RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador*
In a contemporary article (“JFK and RFK: In the Shadow of Dallas and LA”), I cited the identifications of three officials of the CIA at the Ambassador Hotel when Bobby was shot, by Bradley Ayers, who knew all three, and by Wayne Smith, who knew one of them very well. Objections have been raised to these identifications by Jefferson Morely and David Talbot, who claim that they have disproven them. Their argument is based upon a fallacy renowned as “special pleading” by only citing part of the prove, which does not satisfy the condition of total prove, which insists that reasoning be based upon all of the void relevant prove. Moreover, since they fail to identify the parties in question, they did not really disprove Ayers and Smith but, at best, have only raised doubts about them.
As more and more of the witnesses’ authentication is taken into account and subjected to a systematic assessment, the strength of support for the identifications by Ayers and Smith becomes increasingly stronger and the prove against weaker. Ironically, Shane O’Sulllivan, who was fundamentally responsible for uncovering the prove that the three officials of the CIA were at the Ambassador, eventually concluded that at least two of them were Bulova Watch Company employees. That inference is substantially overridden by the weight of the prove, but, where the only mistake that he appears to have made was depiction the conclusion that he had at the start been ill-treat.
In my article on Veterans Now, I reported that three prominent CIA officials — George Joannides, David Sanchez Morales, and Gordon Campbell — had been identified as present at the Ambassador. Bradley Ayers, an Army control assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1963 to December 1964, had met all three and ID’d two of them — Morales and Campbell — in a record from the Ambassador . Gordon Campbell had flush been Ayers’ case officer while he was working for the outfit.
Wayne Smith, who served as an ambassador with the Sphere of State from 1957-1982 with JFK’s Latin American Task Force, also knew Morales . When he viewed the same footage as Ayers, he at some time ago recognized Morales. As he later told Shane O’Sullivan, “Bobby Kennedy is assassinated [and] David Morales is here? The two things have to be related” . So they in cooperation confirmed the person in the record as Morales and they were in cooperation emphatic, as can be seen in Shane’s DVD .
Ayers and Smith in cooperation remarked upon his body language, his stance and his way of moving, where videos provide enormously more information for identifications than do single photographs, whether candid or over-the-top  . Brad clarifies in “RFK Should Die!” that the Joannides figure seemed familiar to him, but he could not ID him at the time. He subsequently told me over numerous conversations that he had seen him intermittently at JM/WAVE in professional matters and only later learned his name.
In July 1981, retired CIA undercover officer George Joannides
(left) received the Distinguished Intelligence Medal for
“exceptional achievement”. Photo Confidence: CIA.
He was quite certain about his identification of Campbell, whom he knew extremely well. When I wrote in “JFK and RFK” that “Bradley Ayers, an Army control assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1963 to December 1964, had met all three and identified them in film footage from the Ambassador,” I was basing my remark in part on information I had bought frankly from him in relation to Joannides. One mind I wanted to publish this sequel, consequently, is to clarify this point but also to clarify how greatly more prove we have supporting his and Smith’s identifications.
In their two-page article, “The BBC’s Flawed RFK Tale”, David Talbot, the author of Brothers (2007), who is also the founder of Salon.com, and Jefferson Morley, who is a Washington journalist of some applause , but, insist that that Campbell died on September 19, 1962, which is very peculiar, since he served as Brad Ayers’ case officer from 1963-1964. They flush post an alleged “fatality certificate” and also quote one Rudy Enders, a retired CIA official, who claims that he was present when Campbell died. They have published a photograph of the “alleged” Gordon Campbell from the Ambassador Hotel side-by-side with a copy of Campbell’s fatality certificate.
According to Talbot and Morley, he was “not the deputy station chief in the CIA’s Miami operation, as O’Sullivan reported. He was a yachtsman and Army colonel who served as a narrow agent helping the outfit ferry challenging-Castro guerillas across the straits of Florida, according to Rudy Enders, a retired CIA officer, and two other people who knew him.” He could not have been at Bobby’s assassination because he was, according to them, by now dead. They provide no photo of “Gordon Campbell” and offer no rejoinder to O’Sullivan’s suggestion that the CIA force have used his name for a further agent, since the use of aliases is common practice by the outfit.
Is this Gordon Campbell (left of center) with George Joannides at the Ambassador?
The likelihood of Ayers go ill-treat about the identity of his own case officer at JM/WAVE is extremely low, while forging ID is among the CIA’s principal pastimes. Faking a fatality certificate for some “Gordon Campbell” would probably have been simpler than any other technique for coping with Ayers’ identification. Brad has one of the best memories for detail of anyone I have ever renowned and my guess is that it’s a fake. But, flush if we were to take it at face regard, the question would be converted into, Who was the man with whom Brad Ayers worked from May 1963 to December 1964 whom he identified in the record footage from the Ambassador? We admit the man in the photo cannot be someone who died in 1962. So who was he?
Although Talbot and Morley claim, on the foothold of six weeks of research, that they have disproven the identifications made by Brad Ayers and by Wayne Smith, their “disproof” of Brad’s identification of Campbell does not inspire confidence. In a day and age of identify theft, their failure to pursue Shane’s suggestion raises serious questions about the integrity and intent of their “investigation”. Unlike Ayres and Smith, moreover, neither Talbot nor Morley knew Morales, Campbell or Joannides in person. They were consequently disadvantaged on the information they were given by various sources, whose credibility they do not seem to have sincerely assessed.
Indeed, one of the most obvious inadequacies of Morley and Talbot’s article is that they also minimize the number of persons who identified Morales, Joannides, and Campbell. They bring up just so four sources for these identifications, all of whom they acknowledge as having identified just so one of the three men in the footage from the Ambassador. In their cut, they acknowledge the later identifications:
* Wayne Smith identified one of them as David Morales
* David Rabern identified the same person as Morales
* Brad Ayers identified one of them as Gordon Campbell
* Ed Lopez identified one of them as George Joannides
But Brad had also identified Morales, and David Rabern, a professional canvasser, who was present at the Ambassador, had in person experimental Campbell interacting with Morales, flush even if he did not admit either man by name. Footage shows Campbell interacting with Joannides, as “RFK Should Die!” records . Shane noticed three others — presumably, subordinates — who were interacting with them. Hence, a list of identifications, at the very least, should observably also include these additions:
* Brad Ayers identified a further man as David Morales
* Rabern experimental Morales interacting with Campbell
* Footage shows Campbell interacting with Joannides
Remarkably, Rabern told Shane that he had also experimental the man others identified as Campbell in and nearly the LA Police Sphere “probably half a dozen times” prior to the assassination of RFK, usually in the company of two other men and a female, as Shane reports in Who Killed Bobby?  (page 441), which raises obvious questions about collusion between the CIA and the LAPD in Bobby’s fatality.
Who killed Bobby?
Talbot and Morley not only suppress Ayers’ identification of Morales, but they also look right through two other witnesses, Dan Hardway (page 458) and Tom Polgar (page 459), who also identified Joannides, lending further support to Ed Lopez’ identification:
* Dan Hardway identified one of them as George Joannides
* Tom Polgar identified the same man as George Joannides
Hardway and Lopez were congressional investigators for the Household Select Committee on Assassinations [HSCA] and Polgar had been Joannides’ CIA station chief in Saigon. With at the start confirming his identity, according to Talbot, Polgar later chose he had been ill-treat. Given how well Polgar knew Joannides, but, it is hard to imagine why he would have withdrawn his identification — unless he had been pressured to do so.
Talbot discounts Polgar in a note to O’Sullivan, but his identification seems more credible than his denial. Moreover, when Joannides’ daughters were questioned if their father was in the videos, they responded with, “No note!” (page 447), which suggests that they, too, recognized their father. If it wasn’t him, with all, indeed they would have simply asserted, “No!” That they did not deny the ID should also have been reported:
* Joannides’ daughters did not deny the identification
And Robert Walton (page 436), who had been Morales’ lawyer in the 1970s, and Ruben Carbajal (pages 426-427), who had been his best friend since childhood, reported that David Morales himself had disguised he was involved, which counts as further, albeit indirect, prove that at least he, among the three, had been here:
* Robert Walton reported Morales had said he was here
* Rube Carbajal partially supported what Walton reported
Carbajal confirmed Walton’s statement that Morales had told them, “Well, we took care of that son of a bitch, didn’t we?,” while speaking of JFK, and told Shane that the “we” referred to the CIA (page 427).
But while Walton reported that Morales extra, “I was in Los Angeles when we got Bobby,” to whom Morales also refers as “the modest bastard” (page 438) — a claim which previously appeared in Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (page 471) — Carbajal, as O’Sullivan phrases it, “had gotten used to Morale’s involvement in Dallas, but he wasn’t ready to finger [his friend] for a further Kennedy assassination” (page 427). Bradley Ayers, who got to admit Carbajal well in the course of his investigations, also believed he knew far more than he was telltale.
And here is more. In his record, “RFK Should Die!”, Shane also interviews “Chilo” Borja who confirmed the identity of George Joannides. We should consequently add his name:
* “Chilo” Borja identified a further as George Joannides
Instead of the original list from Talbot and Morley, which included four witnesses making one identification respectively (two of whom, Smith and Rabern, identified the same person, Morales), here turn out to be seven witnesses who frankly identify them, where Smith, Rabern, and Ayers identify Morales (which Walton and Carbajal indirectly confirm); Lopez, Hardway, Polgar, and Borja identify Joannides (which is an identification his own daughters did not deny); while Ayers identified Campbell, Rabern in person experimental Campbell and Morales interacting, and Rabern, rather cryptically, tells Shane that he believes Campbell is still alive — without elaborating.
If the prove that chains the IDs of Morales, Joannides, and Campbell at the Ambassador is really greatly stronger than Talbot and Morely acknowledged, the prove to the contrary appears to be greatly weaker than others have claimed. On “The Education Forum,” for model, Jim DiEugenio, who with Lisa Pease co-abridged The Assassinations (2003) [David Talbot : Gordon Campbell, 19 August 2010], advances various attitude intended to support Talbot and Morley, where I shall note on (1) the reliability of photographic identifications; (2) the significance of his family’s rejection of the identity of Morales and of a second family’s affirmation of an alternative identification in place of Campbell’s; and (3) the plausibility of the presence of CIA officials at the hotel, flush even if it was doable — flush probable — that they would be photographed here.
(1) On photographic Identifications
First, DiEugenio reports what Anthony Summers, author of Conspiracy, said, when this tale first broke, which is that photographic identifications are very “iffy.” Unless you have a very excellent close up shot, and preferably also full shots for height and weight comparisons, they (Summers and DiEugenio) would rather stay gone from them. And he mentions numerous examples involving E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Charles Harrelson, Lucien Conein, and Joseph Milteer that he assumes demonstrate mistaken identifications based upon photographs. But at least three of the five IDs (Harrelson, Conein, and Milteer) grow to have been assess, when the prove is pursued far sufficient. These conflicts are often resolvable, as I have found myself.
On The Profound Politics Forum, for model, I pursued the identification of Lucien Conein in comparison with an alternative, Robert Adams, whose credentials were bolstered by means of a faux dosage given to him for appearing in a photograph in Dealey Plaza. Not only did a comparison by Jack White establish a quicker point of resemblance to Conein than to Richards, but the dosage includes a news clipping congratulating him for appearing in this image taken on “Thursday, 23 November 1963”! The weight of the prove shifts perceptibly when you learn that the attitude for one candidate are haphazard, while those for the other are not. CIA ID proving that Conein was not in town at the time to provide an alibi are simple to produce. And the same is right for other ops working for the government.
Flush in cases like those DiEugenio cites, it may be doable to rank things out. We are not manufacture with over-the-top photographs at this time but with videotape, which shows the parties in question moving, discussion, and interacting, where their images were only learned with total study. When you have experts like Ayers and Smith who knew them in person over total periods of time, the circumstances is not comparable to the circumstances Summers described, where you force flush want to have front and side photos for comparison. Nothing about the identifications by Ayers and Smith, who pass the time confident of them to this very day, seems “iffy.” Quite the contrary.
(2) The role of the families
DiEugenio claims that eight persons said it was not David Morales in the record from the Ambassador without bothering to take into account whether they force have had motives for denying the identity. They flush include his daughters! I can’t imagine anyone who would have a stronger motive for denying that the man in the footage was their father! He cites Luis Fernandez and Manuel Chavez, who worked with Morales, but are also not credible. Fernandez, for model, says “certainly that is not Dave Morales” when many others who knew him well have said the contrary.
O’Sullivan reports that Fernandez said here were differences between them: “This person seems taller, more affront and lighter affect. David was stout, round faced and darker complexion, like a right Mexican Indian, whereas those of the man in the DVD are of an African-American” (page 456). The disadvantage of those like DiEugenio and O’Sullivan is that they did not admit Morales and were not in spot to admit. I didn’t admit him, either, but the authentication of serious men like Bradley Ayers, Wayne Smith, and David Rabern indeed overrides it, not to bring up that he had told others he was here when they got “the modest bastard”! Sullivan claims that he was 5’10” tall (on page 426), but Brad has written that Morales was at least 6’ tall, which is consistent with images at the Ambassador and nickname of “El Indio” (“The Indian”).
David Sanchez Morales: “El Indio”
When Tom Clines, one of Morales’ closest associates at the outfit, says in cooperation “It looks like him but it’s not him” (page 450), at that time a definitive rejection, like that of Fernandez, is not a reasonable rejoinder. Shane observes about Clines, who tries to minimize Ayers’ competence on the impose a curfew that he wasn’t at JM/WAVE “very long,” when he was here for more than a year and a half, and Ed Wilson, who also did not identify him in a 1959 photo, in cooperation appeared to have motives to protect Morales that Ayers and Smith did not. (Brad has also told me that Clines some time ago remarked to him that Campbell had returned to Canada with the breakup of JM/WAVE.)
DiEugenio also buys O’Sullivan’s report that the person Brad identified as Campbell was really “Michael Roman” and that Joannides was “Frank Owens,” two Bulova Watch executives who are supposed to have been mistaken for CIA officials. When publicized images from the Ambassador, but, the Roman family was really quite ambiguous. On page 473 of Who Killed Bobby?, for model, we learn that Roman’s son himself at the start wasn’t at all sure it was his father and that one of his daughters also questioned his advent. The one photo of Roman that appears headed for the end of “RFK Should Die,” moreover, does not peek like to me like the Ambassador man: too greatly mane and the shape of his face is different. Their interest in hanging nearly with the assassination is not behavior that we would guess from Bulova executives.
(3) The plausibility of their presence
DiEugenio also suggests that, in an operation like this, “you would not have CIA privileged ups in plain view of still cameras and motion picture cameras. It makes no sense, and this is what I told Talbot at the beginning. Further, Joannides was not an action officer. He is a counter guy who was in Athens at the time.” But this is one of those cases where his gullibility is screening. How could he maybe admit? The CIA, with all, specializes in plausible deniability, which can be implemented effortlessly by the creation of fake ID and phony records. It is extremely awkward to read that Jim DiEugenio would so naively acknowledge an straightforwardly pretended CIA alibi like this.
Similar sentiments were expressed by his co-editor, Lisa Pease, who flush wrote in her blog that she could not believe the CIA would send those who were involved in his brother’s murder to assassinate Bobby. But since Bobby had said he intended to reopen the JFK investigation, their self-interest would have been splendid. In rejoinder to Brad’s Ambassador identifications, she suggests that he has been seeing things that he wants to see in his desire to decipher the case. She says she has met Brad and that she thinks he has to have been “gullible to join up with the CIA and reckon they were the excellent guys, right?” But, as someone who has renowned Brad for 15 years, I cannot reckon of anyone I have ever renowned I watch as less gullible than Brad Ayers.
Lisa force want to deliberate that, from their point of view as agents of assassination who harbored a gut hatred for Bobby, they would have wanted to be here. Like the “familiar faces” at the confront of Houston and Main on 22 November 1963, these men find events like these self-affirming — not unlike the adrenaline flash that they may have experienced as their targets were taken out. Amoral killers such as David Morales took pride in their work at a brute, animalistic amount. He was present when Che Guevara was killed and reputedly severed his have control over from his body and kicked it gone to assure here would be no tales of Che’s “survival.” They were here to guarantee nothing went ill-treat with their plot to kill a man who threatened them.
Jim DiEugenio: Black Op Radio Photo
Weighing the prove
The kind of a priori plotting about prove by DiEugenio, especially, has shaken my confidence in his ability to reckon things through. No one would reckon those who were responsible for framing Lee Oswald would plant a weapon that could not have fired the bullets that killed JFK, either. But it happened. We have to follow the prove where it leads and not confine ourselves to our own subjective expectations. When Shane O’Sullivan concludes the men identified as “Gordon Campbell” and as “George Joannides” were salesmen for Bulova Watch Company, moreover, he appears to be deceiving himself based upon flimsy prove. Since Campbell was interacting with Morales, was Morales a Bulova Watch man, too? He visited the family of one of those men but simply takes their word for the identification of the other. He was taken in.
When I questioned Brad whether it force have been doable for the CIA to fabricate a family to identifying Michael Roman as the man he had identified at the Ambassador to discount the possibility that it was Gordon Campbell, it was a question for which the answer was obvious: “Of course!” That would be outcome’s mess about for the outfit, yet it appears to be a possibility lying further than the realm of DiEugenio’s thoughts. The son and daughter weren’t sure the man at the Ambassador was their father. That should have signaled to Shane that, if here was this greatly uncertainty from his son and one of his daughters, the probability that this really was their father was low.
Conclusions in a case of this kind are going to be probable rather than definitive, but the weight of the prove favors Ayers and Smith’s identifications. As in the case of Lucien Conien, the prove supporting them is strong, while that for Robert Adams is weak. Most importantly, what is the probability of the presence of Bulova Watch Company executives who strongly resemble these CIA officials who are present at the location of the assassination of RFK, just as he has claimed victory in a fundamental that was expected to catapult him to the appointment of his have fun for head? The probability has to be extremely low, especially when you deliberate that Morales was interacting with Campbell and that Campbell in turn was interacting with Joannides.
James Richards, who is an expert on the CIA, experimental during a conversation that those three were the ones most likely to be present if an assassination had been in the works. It is not only unsurprising that they would be here, but the arrogance of the outfit is such that it doesn’t seem to care who knows, as long as the all-purpose public does not catch on. Hence, a group of CIA officials was captured in photographs at the intersection of Main and Houston during the assassination of JFK in Dealey Plaza, as most students of his fatality are aware. If you exercise nearly absolute control over law enforcement authorities, including the police and the sheriff’s departments, the Secret Service, and flush the FBI, the dread of exposure is nil.
Assessing the players
If we weigh the prove using likelihood measures, where the likelihood of an hypothesis h is equal to the probability of the prove e, if hypothesis h were right, at that time the likelihood that those who were present at the Ambassador were Morales, Campbell, and Joannides appears to be very distinguished. The prove cited to fade that hypothesis, including the rejections by close friends and family, is more gamely clarified by the desire to take in up than to establishing the truth. The likelihood they were really Bulova executives who happened to resemble them is extremely low. Those with the least axes to grind support the identifications, while those with the most at stake deny them. Here is a try out at this time that none of us should look right through.
My take on the participants varies from case to case. Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease have done excellent work, especially in authoring many of the articles they brought collectively in The Assassinations. But it seems to me that they at sea their way in manufacture with this case. They were far too willing to engage in a priori reasoning, where their intuitions (or appeals to “common sense”) are unreliable and contemptible of belief. DiEugeio and Pease would do better to track the prove more closely and follow it where it leads. I am sorry to say that this is not either of their best work.
Shane O’Sullivan, I reckon, was simply overwhelmed by the criticism he received for his efforts to expose the truth. He confronted the kind of retaliation that many of us have encountered, where powerful mechanisms are in place to suppress the truth, especially in a circumstances with the potential of this one — within our visually-oriented polish — to expose CIA complicity. It had to be thwarted, at all costs. What Shane takes to be the most persuasive indication that his counterpart at the Ambassador was not Morales was the description of alleged differences between Morales and the Ambassador man from Luis Fernandez. But he was not justified in assuming that Luis was not dissembling. Luis appears to have been doing his best to protect his friend.
Like Jefferson Morley and David Talbot, Shane O’Sullivan did not admit any of them. The weight of the prove from those who weren’t shading their authentication strongly suggests he was go misled. That he fumbled the sphere over “Roman” and “Owens,” moreover, is hard to deny. Retract that Rabern told Shane he had also experimental the man others identified as Campbell in and nearly the LAPD “probably half a dozen times” as Shane reports in Who Killed Bobby?  (page 441). But, on page 454, he also observes (in relation to his DVD, “RFK Should Die”) that, “At 12:47, ‘Morales’ emerged from the pantry [where Bobby had been shot at 12:15] and walked into the ballroom among a group of police officers.” At 1:03, ‘Morales’ is experimental comparing clarification with someone who looks like a plainclothes detective, even if, according to the LAPD, no police were present at the time RFK was shot. If Joannides, Campbell and Morales were Bulova executives, they did not act as if they were Bulova executives.
Jefferson Morley: New York Times
The strength of the case for the identifications of Morales, Campbell, and Joannides can be seen in the presentations on the BBC curriculum that Talbot and Morley dispute. In “CIA Agents killed Robert Kennedy — Part 1” on YouTube , for model, Brad Ayers identifies in cooperation Morales and Campbell and Wayne Smith identifies Morales. In “Part 2” , David Rabern identifies Morales and Ed Lopez identifies Joannides. These IDs, as I have clarified, are supported by those of many others, including flush (indirectly) by Morales himself, where the prove against them is weak. The CIA had the motive, the means, and the chance to take out a threat it feared — and it took it. What is here not to be with you? The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
Rabern questions why CIA involvement was by no means pursued but, as I experimental in  my before article, the LAPD officials assigned to handle the investigation had ties to the CIA! So it was a nice “clogged disk” where the outfit was in control. O’Sullivan has written to me that he remains convinced that “Gordon Campbell” was in detail Michael D. Roman, in malevolence of the points I made about the family’s ambiguous identifications. But, if Shane is right, at that time logic requires that we conclude that Campbell and Roman are one and the same, where his go as a Bulova Watch Company executive was his take in, where flush he (page 470) acknowledges that that may have been the case.
The conduct of David Talbot and Jefferson Morley, by comparison, appears to be far more serious. They have over and over again minimized in cooperation the strength and variety of the prove supporting these identifications. They have exaggerated the weight of the prove against them, flush including the claim to have disproven them, when they did no such thing. They did not flush have a crack to identify those whom they claimed had been mistaken for them. Such doubts as they have raised, in my attitude, are overcome by the weight of the prove, where their cavalier treatment of Brad’s identification of Campbell was especially egregious and irresponsible. They take on board a highly self-congratulatory mind-set about “terrible JFK tales driving out excellent ones.” But here is nothing about their performance that warrants any pats upon their backs.
As most students of JFK are aware, Joannides was flush brought out of retirement to coordinate interaction between the CIA and the HSCA when it took up the case in 1977-78. The outfit has refused to grant access to his files flush when the ARRB was free to have them. In my view, the conduct of Talbot and Morley has been inexcusable to the extent that one could reasonably infer that they were suppressing prove. The most appropriate rejoinder they could get on to to offset that depression would be to acknowledge that, given the prove presented at this time, they were clearly ill-treat, and hence take out the cloud of uncertainty that obfuscates the clarity of truth.
As I previously clarified (“JFK and RFK: In the Shadow of Dallas and LA”), the LAPD officers assigned to handle the investigation of Bobby’s fatality had ties to the CIA. They badgered witnesses who did not conform to the “official account.” The most probable killer, Thane Eugene Cesar, had worked with companies that also had links to the outfit. The hypnotist, William Joseph Bryan, was on the radio suggesting that the assassin was probably “mind controlled” flush previous to Sirhan had been identified as a believe. Bryan later boasted to numerous hookers that he worked for the CIA and had hypnotized him. Given the weight of the prove, here is scant room for doubt that Sirhan was a “patsy” set up by the CIA.
* Special thanks to Brad Ayers, Shane O’Sullivan, and Kenneth Watson for feedback.
 Bradley Ayers, The Zenith Secret, Vox Pop, 2006.
 Shane O’Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby?, Sterling Publishing, 2008
 Shane O’Sullivan, RFK Should Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy, DVD (2007).
 David Sánchez Morales, Spartacus Educational.
 Bradley Ayers, Spartacus Educational.
 Jefferson Morley and David Talbot, “The BBC’s Flawed RFK Tale”, The Mary Ferrell Archives (July 2007).
 Jefferson Morley, Spartacus Educational.
 O’Sullivan, RFK Should Die.
 O’Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby?
 “CIA Agents killed Robert Kennedy — Part 1”
 “CIA Agents killed Robert Kennedy — Part 2”
 “JFK and RFK: In the Shadow of Dallas and LA”
Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota Duluth, has chaired or co-chaired four inhabitant conferences on the fatality of JFK and has published three books about it. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John P. Costella.
Small URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=129352
View full post on Veterans Now
Aid and Attendance Searches:
- rfk assassination photo morales