Fred Litwin's epic failure- debunking his review of my book THE PLOT TO KILL PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN CHICAGO (UPDATED)

Responding to: 

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/vince-palamara-s-epic-failure-part-one

***UPDATED TO REFLECT FRED'S PART FOUR, FIVE, HIS REPLY + CHERAMI & NAGELL***

CLICK ON THE ACTUAL IMAGES TO SEE THE FULL IMAGE

Before I begin, let me just say this from the outset: you have heard of the Michelin Man from the commercials, yes? Well, I call Fred Litwin "The Omission Man"- there are whole swaths of my book-even whole chapters- he has avoided reviewing, despite all these parts.

Let's begin:

In his whopping FIVE PART review, Fred does not even mention CHAPTER 3, CHAPTER 4, CHAPTER 5, CHAPTER 6, CHAPTER 8, and CHAPTER 9! Fred only deals with Chapters 1, 2 and 7.

Fred conveniently leaves out that a former Chicago office agent who was mentioned by the HSCA in a summary and who served with Abe Bolden, Maurice Martineau, Ed Z. Tucker, Joseph Noonan and others, Nemo Ciochina, ALSO told me about "Puerto Rican persons of interest for the Chicago trip." No, it is NOT "just" about Lloyd John Wilson; far from it. 

The importance of the agents who were investigating Wilson, former White House Detail agents who left the detail during the Summer and Fall of 1963, joining field offices and investigating this mortal threat to JFK, is not noted and, thus, is conveniently ignored.

Fred states that it is no big deal that Wilson was not noted in any prior book or article before because, in his opinion, he wasn't of importance and the documents were on the Mary Ferrell website (and the Archives). But, as with the millions of other documents out there, one has to call attention to them first- they might have been "there", but no one noticed or thought to look them up and no one I knew of ever even knew who Wilson was to begin with. And again: the volume of reports and the specific agents involved demonstrate the large importance that Wilson signified to the Secret Service (and FBI). A number of these documents were from months BEFORE both the Chicago plot and the 11/22/63 assassination. 

It appears that Fred's trick is to throw things out there (publishing several of the documents and links) and sort of "whistle by the graveyard", hoping no one will grasp the importance of the documents.

Also: the authorities found no evidence of psychosis and Wilson was found COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL! In addition, and this goes for Fred's attempt to debunk Richard Case Nagell by stating that he was mentally ill (crazy): I am not impressed with any attempt to paint Wilson or many others as "mentally ill." Here is why:

Author and prominent lone nutter Vince Bugliosi stated during the 1986 mock trial of Oswald that there was no doubt that Oswald was nuts. Still, he was allegedly capable of the assassination and, before that, was competent enough to be employed, have a wife, kids, a radar operator duty in the Marines, etc. In other words, Oswald was competent.

All serial killers (John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, etc.) are "nuts", but they are also smart and quite competent. They are capable of diabolical and dastardly deeds.

Many people feel that former President Donald Trump is "nuts", yet he was competent enough to hold the office of the presidency. I have even worked in past jobs with a few people who seemed schizophrenic and "nuts" (talking to themselves, acting bizarre, etc.), yet they drove, lived on their own, were excellent workers and so forth. Being labeled "nuts" DOES NOT in any way lessen the importance of a suspect or dismiss their ability to be a threat. Not to demean anyone, but the world is filled with highly functioning autistic people and savants. One not need be a Rhodes Scholar with a very high IQ in order to be a competent threat to, say, be involved in a threat or plot towards the president.

Back to Wilson: one must pass rigorous physical and MENTAL exams in order to join the Air Force as Wilson did. Again, the authorities found no psychosis- Wilson was competent: 

Fred posts the following document that I also publish- a 9/10/63 Secret Service document by White House Detail agent Tony Sherman, who would leave the detail very soon after (after being there since Eisenhower) and join the Spokane, Washington field office to work alongside SAIC Norman Sheridan regarding the Wilson threat AND he would go to Dallas to assist in the investigation of the assassination. 

Fred calls Wilson a "bum steer." If he was (and I do not believe he was a bum steer), he certainly fooled a lot of federal agents (Secret Service and FBI) who thought enough of Wilson and his threat to write many reports and actually have former Kennedy White House Detail agents (Sherman, Giovanetti, Tucker, etc.) LEAVE THE DETAIL to join field offices that were INVESTIGATING and following Wilson! The Wilson threat also involved several Chicago office agents (SAIC Maurice Martineau [Ciochina and Bolden's boss, all of whom believed there was a conspiracy], Joseph Noonan, Ed Tucker), as well as Springfield Illinois SAIC Fred Backstrom.

More Chicago connections:

-Wilson surrenders in CHICAGO via the FBI office and contacts CHICAGO newspaper.

-Wilson: domiciled at Lackland AFB TEXAS 11/2/63: SAME DATE AS CHICAGO PLOT.

-Wilson: CHICAGO municipal court.

-Wilson: sent to Springfield, MO fed med center like Bolden and Richard case Nagell.

-Wilson: connection to LHO; “Harvey Lee Oswald” as a Secret Service report noted. Also- who is to say that the "Oswald" Wilson claims he met in San Francisco wasn't an Oswald IMPOSTER and NOT LHO, per se?

-Also involved in the investigation- PRS: SAIC BOUCK (believed there was a conspiracy), PRS ASAIC Miller, PRS SA Pine; the Spokane, WA SAIC: Norman Sheridan; the San Antonio, TX SAIC Luis Benavides (who protected JFK 11/21/63); and Tom Hanson: SAIC San Francisco, CA; plus Chief Rowley.

Responding to:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/vince-palamara-s-epic-failure-part-two

Fred dismisses the notion that the 11/1/63 Vietnamese President Diem assassination was a CIA-backed coup by attempting to show that President Kennedy was involved, as well, but this has been disputed by others: as with Lumumba and the attempts on Castro, Kennedy was horrified by this event.

Contrary to what Edwin Black reported several years before Salinger's HSCA interview, when Salinger told Black that the Chicago trip would not be canceled due to the Diem assassination, Salinger changed his tune and told the HSCA that Kennedy did cancel the Chicago trip due to the Diem assassination. That said, Fred ignores what is said by Salinger at the bottom of the document he posts:

In his 1997 book, Salinger said he may have missed only "two or three" trips with Kennedy: one of them was the Texas trip.

My book lays out all the evidence of threats and plots (both) to Kennedy, demonstrating the appalling lack of security for JFK in Dallas, as the Secret Service was much aware of all of these threats and plots, many just in 1963 alone. I know the difference between a threat and a plot. "Just" a threat in no way lessens the severity or importance of said threat. I don't claim to have all the answers: I am merely an author over 6 decades removed from the assassination. I published 200-plus documents/photos/articles with 300-plus detailed footnotes to make my case without adding reams of speculation. The main thrust of my book is to demonstrate the sheer volume of threats and/or plots, with a special emphasis on Chicago (both 3/23/63 AND 11/2/63) and how all of these may relate or, in fact, do relate to 11/22/63.

The importance of Mosely and Echevarria is to demonstrate that former OSS man, Deputy Chief Paul Paterni, former CHICAGO Secret Service agent in charge of the Chicago office when GUY BANISTER was CHICAGO agent in charge of the FBI office, told the Chicago office to drop the case:

Fred doesn't find Bolden credible. I do. I also find Ciochina credible regarding Wilson. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and there is a whole lot of smoke. Again, I admittedly don't have all the answers and never claimed that I did: I am merely an amateur author six-plus decades removed doing my best. 

Responding to:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/vince-palamara-s-epic-failure-part-three

Fred makes the claim that Bolden's story/details of the Chicago plot have changed somewhat thru the years but I view this mainly as a byproduct of many authors/sources detailing the case at different times and different vantage points (and, of course, thru the prism of their own voices, not Bolden himself actually authoring the prior statements/reports). Inevitably, some things fall thru the cracks, are misinterpreted, omitted or even exaggerated. I and many other authors have fallen victim to this thru the years. It goes with the territory. 

Fred OMITS:

Chicago SAIC Maurice Martineau, no fan of Bolden (to put it mildly), adamantly believed there was a conspiracy.

Ciochina ALSO mentioned "Puerto Rican persons of interest." Bolden checked up on Puerto Rican persons of interest, including a few that did time in federal prison for attempting to assassinate US Congressman in 1954! Recall that on 11/1/50, TWO Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to assassinate President Truman. My book details TWO Puerto Rican Nationalist plots to assassinate President Eisenhower.

And, in keeping with the above, Fred omits:

Fred attempts to downplay Sherman Skolnick as yet another source for the 1975 Edwin Black article, but he WAS another source AND Fred says nothing of the other sources named and interviewed in the article such as FBI Agent Thomas Coll (who said, regarding 11/2/63, "some people [plural] were picked up"), and Thomas Arthur Vallee himself, who stated:

THE MORAL TO THE STORY:

Please actually read my book cover to cover for all that Fred omits.

                                                                                                                                                                        OOPS- Fred wasn't done! Here is his part four:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/vince-palamara-s-epic-failure-part-four 

-It is easy to dismiss what the SAIC of the Secret Service's Chicago office, Maurice Martineau (the boss of Ciochina, Bolden, Stocks, Motto, Tucker, Noonan, etc.) when one never mentions what Martineau told me in 1993 and which I report at the very beginning of my book and in my first book, for that matter: Martineau adamantly believed there was a conspiracy. It is also crucial to note that Martineau was not a fan of Bolden: he called him "a blight on the agency" and did not even want to discuss anything about him. Martineau was there, Fred wasn't.

-Fred doesn't seem to get it: threats and a plot (at least TWO men: "Puerto Rican snipers") on the prior Chicago trip earlier in the very same year (3/23/63) is very important and relevant to the canceled Chicago trip of 11/1/63! Like Martineau, this information comes from a very credible primary source, not some "conspiracy buff": former Secret Service agent and head of WHCA (White House Communication Agency) George McNally, a man who was there for all presidential trips from FDR-LBJ. He was there, Fred wasn't.

In another instance of "whistling past the graveyard", Fred invokes (yet again) a clever prosecuting lawyer's trick: actually calling attention to incriminating evidence, then dismissing its significance in the hopes that the spin on it will lessen the severity of said evidence. Like the 9/10/63 Secret Service report shown above, get a load of this:

 Fred also fails to note that Paterni was a former OSS man who served with James Jesus Angleton and Ray Rocca, as I duly reference in my book, the one he is reviewing.

-Fred also fails to note (as I mention above) that Ciochina ALSO MENTIONED PUERTO RICAN PERSONS OF INTEREST FOR THE CHICAGO TRIP, not "just" Lloyd John Wilson. I uncovered (thanks to ABRAHAM BOLDEN and the late 1960's and late 1990's Secret Service documents released by the ARRB only in 2017 or so) actual named Puerto Rican persons of interest who did time for trying to assassinate US Congressmen! Puerto Rican Nationalists tried to assassinate Truman, Eisenhower and, as McNally noted, JFK in 1963.

-The 3/23/63 Chicago trip threatening postcard is yet another example of threats (and possible evidence of a plot or plots) that is both relevant to 3/23/63 and the very next Chicago trip of 11/1/63. It is all about PRIOR PRECEDENT. Remember: the official story is that NO THREATS were found in Dallas for President Kennedy, a matter both Roy Kellerman (to the Warren Commission) and Abraham Bolden both stated was unusual; I agree.

-I adamantly disagree with Fred's dismissal of FBI agent/spokesman Thomas Coll and his 1975 statements about "people" [plural] being picked up at Soldiers Field in Chicago. Coll was a distinguished and long serving member of the Bureu:

https://www.heraldstandard.com/news/2002/aug/25/thomas-b-coll/

"Thomas B. Coll, 73, an FBI Special Agent who retired in 1979 as Chief of Media Services, died Monday, August 19, 2002, in his Adelphi, Maryland, home.  Mr. Coll acted as FBI spokesman during investigations in the mid 1970s of the shooting of two agents on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. He was also Chief of the Fugitive Publicity Unit that published the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. He served in the United States Navy Reserves before the Korean War and in the United States Army during the war. He began his FBI career in 1948 and was posted to field offices in Mobile, Alabama, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and New York. He was later Supervisory Special Agent in the Intelligence and Crime Records divisions. He lectured at the FBI Training Academy."  

So Coll served over 30 years in the FBI and was a Korean War veteran. Quite a distinguished individual who, in his important position, would be ill-advised to give false information (especially of a conspiratorial nature) to a journalist.

-I also disagree with Fred's dismissal of Thomas Arthur Vallee's sister's statements (as told to author James Douglass).

-While Fellow Chicago Secret Service Agent J. LLoyd Stocks did indeed tell the HSCA that Bolden was a poor agent, fellow agents Bob Lilley and Gerald Blaine (not a fan of Bolden) both conceded that he was a good investigative agent, contradicting Stocks portrayal.

- Fred dismisses the 1975 statement from Thomas Arthur Vallee of a plot to kill Kennedy in Chicago. I adamantly disagree- it is of supreme importance.

From his part 5:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/vince-palamara-s-epic-failure-part-five

Because he avoided reviewing (reading?) the other chapters from my book, Fred states: "Bennett worked in the Protective Research Section in Washington D.C." Fred fails to mention that Bennett was made a temporary member of the White House Detail on 11/10/63 and was on the NY, FL and Texas trips and he rode in the follow-up car on all the stops. Fred further writes: "Palamara leaves out this section from Bennett's outside contact report with the HSCA", yet I publish the very same excerpt on page 88!

Fred does not appreciate that I stated that there were two candidates for the Chicago 1963 administrative assistant, both Charlotte Klapkowski and June Marie Terpinas, and only details Klapkowski and what she said to the HSCA.

As he did with Abraham Bolden in earlier parts of his "review", Fred is dismissive of anything involving Thomas Arthur Vallee having anything to do with a plot to kill Kennedy in Chicago. As with Bolden, I disagree.

What Fred also leaves out of his review, other than any mention of CHAPTER 3, CHAPTER 4, CHAPTER 5, CHAPTER 6, CHAPTER 8, and CHAPTER 9:

1) Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago office, Maurice Martineau, believed there was a conspiracy.

2) Chicago Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden believes there was a conspiracy.

3) Chicago Secret Service agent Nemo Ciochina believed there was a conspiracy.

4) Ciochina mentioned "Puerto Rican persons of interest", NOT "just" Lloyd John Wilson.

5) Abraham Bolden is vindicated: he investigated specific Puerto Rican persons of interest shortly before, during and after the 11/2/63 Chicago plot and these men were involved in a deadly attack on the US Capital in 1954 wherein they shot and attempted to assassinate US Congressmen!

6) Puerto Rican Nationalists attempted to assassinate President Truman on 11/1/50. Secret Service agents Stu Stout (worked with Bolden and mentioned in Bolden's book), Floyd Boring, and Vince Mroz later served with Bolden on the White House Detail and when JFK went to Chicago in 1961, 1962 and 1963.

7) Puerto Rican Nationalists attempted to assassinate President Eisenhower at least twice, according to Ike's press secretary James Hagerty.

8) Former Secret Service agent and then-current head of WHCA George McNally stated that Puerto Rican snipers [plural] posed a threat to President Kennedy on the Chicago trip right before the 11/1/63 trip that was cancelled. This was on 3/23/63 and Abraham Bolden was a member of the detail protecting JFK, as were quite a few other Chicago office and White House Detail agents.

9) Thomas Arthur Vallee himself told of the plot to kill Kennedy in Chicago in 1975 and his sister told author James Douglass that her brother was set up.

10) Chicago Secret Service agent Robert Motto mentioned "threats" [plural] regarding the 11/2/63 cancelled Chicago trip, whether Fred likes it or not.

Fred ultimately dismisses these threats, plots and what I call traces of conspiracy by stating that all of these alleged threats are not proof of a plot. A conspiracy involves more than one person- then it becomes a plot of more than one person. Secret Service agents from Chicago who were THERE (unlike Fred) stated that there was a conspiracy: Martineau, Bolden, and Ciochina. Another former agent, McNally, spoke of a 3/23/63 plot of Puerto Rican snipers. 

I believe the sum total of my book demonstrates many threats and traces of conspiracy that led to both the 3/23/63 Chicago threats and plot AND the cancelled 11/2/63 Chicago trip. What's more, I believe that these threats and evidence of plots demonstrate a moving crime that led to 11/22/63. While not ALL of the threats I detail are necessarily evidence of a PLOT, per se, they do reveal the stunning level of mortal danger that President Kennedy was under and just how appalling his security was. In spite of all of these threats and the evidence of plots and, despite the good security used on prior trips, Kennedy was left a sitting duck by the agents who were much aware of most if not all of these threats and probably more.

Vince Palamara

AND Fred isn't done. I think he has become obsessed:

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-reply-to-vince-palamara

Fred's real "epic failure" is to prove that Oswald acted alone. He has failed miserably. Don't worry, Fred- don't cry. 

As Fred has admitted:

"I have indeed avoided large parts of Palamara's book."

I know, Fred. We all know. It will be alright.

Fred writes: "So, let's talk about the "Puerto Rican persons of interest...So, yes Bolden was investigating three Puerto Ricans on November 25, 1963. I fail to see what this has to do with a supposed plot in early November. None of these people are named in Bolden's book..."

Just because something isn't in Bolden's book doesn't mean it is either false or unimportant. As much as I admire Bolden, there are countless facts and information not in his book, as it is largely about his own personal story than it is a conspiracy book, per se. The litmus test shouldn't be if something is or is not in someone's book.

The fact that former Secret Service agent George McNally (then head of WHCA) reported that "police got a warning of Puerto Rican [not Cuban, not Mafia, etc.] snipers [plural, not singular]. Helicopters searched the roofs..." on 3/23/63 in Chicago. As I stated on page 158, it is relevant to threats to JFK's life in Chicago, in general, and the 11/2/63 plot in Chicago, in particular. 

Although important, the postcard threat of 3/23/63 in Chicago is not as important (does not weigh as much) as the threat posed via Puerto Rican snipers [plural=plot/conspiracy, as opposed to a lone nut]. Two Puerto Rican Nationalists plotted to kill President Truman on 11/1/50. Puerto Rican Nationalists [plural] twice plotted to kill President Eisenhower. The nexus of this 3/23/63 Puerto Rican snipers threat, along with the dangerous convicts that made up the individuals (plural) that attempted to assassinate US Congressman in 1954 being checked out by (of all people) Bolden connected to the 11/2/63 [cancelled] Chicago trip, is of supreme importance to both 11/2/63 and 11/22/63. When one adds in all the Chicago and Illinois Secret Service and FBI agents investigating Lloyd John Wilson and what Chicago Secret Service agent Nemo Ciochina conveyed to me about a) a conspiracy in Chicago b) Lloyd John Wilson and c) Puerto Rican persons of interest, it is very clear that the threat of Puerto Rican plotters existed. And, again- the head of the Chicago office, Maurice Martineau, adamantly believed there was a conspiracy (and his Executive Session testimony via the HSCA has never been released; same with SAIC of WHD Gerald Behn's Executive Session testimony. The staff interviews: yes. Not these.] 

Fred writes: "My guess is that somebody from the Chicago office checked on these people once a year, and Bolden got the short stick this year." This is pure speculation on Fred's part. Again- tying together Ciochina's statements (a plot in Chicago and Puerto Rican persons of interest) with McNally's statement about a threat from Puerto Rican snipers on the prior Chicago trip in the same year of 1963. Bolden, Martineau, and Ciochina all believed there was a conspiracy, not buffs or writers. And, yes: Chicago office agent Lois Sims also mentioned Puerto Rican subjects. Fred believes that "He was most probably thinking of Homer Echevarria" but, again, that is pure speculation on Fred's part. 

Regarding Lloyd John Wilson, Fred writes (incorporating my statement first): [Vince-]"The importance of the agents who were investigating Wilson, former White House Detail agents who left the detail during the Summer and Fall of 1963, joining field offices and investigating this mortal threat to JFK, is not noted and, thus, is conveniently ignored.

[Fred-]Yes, ignored because the point is so opaque that nobody understands it. What on earth are you trying to say?" It is very obvious to myself and those who have provided me with positive feedback about the book so far: Wilson was as important as Ciochina claimed because of agents who left the White House Detail for field offices to investigate Wilson and follow his trail, including several from, of all places in America, the Chicago office. Wilson contacted a Chicago newspaper and entered the Chicago FBI not long after the assassination and was arraigned in a Chicago courtroom. When one also sees who the agents were in the investigation-Martineau, Tucker, Noonan, all from the Chicago office, as well as Fred Backstrom from the Springfield ILLINOIS office, the Chicago connection is strong. White House Detail agent Tony Sherman leaves the detail soon after the 9/10/63 Wilson threat is conveyed to him and WHD SAIC Gerald Behn and Sherman goes to the Spokane, Washington field office headed by SAIC Norman Sheridan who, lo and behold, is involved in the Wilson investigation filing reports (Sherman would also head to Dallas right after the assassination to become involved in the investigation, along with fellow former White House Detail agent Charles Kunkel who, like Sherman, left the detail in this Summer/Fall period in which approximately 15 agents left for field offices, a highly unusual situation). Secret Service agent James Giovanetti, who guarded JFK at Hyannis Port in 1962-1963, also leaves that protective detail to go to a field office, this time headed by Tom Hanson, again (like the displaced Sherman) filing reports.

Again, the Wilson investigation was not a "bum steer" regardless of what the ultimate official conclusion on Wilson was. Not only did Ciochina of the Chicago office call attention to him (in the midst of stating that the real conspiracy was in Chicago and in addition to Puerto Rican persons of interest), the number of reports, especially those PRIOR to 11/2/63 and/or 11/22/63, and the specific agents involved in the investigation, are very important details. If Wilson was just another "threat" (some "nut"), he would not have risen to the level he did (even involving the White House Detail). And, again- I never heard of Wilson until Ciochina mentioned him and no one I know in the research community did, either. I can recall no book or forum post or article mentioning him. Wilson was very far from common knowledge. Sure, millions and millions of documents are in repositories like the National Archives and the Mary Ferrell Foundation, but it is a classic case of a needle in a haystack (or perhaps that old adage "if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it really make a sound?"). If no one calls attention to him, he basically does not exist to the research community and authors at large. All I am receiving in feedback from people is "wow- I never heard of Wilson before." Same here...until last year.

Fred writes: "I mean, come on, Wilson said that he paid Oswald $1,000 [10,000 in today's money] at a wrestling match in San Francisco to kill Kennedy, and you think this is a worthwhile lead?"  It may be, especially when one considers all the incidents of Oswald impostors. It could very well have been someone claiming to be Oswald. It could also be (Fred will love this one) a "bum steer" on this specific point. But it is important to not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. The level of federal interest in Wilson and all the pre-11/2/ pre-11/22/63 reports----and the specific agents involved and their locations---is of prime importance. If these reports were all AFTER 11/22/63 (say, during the Garrison investigation of 1967) and involved agents of no great importance (and no Chicago connection), then one can make a case that perhaps Wilson was a "bum steer." But everything is in the context of the situation:

Ciochina from the Chicago office calls attention to Wilson. Ciochina says the real conspiracy was in Chicago (and even throws Fred a bone, stating that Oswald acted all alone in Dallas).

Ciochina's and Bolden's boss, Chicago SAIC Maurice Martineau, believed there was a conspiracy.

Abraham Bolden of the Chicago office believed there was a conspiracy.

Chicago agents Martineau, Joseph Noonan (former White House Detail agent for JFK) and Ed Tucker (former White House Detail agent for JFK who just joined the office that Summer of 1963) are involved in the investigation of Wilson.

Former Hyannis Port JFK agent Jim Giovanetti (1962-1963) is also involved in the Wilson investigation.

Former White House Detail agent Tony Sherman (Ike era to late September/early October 1963) leaves the Detail after the 9/10/63 Wilson threat reaches him and also joins the investigation, even coming to Dallas after 11/22/63 to join that investigation. 

These are all specific and important details that add to the importance of Lloyd John Wilson. If Wilson was merely some crackpot who wrote a threatening note to President Kennedy, he would NOT have received this kind of interest. I have never seen this level of interest before...not since Oswald!

Fred writes: "There are always lots of threats. You have not demonstrated that there was a plot. If you were honest, you would admit that the ONLY source for a plot is Abraham Bolden. There are no corroborating documents or witnesses, and Bolden's story changes every time he tells it. You can source JFK Revisited or JFK and the Unspeakable, or Edwin Black's article, but the only source is Bolden." This is so wrong I almost don't know what more to say. See my prior statements above regarding Fred's prior points/ parts. Look no further than the threat of Puerto Rican snipers (not a sniper---snipers) on the prior Chicago trip (3/23/63) in the very same year. Yes, I believe this is very important and pertinent to the cancelled Chicago trip of 11/2/63. Martineau, Ciochina and Bolden all believed there was a conspiracy. Very important: not buffs or authors. Chicago agents. 

As for Bolden not mentioning a Chicago plot in 1964, he was still an agent and probably feared serious repercussions if he dared to mention it then. He was already in serious federal trouble as a federal agent and, without crucial documents and corroboration (no way would his colleagues have helped him for fear that THEY would get in trouble), there was no need to add to his troubles. Martineau, no friend of Bolden, and Ciochina ironically came to Bolden's "rescue" regarding the Chicago plot later. 

Fred writes: "Bolden's story changes every time he tells it. Shouldn't this give us pause? It's his story, after all. The fact that he named suspects in the Garrison case back in 1968 as two of the gunmen is a huge red flag, no?" Maybe, maybe not. It is important to (using that old adage once again) not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Perhaps Bolden's words were twisted, misinterpreted or exaggerated via his interrogators/friends and/or Bolden was perhaps a tad zealous in wanting to aim to please people who could perhaps get him out of prison/ out of his troubles. Bolden told me he NEVER said some of the things ascribed to him by other writers (Gus Russo, Paris Flammonde). All one can do all these decades later is weigh and consider evidence with our biases in full bloom. Fred believes Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy: that is his lens or prism through which he views all so-called "conspiracy" statements/claims of evidence. Likewise, I am a conspiracy writer (albeit one who famously went to the dark side 17 years ago for a brief time) who views things through my own lens/prism. I will never convince Fred and Fred will never convince me; it is what it is. 

Fred writes: "Who cares if Paterni was a former OSS man who served with Angleton [and Ray Rocca]? How is that relevant?" See what I mean? :)

Fred writes: "

-I adamantly disagree with Fred's dismissal of FBI agent/spokesman Thomas Coll and his 1975 statements about "people" [plural] being picked up at Soldiers Field in Chicago. Coll was a distinguished and long serving member of the Bureau:

This quotation comes from the Edwin Black article. We have no idea what he was really talking about or if the quotation is accurate." Again, Coll was a very distinguished FBI spokesman who could have sued the pants off Edwin Black for falsely quoting him or, at the very least, could have issued an official statement denouncing what Black espoused that Coll allegedly said. Coll was an active agent and this was only 12 years after the assassination: if Coll is stating that "some people [plural] were picked up" regarding THE CHICAGO PLOT, you can take it to the bank, as his stating this and it being false would have led to serious consequences. 
But, since Fred doesn't find Coll credible (or Ciochina or anyone else), there is no hope for him.
I will pray for you, Fred. :)
Fred Litwin's "review" and reply is an epic failure.-----------------
Man, this guy will not give up!
Fred criticizes my very small mention of Rose Cherami and relatively short mention of Richard Case Nagell. All I can say for both is that I merely followed what quite a few others before me (DiEUGENIO, etc.) have written about both.