Dead Wrong: Straight Facts on the Country's Most Controversial Cover-Ups
Page 1
Dead Wrong
Straight Facts on the Country’s Most
Controversial Cover-Ups
Richard Belzer and
David Wayne
Afterword by Jesse Ventura
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Belzer and David Wayne
Afterword copyright © 2012 by Jesse Ventura
All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without the express written consent of the publisher, except in the case of brief excerpts in critical reviews or articles. All inquiries should be addressed to Skyhorse Publishing, 307 West 36th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018.
Skyhorse Publishing books may be purchased in bulk at special discounts for sales promotion, corporate gifts, fund-raising, or educational purposes. Special editions can also be created to specifications. For details, contact the Special Sales Department, Skyhorse Publishing, 307 West 36th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10018 or info@skyhorsepublishing.com.
Skyhorse® and Skyhorse Publishing® are registered trademarks of Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.®, a Delaware corporation.
Visit our website at www.skyhorsepublishing.com.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data [TK]
ISBN: 978-1-61608-673-2
eISBN: 978-1-62087-551-3
Printed in [TK]
This book is dedicated to all those who defend the increasingly rare proposition that this country belongs to The People (not corporations, military contractors or “the best politicians that money can buy”) and it’s still up to The People to determine how it should be governed.
“History is the version of past events
that people have decided to agree upon.”
—Napoleon Bonaparte
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Warning
Introduction By Richard Belzer
Introduction By David Wayne
Chapter 1: Frank Olson
Chapter 2: Henry Marshall
Chapter 3: George Krutilek
Chapter 4: Marilyn Monroe
Chapter 5: President John F. Kennedy
Chapter 6: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
Chapter 7: Senator Robert F. Kennedy
Chapter 8: Fred Hampton
Chapter 9: White House Counsel Vince Foster
Chapter 10: Dr. David C .Kelly
Afterword by Jesse Ventura
WARNING
There are those in positions of power who malign the pursuit of justice by intentionally associating the word “conspiracy” with the delirious hallucinations of unbalanced minds.
They’re wrong.
The real-world definition of conspiracy is simply; two or more persons agreeing to commit a crime. In short, they are everywhere, a constant component of daily events throughout our history, and are by no means the restless imaginings of an over-attentive audience.
Most Americans are completely unaware that a jury in Tennessee in 1999 reached the verdict that a conspiracy involving agencies of the U.S. government was responsible for the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. In some of the most important court testimony in American history (which was completely ignored by mainstream media), in one of the most important trials in American history—the extent of media manipulation in the United States was clearly delineated by William Schaap, an attorney and professor who has testified as an expert witness in the areas of intelligence and governmental use of media for disinformation and propaganda:
•The reason that there was no mainstream media coverage of the trial resulting in a conspiracy verdict in the King assassination in 1999 is directly linked to governmental control of the media in the United States.
•“Disinformation is not only getting certain things to appear in print, it’s also getting certain things not to appear in print. I mean, the first thing I would say as a way of explanation is, the incredibly powerful effect of disinformation over a long period of time that I mentioned before. For thirty years, the official line has been that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King and he did it all by himself. …And when that is imprinted in the minds of the general public for thirty years, if somebody stood up and confessed and said: I did it. Ray didn’t do it, I did it … it just wouldn’t click in their minds.”1
•About a third of the CIA’s budget is for its media operations, which includes domestic use of propaganda, such as solidifying and continuing the public perception that there were no conspiracies in the murders of President Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King. Their budget is secret (it’s kept “classified” because you don’t tell people that they are being intentionally misinformed); but at least a billion dollars per year goes to media propaganda operations, and much of it is in the United States.
•There is still an active focus on media propaganda in the U.S. by Intelligence agencies to discredit conspiracy theories and solidify the official version of historical events. Americans are particularly vulnerable to intentional misinformation as a result of the way that the notion of conspiracy has been so maligned by the press:
“I mean, after all, ‘conspiracy’ just means, you know, more than one person being involved in something. And if you stop and think about it, almost everything significant that happens anywhere involves more than one person. Yet here there is a - not a myth really, but there’s just an underlying assumption that most things are not conspiracies. And when you have that, it enables a government which has a propaganda program, has a disinformation program, to be relatively successful in—in having its disinformation accepted.”2
You are certainly correct in assuming that not each death of a celebrity or public official signifies a conspiracy. You are also correct in assuming that, in some cases, the death of a famous person was the result of a conspiracy.
A more simplistic argument that’s often heard, “Too many people would have known, someone would have talked,” simply doesn’t stand up to reason. To whom would they have talked?—try getting a story like that published in mainstream media. Why would they have talked?—wasn’t keeping them quiet the whole point? And, in point of fact, some actually have talked—for example, longtime undercover operative William Plumlee, whose official Affidavit on the JFK assassination appears in our chapter on that subject.
Another common misconception conveyed in the mainstream media is that in order for a government cover-up to occur, numerous members of various agencies necessarily must conspire to commit that act. Nothing could be further from the truth. All that’s necessary for a cover-up is a government deciding what’s in its own best interest and acting accordingly—utilizing whatever method (often deemed “national security interests”) that best achieves its predetermined destination.
Picture a high-level FBI executive “explaining” to an underling the need to follow the White House’s intervention in an investigation on the pretext of the highest levels of the nation’s security. An average agent in the field is just going to go along. It’s not a matter of conspiracy; it’s simply the realities of the situation. “Your country needs you” is a very strong argument and more than sufficient for most people. So, one is very inclined to just shut up and do one's job. Realistically, the President of the United States is your Commander-in-Chief. Most people in general, and most law enforcement officials in particular, would be happy, even honored, to participate in what they perceive as the official objectives and best interests of their nation.
Miguel Rodriguez was a heroic prosecutor who realized that Vince Foster’s civil rights had been violate
d by a cover-up of the true circumstances of his death and he attempted to prosecute those who obstructed justice—he was forced to resign as a result. He responded eloquently to the argument of:
“How could so many people be involved in the cover-up?”
“Rodriguez replied that the evidence did not suggest that all the officials conspired together, just that everyone did what they were told to do, with a number of people fibbing about small matters that together added up to something far greater.”3
It also bears noting that those who cover up a crime are not necessarily those who commit it. When issues perceived to be affecting “national security” arise, cover-ups tend to follow. Cover-ups are not the realm of “conspiracy-mongers” with overactive imaginations. They are very real and have taken place on a regular basis throughout history.
So, the scenario typically presented in major media is that as soon as someone famous dies, then the crazy conspiracy theorists start coming out of the woodwork with the “usual stories” that sensationalize the situation. Sometimes that may be true; on other occasions, it is preposterously inappropriate.
For example, when White House Counsel Vince Foster turned up dead in the park one Tuesday afternoon, mainstream media again blamed those “conspiracy kooks” for all the nutty stories circulating. That could not have been further from an accurate appraisal of the circumstances. The “nuttiest” story of all, in fact, was the official version that immediately placed the official stamp of suicide (contrary to established police procedure in any violent death) amidst a plethora of contradictory evidence that was highly indicative of foul play.
The actual facts of the matter indicate:
•The gunpowder burns on Foster’s hands were defensive—they were in a region where he could only have had his hands placed on the front of the gun barrel, i.e., in a position defensive to his assailant;
•Foster’s fingerprints were nowhere on the gun even though it was a hot and humid day, which would increase the likelihood of leaving fingerprints on the weapon, as would the heavy perspiration that would be expected from a person seriously considering suicide;
•Police said they found a .38 caliber Colt revolver with high-velocity ammo in his hand, and the Government alleges that it was the murder weapon. But there was virtually no blowback. That is not possible. Any homicide investigator will tell you that a .38 fired directly into the mouth leaves a bloodbath all other the place, especially on the victim, their clothing, the gun itself, and anything nearby—it’s everywhere, and it’s a mess; yet the victim’s clothing—even his white shirtsleeve and cuff—were in practically pristine condition. So was the gun. Not possible.
The above are certainly not minor concerns, by any stretch of the imagination, nor are they misplaced theories. And those are just three of the inconsistencies—there are dozens more. In such a matter it is clearly not a bunch of nuts expounding crazy conspiracy theories. It is a case where the official version is so full of gaping holes and inaccuracies that something is seriously amiss. And if the facts are fairly examined, one cannot help but conclude that the official version is the craziest theory out there!
To sum it up simply, unlike many of the authors and investigators whom we studied for this book, we didn’t have any pre-formulated agenda: We just followed the evidence ...
1 William Schaap, “Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther Ling,” The King Center, 30 November 1999, http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKv9Schaap.html (accessed 22 Oct. 2011)
2 William Schaap, “Testimony of Mr. William Schaap on the role of the U.S. Government in the assassination of Martin Luther Ling,” The King Center, 30 November 1999, http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/MLKv9Schaap.html (accessed 22 Oct. 2011)
3Christopher Ruddy, The Strange Death of Vincent Foster (New York: THE FREE PRESS, 1997), 213.
INTRODUCTION BY RICHARD BELZER
Defaming History, or, Who Didn’t Kill JFK
“President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery, disappeared. ... The plotters were correct when they guessed that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a madman and negligence.”
—James Hepburn, Farewell America
“It’s pretty heavy, huh?”
—Lyndon Johnson, after being presented with the hefty Warren Commission Report by Chief Justice Earl Warren
When I came across prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History, I said to the salesperson who guided me to the tome, “It’s pretty heavy, huh?” The clerk smiled knowingly as if to get my reference, I hope ... I thought to myself, why would Vinnie (Bugliosi) spend, as he claims, five plus years writing a book that after 1600 some pages triumphantly declares, “Oswald did it!!!” In his increasingly testy and defensive style, he boldly, if not patronizingly, announces that he is in fact reclaiming history, and in the bargain, he absurdly and summarily dismisses a virtual library of meticulous and overwhelmingly compelling research by the most serious and sober scholars, authors, journalists, archivists, historians, and scientists ... who just happen to have come to radically different conclusions than the esteemed prosecutor.
Upon turning to virtually any page of his “history,” one major glaring reality becomes more than clear: Mr. Bugliosi is a prosecutor first and foremost ... presenting his “case” ... which should in any reasonable reader’s mind disqualify him as a true, let alone objective, historian.
Even to the masses of us who are not lawyers, it is almost jokingly obvious that in the classic technique of his trade, there is a torrent of evidence ignored, ridiculed, distorted, and reinterpreted, and when needed, he laughingly draws the most ludicrous conclusions and makes mindless ill-informed guesses about the who, what, and whys of Lee Harvey Oswald.
The so-called “mainstream media” in general and depressingly predicable fashion, of course embraced Bugliosi’s assault on reason with the glee of ancient archbishops reviewing 1600 pages of a book verifying their “belief” that the world is indeed flat!
So what are we to make of the thousands of pages of theories, counter-theories ... facts chasing facts, a Japanese beetle jar ... that jug of motor oil filled with bugs ... a physicist’s nightmare of neutrinos in a rodeo in the fifth dimension ... I sift through those pages and I begin to feel like Boo Radley watching Two and Half Men in Esperanto. It’s like watching a David Lynch film projected on rain clouds in a Tasaday village.
I was taught the truth will set you free ... unless of course you want the truth about who killed JFK.
Like all of you, I have a beautiful wife, a house in France, and a career in show business. You might know me from the critically acclaimed and therefore doomed series Homicide: Life on the Street or from one of my television specials, or Law and Order: SVU, or perhaps my political commentary, or one of my books, or one of my personal appearances in a nightclub near you ... I don’t know! Just leave me alone! But anyway, just like you, I would rather live my life than sit around thinking nasty thoughts about who killed JFK.
So it behooves me to settle one irrefutable reality about the “crime of the century”: IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR OSWALD TO HAVE SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY!!! There I said it: with no apologies to the likes of prosecutor Bugliosi. Let me explain this pesky fact once and for all. The prosecutor likes to boast that he is virtually the only person on earth to have read the entire 26 volumes of the Warren Report. He fails to mention his willful, startlingly lax examination of the contradictions and omissions in the report.
After President Kennedy’s head was exploded, Lee Harvey Oswald was discovered on the second floor of the Book Depository building drinking a Coke. His presence was verified by his boss, Roy Truly, and motorcycle patrolman Marion Baker. According to the Warren Commission, the three men’s encounter was reenacted in two “tests” by the comm
ission: In the first, Baker (walking!) reached the second floor landing in 1 minute, 30 seconds. In the second test; in his words: “at kind of a trot”; he finished the course in 1 minute, 15 seconds ... to “time” Oswald’s movements, Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret Service (in another rigged “test”) carried a rifle (there were three rifles found in the Depository on November 22: a German Mauser, a much joked about Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, and a British Enfield Rifle; but that’s another story) from the “nest” and “placed” the Carcano on the floor near the site where it was actually found. The truth is the murderer hid the rifle, which would take longer than to “place it on the floor.” The reality is (as Mr. Bugliosi knows full well if he “read” the Report as he claims) the Warren Commission reenactments of Baker’s reaction times were done at a slower speed than his actual movements; according to Baker’s own testimony he ran from his motorcycle and into the depository quickly, but the reenactments had him purposely go more slowly to meet the needs of the Commission’s desire to create the impression that there was time enough for the assassin to do his dirty deed. Let us now consider what Oswald was alleged to have accomplished, by some miracle, with his rickety-ass misaligned bolt-action relic of a rifle: Fire three bullets, with deadly accuracy (of which one was “magic”: a theory concocted by Arlen Specter, at the behest of the Commission, that manages to suspend the laws of Newtonian physics!), squeeze out of the sniper’s nest, wipe off the gun, go to the opposite end of the sixth floor, zigzagging and dodging stacks of books, wedge the weapon between two of the stacks, run down four flights of stairs (with landings, actually making it eight flights ... I visited the Book Depository), then, according to page 679 of Volume XXVI of the Commission's Hearings and Exhibits, exhibit No. 3076 quoting Officer Baker's deposition: "on the second floor where the lunchroom is located, I saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a Coke"; Oswald appeared completely calm and not the least out of breath or nervous at his chance encounter with patrolman Baker and Roy Truly (who, remember, ran up just one flight of stairs), in reality surely getting them there in more like SIXTY TO SIXTY-FIVE SECONDS, ladies and gentlemen: Therefore to repeat: IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR OSWALD TO HAVE SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY!!! THANK YOU AND GOODNIGHT!