worth, Plano, Frisco and Rockwall.

According to a 1999 story by The Associated Press, gangsters used to hang out at the restaurant and the family acknowledged that Joe Campisi was a "golfing and racetrack buddy" of New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello.

"They were friends. He just knew everybody," David Campisi was quoted as saying about his grandfather.

The younger Campisi said he regretted not capitalizing more on the restaurant's "mafia mystique."

"Today bad publicity is just as good," David Campisi told the AP. "I think to us it's more comical than anything, but the public always ate it up. We've never played off it like we should."

Campisi's own website accurately notes that Jack Ruby ate dinner at the restaurant the night before President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in November 1963 and that Joe Campisi visited Ruby in jail after Ruby shot and killed assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.

The meetings became fodder for unconfirmed conspiracy theories about mob involvement in the Kennedy assassination.

Nothing suggests David Campisi or anyone else currently associated with the restaurant has mafia ties.
Search Warrant Mistakenly Released

The February search warrant naming Campisi and Schraeder was obtained by NBC 5 from the federal court website known as Pacer after it was made public by mistake in early October, apparently by a prosecutor who intended to unseal an unrelated search warrant and transposed the case number.
"The document in question was unsealed inadvertently by the Northern District of Texas," said Erin Dooley, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney in Dallas. She declined further comment.

Federal prosecutors re-sealed the search warrant after NBC 5 asked about it.

Thursday, October 31, 2019

The Man Nobody Bothered to Call - David A. Phillips

The Man Nobody Bothered to Call
http://www.jfk-online.com/dapcolumbia.html




An ex-CIA agent -- repeatedly accused in print of being implicated in the assassination of JFK -- raises the issue of journalistic due process.

by David Atlee Phillips
Reproduced from the Columbia Journalism Review
January-February 1987

Two clarifications, up front. First, I asked for it. In 1975 I retired early from the CIA to found the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), a group of men and women from the various intelligence agencies. As a result of the lecturing and writing that I did at this time, and of a number of appearances on television, I became a public figure. An advocate of a strong intelligence capability during a time of emotional debate on the subject, I thrust myself, in the words of Justice Powell in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., into the forefront of a public controversy.

Next, these activities were frequent and highly visible. They included appearances on all major U.S. television networks, on 60 Minutes, on British and French television; lecturing across the country; and writing a book on my CIA experiences. The point here is to indicate that as a public spokesman in the intelligence arena I have been easy to locate. My home and office telephone numbers have been listed in the phone book. In short, I have not been hiding out.

Those points made, I submit a sequence of events that should make some members of the Fourth Estate reexamine their concept of professional ethics.

In May of 1980 a book titled Conspiracy, by Anthony Summers, was published by Gollancz in London. The book invited, indeed pressed, the reader to believe that during my CIA service I used the pseudonym "Maurice Bishop" (which I did not) and that I met Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas shortly before the assassination of John F. Kennedy (which I did not). The Summers conspiracy theory was fleshed out on bones of speculation provided to the British writer by Gaeton Fonzi, an investigative journalist turned government investigator for the Senate probe into the Kennedy assassination in 1975-76; he was again an investigator in 1978-79 with the House Select Committee on Assassinations. When Conspiracy was published in England a page of excerpts dedicated to the proposition that I was Maurice Bishop was published by the London Observer.

In the acknowledgements of his book, Summers thanked half a dozen people he interviewed during research in the Washington, D.C., area, where I live. Although any of those he interviewed could have provided my address and telephone number to Summers, he didn't contact me. Nor did the editors of his book when it was published in England. I heard nothing from The Observer, which maintains a bureau in Washington, D.C., before that newspaper repeated the libel.

If some in the British press were guilty of questionable journalism by not offering me a chance to comment, their transgressions were mild when compared with the irresponsibility of a larger number of U.S. media who picked up the story and embellished it in subsequent years.

McGraw-Hill published the American edition of Conspiracy in early June of 1980. No one at that respected house offered me the chance to comment on the charges. Nor did Summers, despite my public challenge to him before the publication of the American edition.

In mid-1980 I was accused of involvement in another political assassination.

On June 25, 1980, a press conference was held in Washington, D.C. It had been convened by one Dr. William F. Pepper, introduced as a distinguished lawyer, psychologist, and educator. The purpose of the conference was to announce that I and other individuals had manipulated several groups, particularly the AFIO, in a cover-up after the murder of former Chilean foreign minister Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington in 1976. One specific charge was that I had purloined documents from Letelier's briefcase and, after rewriting them for disinformation purposes, distributed them to the world press. That allegation had first been made by Saul Landau, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Now the allegation became a detailed denunciation of me, and a demand that I be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Two freelance journalists, Donald Freed and Fred Landis, spoke at the press conference. Lawrence Hill, a book publisher, attended but did not speak.

I did not attend the press conference, being unaware that I was going to be the subject of it. I certainly did not suspect that the charges would form the basis of a book.

After retiring from the CIA, I had begun to write for a number of periodicals. One was Washingtonian magazine. Usually I worked directly with editor John A. Limpert; this relationship became personal when Limpert invited me and my wife to his home. In 1979 Limpert commissioned me to write an article on intelligence nonfiction literature and, in early 1980, another on hostage situations. Later that year Limpert asked me to submit an essay on espionage fiction.

Shortly after Conspiracy appeared in the U.S., I wrote to Limpert, telling him that I was going to miss my deadline for the espionage fiction piece. The reason was that I was so agitated about Summers's allegations in Conspiracy that I was "Maurice Bishop" and, using that pseudonym, had been somehow involved in Kennedy's death, that I found it difficult to concentrate on my writing.

No problem, Limpert responded in a letter a few days later. "I can understand that deadline problem," he wrote. "Hope things clear up for you." The letter also stated that the espionage fiction project was not being assigned to another writer.

On October 15, I wrote to advise Limpert that I was ready to write again, should he still be interested in the essay. While I waited for his response, the November issue of Washingtonian came off the press and advance copies were distributed to the media on October 24. The cover story in that issue bore the title "Who Killed JFK?" The magazine article, repeat magazine article, ran to more than 80,000 words. In pursuing the question of who assassinated John F. Kennedy, the article invoked the name of Lee Harvey Oswald about 100 times. It mentioned my name more than 300 times. There was one photograph of Oswald. There were four different photographs of me and two reproductions of a composite sketch of "Maurice Bishop." The reader was invited to compare the drawings with photographs of me.

Jack Limpert did ask for my comments -- after the story was published and on the wires of UPI and the AP. The 80,000 words had been written by Gaeton Fonzi, once again a journalist. He had not sought my reaction. Later, Limpert responded to a query about why I was not allowed to comment by saying that Fonzi had in the past "talked with Mr. Phillips." That was true, as far as it went. But Fonzi had not spoken to me in his capacity as a journalist. He had interrogated me for several hours as a government investigator on two occasions -- in 1976 and 1979; in both instances I volunteered to answer his questions.

I declined Limpert's invitation to comment in the next month's issue of Washingtonian on the advice of counsel. I had decided to sue for libel. The case was dismissed by three lower courts and the Maryland Court of Appeals. I was clearly a public figure and would be unlikely to be able to prove malice.

The ink was hardly dry on the ream of accusations in Washingtonian when Lawrence Hill & Company of Westport, Connecticut, published a book called Death in Washington, written by Donald Freed and Fred Landis. In addition to the charges that I was an accessory before and after the fact in the Letelier assassination, the book repeated the "Maurice Bishop" fantasy. A photograph of me was captioned "The Other Lee Harvey Oswald." Neither of the co-authors had queried me, nor had Dr. William F. Pepper, who wrote the preface. Publisher Hill had not asked for my comments, nor had his editor.

This time, however, a legal effort prevailed. On February 14, 1986, after almost five years of litigation, my libel suit was settled when co-authors Freed and Landis submitted a statement of retraction to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Publisher Hill also signed the statement. Dr. William F. Pepper did not -- that worthy had slipped out of sight, having eluded for four years all efforts by private investigators to locate him. (The 1980 press conference demand for a Justice Department investigation was on Dr. Pepper's stationery, with letterhead addresses and telephone numbers in New York and Rhode Island. By the time I began calling, the telephones had been disconnected. I still don't know where the elusive Dr. Pepper is.)

The settlement involved a financial payment to me and, with the agreement of the defendants, a full-page publication of the statement of retraction in Publishers Weekly.

It was a satisfying development, but there was more to come.

In November 1985, I saw the uncorrected galleys of a new book about the Kennedy assassination. Reasonable Doubt, by Henry Hurt, had initially been a Reader's Digest project; when the Digest abandoned the book, it was purchased by Holt, Rinehart, and Winston (now Henry Holt and Company).

I flipped through the galleys. There it was: the "Maurice Bishop" yarn had been resurrected.

On November 27, 1985, I wrote the author and, at Henry Holt, the president and the editors involved. Could I have 2,000 words somewhere in the book to refute the allegations? On January 8, 1986, I heard from W. Mallory Rintoul, Esquire, general counsel for Henry Holt. Sorry, the book had gone to press.

In February I wrote to the lawyer. If the book has gone to press, might I have the opportunity to provide 2,000 words of refutation in any future edition?

In March, Henry Holt's lawyer responded: No. And Mr. Rintoul continued his letter with a legal lecture in which he admonished me that "you are subject to the public official/public figure doctrine established under the New York Times case and its progeny."

In my reply to that stern reminder I conceded that I was a public official. I offered to sign a legal document prepared by Mr. Rintoul promising that I would never sue anyone connected with Reasonable Doubt. Having signed such a pledge, could I then have my 2,000 words in any subsequent printing?

That letter, according to the Post Office, was received in New York on March 21, 1986. There has been no reply as I write this, more than six months later. On the other hand, there was some good news from abroad. On October 7, 1986, the High Court in London announced the resolution of my libel suit against The Observer: the weekly agreed to retract Anthony Summers's allegations that I had been Lee Harvey Oswald's CIA contact and to pay me a substantial sum in damages.

Although such long-fought-for victories are cheering indeed, the overall pattern of journalistic behavior is depressing. It certainly depresses me. And I suspect it will not induce a state of euphoria in the vast majority of journalists who do give people they write about a fair shake. Then why this jeremiad? I suppose it is because I feel the need to express some righteous indignation to an audience of professionals.

I certainly don't suggest any legislative action that would inhibit the free and robust discussion of public issues and public officials. But I do believe it is inexcusable that a few journalists and authors should conclude that they can libel -- and, later, on talk shows defame -- victims of their allegations without being called to account. Whatever happened to the Sigma Delta Chi Code of Ethics and its "The news media should not communicate unofficial charges affecting reputation or moral character without giving the accused a chance to reply"? How can there be robust discussion unless there is more than one party to the discussion? What excuse can there be for journalism that hangs a man without allowing him to speak in his own defense?