web hosting short URLs photo sharing

PROBABLE CAUSE AUSTRALIA

A Continuing Inquiry into the JFK Assassination

Editorial

Whitlam (left, seated)
and Kerr (right, standing)

"THE WRONG PEOPLE"

BUYING BACK THE FARM

THE LOANS AFFAIRS

Cairns (left), Connor (middle),
Whitlam (right)

THE CAIRNS LOAN AFFAIR

THE KHEMLANI AFFAIR

TOWARDS DISMISSAL

Malcolm Fraser,
Opposition Leader

ENTER THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL

The Governor-General
Sir John Kerr

THE DISMISSAL - NOVEMBER 11, 1975

The Prime Minister, Mr. Gough Whitlam
is dismissed on November 11, 1975

KERR'S COUP

TROUBLE ON THE HORIZON

AMERICAN TOES

PINE GAP

Pine Gap

SECURITY RISK

THE HATCHET MAN

UNRELIABLE

THE MURPHY RAID

James Jesus Angleton

ASIO, ASIS, AND THE CIA

THE SPY UNCOVERED

Kerr (left) and Doug Anthony (right),
CIA connections.

"NATIONAL SECURITY"

[authors' emphasis]. THE CIA FEELS GRAVE CONCERNS AS TO WHERE THIS TYPE OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION MAY LEAD. THE DG SHOULD BE ASSURED THAT CIA DOES NOT LIGHTLY ADOPT THIS ATTITUDE. YOUR URGENT ADVICE WOULD BE APPRECIATED AS TO THE REPLY WHICH SHOULD BE MADE TO CIA. AMBASSADOR IS FULLY INFORMED OF THIS MESSAGE.

When Shackley was interviewed years later, he said that his cable had authorisation from above. Although he did not name names, the implication was that Kissinger had given the OK. (Book of Leaks, p. 97).

The implications of the message were firstly that the CIA was by-passing the Australian government and virtually demanding that ASIO intervene and pressure the government, and that ASIO has an obligation of loyalty to the CIA to do so. The message was not meant to be passed on to Whitlam. However, the acting head of ASIO was a Whitlam appointee who saw the seriousness of the matter. He handed the cable to Whitlam. The cable was made public several years later.

The cable also made it clear that the CIA had been deceiving Australian government about Richard Stallings and Pine Gap. What else were they deceiving the Australian government about?

The cable also implied that the CIA would threaten to cut off the flow of intelligence information to the Australian services, and perhaps take even more strenuous action. As Shackley's cable indicated, there were several other CIA men working under cover in Australia. Their identities had not been revealed by Whitlam, but by the media. Nevertheless, there was no way for Shackley and the CIA to know how much Whitlam knew, and how much he would reveal to the public, especially about Pine Gap, but also about other CIA activities in Australia. Shackley may have already known that Whitlam had begun to look into CIA matters in Australia.

By revealing what he knew already, Whitlam had telegraphed his intentions. He had to be stopped.

Whitlam did not have the opportunity to present the proof he had about CIA involvement in Australian politics to Parliament on November 11. He was dismissed by Governor-General Sir John Kerr at 1:10 p.m. that day.

What may be nearly as unfortunate as the Dismissal of an elected government is the timing of Whitlam's revelations about the CIA and Anthony. Labor Minister Clyde Cameron, wrote in his diaries, "Once his allegations hit the headlines, the sources dried up immediately." (The Cameron Diaries, p. 499). Whitlam had moved too soon.

CIA IN CRISIS

Even in November 1975, speculation about CIA involvement in the Dismissal was rife. Since that day, speculation has not dampened.

Yet from the time allegations about Richard Stallings and Pine Gap hit the papers, the CIA and the American government denied any involvement in Australia.

This is understandable, considering that while the events of the dismissal unfolded, several Congressional committees were investigating the CIA's activities all over the world. The CIA were facing pressures never before encountered. On November 2, 1975, the same day Whitlam made his accusations about the National Country Party being funded by the CIA, Henry Kissinger fired CIA director William Colby for being too honest with Congress. The CIA was in trouble.

If Whitlam had stood up in Parliament on November 11 and revealed that Pine Gap was a CIA-run installation and that the CIA were funding political parties in Australia, the US Congress may have initiated an investigation into CIA activities in Australia. It is bad enough to undermine a third world government, but to undermine an ally is worse. The CIA would have been condemned and swiftly re-organised or worse, possibly shut down completely.

Therefore they continued to deny any involvement in the political events in Australia, and hoped the matter would fade away.

STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH

Despite CIA denials, a picture has formed of their dirty tricks in Australia. And much of the evidence comes straight from the mouths of CIA employees.

Former CIA deputy director of intelligence, Ray Cline, denies that there was any "formal" CIA covert action program against the Whitlam government during Cline's time in office (Cline left the CIA in 1973). "I'm sure we never had a political action program, although some people around the office were beginning to think we should." He explains that the US and Australia had a very healthy relationship in the area of intelligence exchange. "But when the Whitlam government came to power, there was a period or turbulence to do with Alice Springs [Pine Gap]." He went on to say, "the whole Whitlam episode was very painful. He had a very hostile attitude."

Cline denied direct CIA interference, but outlined a scenario he saw as acceptable US intelligence behavior. "You couldn't possibly throw in a covert action program to a country like Australia, but the CIA would go so far as to provide information to people who would bring it to the surface in Australia..." for example a Whitlam error "which they were willing to pump into the system so it might be to his damage." Such actions do not, in Cline's opinion, amount to a "political operation."

The method as outlined by Cline would be for the CIA to supply damaging information which the Australian security services would use against the government, presumably via other people, such as the media and the Opposition parties. This scenario fits well with what others have said. A US diplomat stationed in Australia at the time, tells how CIA station chief in Australia, John Walker would "blow in the ear" of National Country Party members, and not long afterwards, the Whitlam government would be asked embarrassing questions in Parliament (The National Times, March 21-27, 1982).

Former Deputy Prime Minister Jim Cairns concurred that the methods used by the CIA would be as simple as that. When asked if he thought the CIA were capable of interfering with Australian politics, Cairns told the authors, "The CIA is capable, no doubt." By interfering, Cairns means gossip, influencing people by words. He also said it was not a "conspiracy" as such, but that these people are like that anyway. That is, the CIA would seek out like-minded people: "They think the same way, act the same way -- it's not a conspiracy as such, just the way they think and act. And it's still going on today."

The loans affairs are perfect examples where "gossip" could have been used to good effect - - and was.

WAS CAIRNS SET-UP?

Whitlam (left)
and Cairns (right)

The evidence that Cairns was set up is compelling. The motives may have been not only to discredit and damage the Whitlam government, but also to get him out of the way. Cairns was already one of the most popular Labor ministers for his leadership of the anti-Vietnam war movement. His popularity rose over Christmas 1974, when as Acting Prime Minister he flew to Darwin to view the destruction caused by Hurricane Tracy. As Deputy Prime Minister, he would be the next in line to take on the leadership of the Labor Party. But as he was even more left-wing and anti-American than Whitlam, the prospect of Cairns being the next Prime Minister frightened the CIA. Even early on attempts were made to discredit Cairns. For example, ASIO leaked their dossier on him to the Bulletin (June 1974). It indicated that ASIO's main concern about Cairn's was the "terrorist" potential of his part in the anti-Vietnam war protests.

Far more startling are the facts concerning George Harris and the loans affair. The letter Harris showed Cairns was from Commerce International, an arms dealing company based in Belgium, and with widespread links with the CIA. Commerce International is a highly classified topic at the CIA.

It does not seem completely clear how the Opposition obtained knowledge of the letter with Cairns signature on it. However, Harris was seen with Phillip Lynch, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, a few days before Cairns was asked in Parliament about the letter. If Harris was legitimate, why would he leak the information to the Opposition?

Further evidence of a set-up was provided by Leslie Nagy, an intermediary at the meeting between Cairns and Harris. According to Nagy, Cairns had left the meeting, refusing to sign his name to a letter making a commitment to a brokerage fee. Yet minutes later, to Nagy's surprise, Harris produced a letter with Cairns' signature agreeing to the 2.5% brokerage fee. While Harris denies that he set Cairns up, Cairns still does not acknowledge that he signed the incriminating letter.

Lastly, the CIA themselves provided an interesting hint that there was some sleight-of-hand in the loans affair. The National Intelligence Daily, the CIA's intelligence gathering arm's top secret briefing document for the President reported on July 3, 1975 that Dr. Cairns had been sacked, "even though some of the evidence had been fabricated." An ASIO officer writing for the Bulletin in June 1976 concurred. He said he believed that "some of the documents which helped discredit the Labor Government in the last year in office were forgeries planted by the CIA."

CREEPY KHEMLANI

Khemlani was a suspicious character from the word go. Why Connor chose to deal through him in the first place, and why he continued to deal with him, is a mystery.

Khemlani's behavior during the 11 months of the loans affair was certainly peculiar. The heads of the Treasury Department and the Reserve Bank had various lengthy discussions about him. They asked the very pertinent question of why Khemlani had volunteered in the first place, and why he continued to say he could get the $4 billion loan. After all, Khemlani spent a great deal of time, and presumably a great deal of money, yet the Australian government had never promised him anything in return and had never paid him a cent. In fact, the arrangement was that Khemlani was to be paid by whomever provided the loan, rather than by the Australian government. So where was Khemlani getting his money? Why was he so patient, and why did he continue to search for the money when he was promised nothing in return?

Khemlani

Khemlani's connections, and his activities after the Dismissal shed some light on the loans affair.

Khemlani heard about the Australian loan from Thomas Yu, a Hong Kong businessman. Both Yu and Khemlani's friend Theo Crannendonk had entered into a joint venture with Commerce International's Gerhard Whiffen, CI's Singapore representative, in a proposal to ship arms to the CIA backed rebels in Angola. The joint venture also included Chris Brading and Don Booth. Booth was a former CIA employee. Brading was a pilot for Air America, a CIA airline which operated extensively during the Vietnam war all over South East Asia.

It is highly possible that Yu sent Khemlani to Australia to conduct dirty tricks for the CIA.

Interestingly, the CIA says it does not have any files on Khemlani. However, they told journalists Brian Toohey and Marian Wilkinson that the NSA did have information on Khemlani. The National Security Agency (NSA) is the US intelligence organisation which intercepts communications overseas to pass on to other intelligence agencies. It is not surprising that they would have intelligence on Khemlani, as he was firing off telexes all over the Middle East. The NSA was very active in monitoring communications in the area, especially in the mid 1970s.

Several years after the loans affair, Khemlani was still up to his old tricks, defrauding people of their money. In 1980, Khemlani financially ruined an American businessman by the name of Charles Murphy. He left behind in Murphy's home suitcases full of documents detailing many of his activities over the last couple of years, including his connection with the Nugan Hand Bank of Sydney.

In 1978, Khemlani entered into a relationship with the Nugan Hand Bank's Cayman Island's branch. The Nugan Hand Bank was based in Sydney from 1970. It collapsed in 1980 when one of its co-founders, Frank Nugan, was found dead in his car, with ex-CIA chief William Colby's business card in his pocket. Nugan Hand Bank has since been found to have extensive links to arms and drug dealing, and the CIA. Its list of employees reads like a who's who of the CIA and US military circles. The other co-founder of Nugan Hand, Michael Hand, disappeared after the bank's collapse. Hand was employed by the CIA for covert operations in South East Asia during the Vietnam War. Other Nugan Hand managers included General Edwin Black (Commander of US forces in Thailand), Rear-Admiral Earl Yates (former Chief of Staff for Policy and Plans of the US Pacific Command and a counter- insurgency specialist), Patry Loomis (CIA employee), and William Colby, head of the CIA.

It is not known if Khemlani's ties with Nugan Hand predated their relationship in 1978. But in September of that year, he contacted them with a proposal to have Nugan Hand act as a trustee for several of Khemlani's projects.

The papers held by Murphy also show that after his loan-raising activities with Australia, he went on to pull similar stunts in several third world countries, including Haiti, Sierra Leone, and Ghana.

In 1979, Khemlani was arrested by the FBI for stealing $1 million worth of bonds from the Citizens National Bank in Chicago. He was given a suspended 3 year sentence for turning state's evidence and fingering the Mafia people he was working for. US authorities informed ASIO of Khemlani's arrest. Why they told ASIO is not known, as there were no Australian warrants out for his arrest.

Other evidence corroborates Khemlani's possible CIA connections:
* Former CIA employee Ralph McGehee came out with his own tell-all book on the CIA, Deadly Deceits, following the example to Victor Marchetti and Phillip Agee, who in the early 1970s released their own books about the CIA's nefarious activities. McGehee says that the CIA played a major part in the downfall of Connor and Cairns by releasing forged documents. The documents were tabled in Parliament to discredit and damage the Whitlam government. The documents provided by Khemlani were among the forgeries.

* On November 11, 1975, Whitlam received a letter, along with a draft of a telex, which shows the CIA involvement with Khemlani. The draft was found in a hotel room in Hawaii, and was posted anonymously to Whitlam.
The draft reads:
DRAFT COPY ONLY

1. DO NOT TRANSMIT VIA PHONE OR LETTER. ENCIPHER BEFORE TRANSMITTING BY TELEX CONTACT 'LM' AT 536 6009 FOR ASSISTANCE

. REFERENCE YOUR CORRESPONDENCE ON 11 OCT, 1975.

ON 16 OCT., MR. T. KHEMLANI WILL BE DEPARTING FOR SINGAPORE TO ARRANGE MATTERS IN CASE GOVERNMENT CAPITULATION SEEMS NEAR.

IF NOT MR. KHEMLANI WILL RETURN TO AUSTRALIA ON OR ABOUT 26 OCT 75 TO CREATE FURTHER CHAOS.

NEWSPAPERS' EDITORIALS MUST CONTINUE TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE LABOR GOVERNMENT IF CAPITULATION IS TO SUCCEED.

IF NECESSARY OFFER....

IF CAPITULATION DOES NOT SUCCEED BY 14 NOVEMBER 75, SUPPORT FROM OVERSEAS WILL CEASE UNTIL MID 76. (Author's emphasis).

The draft telex appeared in the Sun newspaper in May 1977. The reporter said that the CIA denied they had anyone with the initials 'LM' working in Hawaii.

But when a National Times newspaper reporter rang the number given in the draft, they were connected to CIA headquarters in Hawaii.

WAS NUGAN HAND INVOLVED?

In 1981, a CIA contract employee, Joseph Flynn, claimed that he had been paid to forge some documents relating to the loans affair, and also to bug Whitlam's hotel room. The person who paid him was Michael Hand, co-founder of the Nugan Hand Bank. (The National Times, Jan. 4-10, 1981).

THE BOYCE TRIAL

In 1977, more confirmation and details about the CIA's involvement in Australian politics emerged when Christopher Boyce and Andrew Dalton Lee were arrested in the United States for selling secrets to the Soviet Union.

Boyce started work in 1974 with TRW Incorporated, a Californian aerospace company which did contract work for the CIA. Boyce's job was as a cipher clerk in the "black vault", a code room where top-secret messages from American bases and satellites were received and deciphered. Among the bases sending messages via TRW was Pine Gap.

Christopher Boyce,
hero and traitor

Boyce and Lee were both disillusioned by the state of America. One day, whilst discussing the Watergate scandal and the CIA inspired coup in Chile, Boyce said to Lee, "You think that's bad? You should hear what the CIA is doing to the Australians." He then told Lee about the deceptions practiced by the US on the Australian government.

Boyce and Lee decided that the best way to change things was to sell the secrets Boyce learned in the black vault to the Soviets. Boyce would photograph documents, and Lee sold them to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. While Boyce's motivation was his idealism, Lee, a drug-addict, was in it for the money.

They were caught in 1977. Lee was arrested for loitering outside the Soviet embassy in Mexico City, and was brought back to the United States to face trial.

At his trial, part of Boyce's defence was that he was opposed to American and CIA activities overseas, particularly in Australia. Boyce told of his initial briefing at TRW, when he was informed that most of the communication received in the black vault came from Pine Gap, and that despite an agreement between the US and Australian governments to share the information obtained at Pine Gap, the US was not honoring the agreement. "Certain information" was being with-held from Australia.

Boyce also told that Pine Gap was being used to monitor international telephone calls and telexes to and from Australia, especially those of a political and business nature. In addition, he said he had come across cables from the Canberra bureau chief to Langley inferring that the CIA had worked to subvert Australian unions, especially in the transport industry, and had funded the Opposition parties during Whitlam's term. The CIA had been very concerned about an airport strike which would have delayed transportation of new equipment to Pine Gap. According to Boyce, the cable he saw said "don't worry about that, send the stuff, we'll take care of the strike the way we always do." (Sunday Press, 23 May, 1982). He also told reporter William Pinwill that the CIA had a deep distrust for the Whitlam government, and had a great interest in the "monetary crisis" of 1975.

The fact that communications between Pine Gap and the US were handled by a private company was also news to Australia (The Sun, 27 May, 1977)

Boyce's lawyers had wanted to introduce evidence supporting Boyce's claims about CIA activity in Australia. However, the judge complied with a CIA request not to allow it, because of concerns about revealing secret government information.

Both Lee and Boyce were found guilty of selling secrets to the Soviets. Lee was immediately given a life sentence. However, Boyce was sent for 90 days of psychiatric evaluation, which indicated that he might get a light sentence, probably if he kept quiet about the allegations concerning Australia. Boyce made it clear he was "outraged" about the treatment of Australia, and was subsequently given a 40 year sentence. He is kept in solitary confinement.

In 1980, Boyce escaped from prison, and led the Federal Marshalls on an 18-month chase before he was caught again. The total sentence he now has to serve is 68 years. The circumstances surrounding his escape are very suspicious.

OTHERS SPEAK

RICHARD STALLINGS
Despite repeated denials that Stallings was a CIA employee, Ted Shackley admitted Stallings' affiliations in his cable to ASIO on the 8th of November, 1975.

Stallings went into early retirement in 1975 after suffering an injury in a car crash.

However, during his tenure as head of Pine Gap, Stallings complained bitterly about CIA activities in Australia. According to Victor Marchetti, who knew Stallings well, Stallings was "copping a lot of static from the clandestine guys operating out of Canberra. Stallings didn't approve of the stuff at the time; he figured his information-gathering operation at Pine Gap was being put at risk by the station chief's men, who were interfering in Australia's political parties and labor unions." (Mother Jones, p. 20)

JAMES JESUS ANGLETON
In June 1977, during the furor caused by the Boyce trial, Angleton was interviewed on ABC radio's Broadband program, after complaints from ABC's top brass that the ABC had run too many programs slamming the CIA. For "balance", they asked Angleton to come on and give the Agency's point-of-view. Angleton had "retired" in 1974, but had devoted several years to attempting to restore the CIA's battered image. Angleton discussed many aspects of the "security crisis" which was the Whitlam government (in his opinion), including Murphy's raid on ASIO, Pine Gap, and whether the CIA funded political parties in Australia. When asked "If there was any funding by the CIA in Australian politics or unions, would it have had to come through your office in the time that you were there?" Angleton answered somewhat cryptically, "I will put it this way very bluntly -- no one in the agency would ever believe that I would subscribe to any activity that was not co-ordinated with the chief of the Australian internal security." (Freney, The CIA's Australian Connection, p. 29) . He did not deny CIA funding, nor would he clarify his statement. He simply inferred that if the CIA were involved in Australian politics and unions, ASIO would know about it.

VICTOR MARCHETTI
In an interview with the Sydney Sun, the former CIA agent related what Richard Stallings had told him. He said that Stallings had told him that the CIA station chief in Canberra had channeled money directly to the conservative political parties (Liberals and the National Country Party). Marchetti said that money was used to undermine the Labor Party, since at least 1967. He also said that there were about six to eight "upfront" CIA agents in Canberra, and up to 30 clandestine operatives throughout Australia.

ANONYMOUS SOURCE
Robert Lindsay, who wrote two books about the Boyce trial, interviewed a CIA agent who wished to remain anonymous. The agent confirmed Boyce's allegations, but said that the CIA involvement in Australia was more complicated than Boyce realised. The agent said that CIA money was given to the Coalition and would probably have been sent through ASIO (Flight of the Falcon).

WHITLAM'S EVIDENCE

When the authors contacted former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, he politely declined to answer questions regarding CIA involvement in Australian politics. He did however, suggest that we read what he had said and written in the past.

While Whitlam was not able on November 11, 1975, to give his evidence to Parliament regarding the CIA and Richard Stallings, he did raise the matter in Parliament on May 4, 1977, because of the allegations of CIA activity brought up by the Boyce trial and by Victor Marchetti, a former CIA employee. Whitlam began by saying, "There is increasing and profoundly disturbing evidence that foreign espionage and intelligence activities are being practiced in Australia on a wide scale."

"Well might we say..."
Whitlam's famous speech on the steps
of Parliament after being sacked

He went to speak about the Boyce trial, and said that he had suggested to Prime Minister Fraser that he bring the matter to the attention to Justice Hope (who was still conducting the Hope Royal Commission into intelligence organisations in Australia).

Whitlam then spoke about the cable sent to ASIO headquarters by Ted Shackley. He commented that "In plain terms, the cable revealed that the CIA had deceived the Australian Government and was still seeking to continue its deception. It confirmed that Mr. Stallings had been employed by the CIA. The cable made it clear that the CIA was making what was described, in the jargon of the trade, as an 'official demarche on a service to service link' -- in other words, without informing the elected Government of Australia. Implicit in the CIA's approach to ASIO for information on events in Australia was an understanding that the Australian organisation had obligations of loyalty to the CIA itself before its obligations to the Australian Government. The tone and content of the CIA message were offensive; its implications were sinister. Here was a foreign intelligence service telling Australia's domestic security service to keep information from the Australian Government."

Whitlam also read out the statement he had prepared in response to Doug Anthony's question on notice for 11 November, 1975: "I did not disclose that Mr. Stallings was a CIA agent. The Right Honorable gentleman [Anthony] did that. I was informed that Mr. Stallings worked for the CIA, not by the head of the Australian Foreign Affairs Department, or the United States State Department, but by the head of another of our Departments which in turn was informed by a Department in the United States other than the State Department."

Whitlam then said, "The coup on 11 November prevented that answer being given." (Hansard, May 4, 1977)

Whitlam also briefly discusses (for less than two pages) CIA involvement in the "security crisis" in his book, The Whitlam Government, 1972-1975. He comments that the newspaper stories disclosing the identity of Stallings and other CIA agents "greatly agitated" both Australian and US security services. "The CIA sent a cable to ASIO which must have been founded on the assumption that ASIO would put its links with the CIA ahead of its obligations to the Australian Government." He went on to say, "The episode lent colour to allegations that the CIA had been eavesdropping on me and my Ministers and had influenced the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to sack us."

However, Whitlam seems unwilling to say more than that. As he said in Parliament in 1977, "The difficulty which any head of government faces in responding to these matters -- or any former head of government...is that he is bound by obligations of secrecy in the national interest. He cannot disclose what he knows. I readily acknowledge my own obligation. " (Hansard, 4 May, 1977, p. 1522). He will not reveal the confidences given to him by, or information about, the American installations in Australia.

While Whitlam seems to accept that at the very least Australia should investigate whether the CIA has interfered with Australian politics, he is not so sure of Sir John Kerr's role in relation to the security crisis.

In The Whitlam Government, he says, "It is a fact that any country with the technical resources of the US can eavesdrop on anyone in the world if it feels the effort worthwhile....It is not a fact, however, that Kerr, fascinated as he had long been with intelligence matters, needed any encouragement from the CIA." (pp. 51-52)

"OUR MAN KERR"

Among Christopher Boyce's allegations is that the CIA chief at TRW had referred to Australia's Governor-General as "Our man Kerr."

One of the most contentious questions about the dismissal was whether Kerr acted on his own in dismissing Whitlam, or whether he was working to further someone else's goals. The question has come up in relation to the Liberal-National Party Coalition, and to the CIA and the intelligence community.

Kerr consulted with High Court Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick before making the decision about the Senate deadlock. Garfield was a former Liberal minister.

Perhaps more serious than that are the allegations that Kerr was informed of the CIA and the intelligence community's concerns about Whitlam.

Kerr had a long association with the intelligence community, particularly military intelligence. During World War Two, he worked for the Directorate of Research and Civil Affairs, part of military intelligence. Whilst in Washington, he was seconded to the Office of Strategic Services (the OSS, precursor to the CIA). Kerr continued to work in intelligence after the war in the School of Civil Affairs (later renamed the School of Pacific Administration).

Stepping out...
Anthony, Kerr and Fraser take control

Later he became involved with the Association for Cultural Freedom, which is said to be closely affiliated with the activities of the CIA and US State Department. He was also the founding president of the Law Association for Asia and the Western Pacific (LawAsia). Kerr went to the US to obtain funds for LawAsia from the Asia Foundation. The Asia Foundation was discovered in 1967 to be backed by the CIA. According to CIA man Victor Marchetti, the Asia Foundation "often served as a cover for clandestine operations [and] its main purpose was to promote the spread of ideas which were anti-communist and pro-American." (CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, p. 178-79) Despite this (or because of it?), Kerr again went to the Asia Foundation to obtain funds for LawAsia.

It is not known if Whitlam was aware of Kerr's association with the intelligence community when he appointed him Governor-General. As Governor-General, Kerr was said to take an unusual interest in foreign policy and intelligence matters.

So much so that, according to Brian Toohey, on November 8, the day that ASIO received Ted Shackley's cable calling Whitlam a security threat, "a senior Australian defence official" was sent to brief Kerr "about allegations from the CIA that the then Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, was jeopardizing the security bases in Australia." (Financial Review, April 1977). The official is believed to be Dr. John Law Farrands, chief scientist at the Defence Department. He was probably sent by Tange. Farrands, Tange, Kerr all denied that Kerr was briefed about the CIA's concerns. Whether Kerr was influenced by the CIA's concerns is not known. But his timing of the dismissal is curious.

PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY

As can be expected, there is no "smoking gun" which links the CIA to the demise of the Whitlam government. There is no substantial evidence that there was a carefully orchestrated plot against Whitlam. Nevertheless, there is a large body of evidence pointing to the CIA. As the Governor of Victoria, and a former judge, Richard McGarvie says, "sometimes the most reliable evidence is circumstantial evidence."

Subtle means were used to bring down the Labor government. All that was necessary was for the CIA to find like-minded people, and whisper in their ears information which could be used to discredit and destabilise their mutual enemy.

The evidence pointing to the CIA's dirty dealings includes:
* Why did Sir John Kerr sack Whitlam on the same day that Whitlam was to provide proof to Parliament that the former head of Pine Gap was a CIA agent, thus proving that the US had been misleading Australia about the bases?
* Whitlam was dismissed just weeks before the crucial Pine Gap contract was to be reviewed.
* The CIA knew, and informed the US President, that documents used to discredit Jim Cairns were probably forgeries. How did they know? Did they provide them?
* Questionable loans brokers with links to Commerce International, itself heavily linked to the CIA.
* A draft cable, allegedly from the CIA, admitting that Khemlani was in Australia to cause chaos.
* The Christopher Boyce allegations.
* The words of several CIA employees.
* The deep concern expressed by Ted Shackley's cable that Whitlam would reveal all about Pine Gap and the CIA in Australia.

All solid evidence of CIA involvement - albeit circumstantial.

The only piece of the puzzle missing is a solitary fact, even small, that points the finger at the CIA knowing and participating not only after the event, but before and during.

COUP DE GRACE

The CIA and the US government have repeatedly denied CIA activity in Australia.

In July 1977, President Carter sent Assistant Secretary of State for Asia and the South Pacific, Warren Christopher, out of his way to meet Gough Whitlam at Sydney airport.

Christopher delivered the following message from Carter: "The US State Department will never again interfere in the domestic political process of Australia." (The Whitlam Government, p. 53--emphasis added).

Never again...

The Pine Gap treaty still stands.

The Reserve Powers of the Governor-General to dismiss a democratically elected Government have not been revoked.

The CIA continues operations in Australia.

The events of November 1975 can be repeated.

Postscript

On December 26, 1995 The Australian newspaper ran a front page story, using newly unclassified documents dated July 1, 1974, dealing with President Nixon ordering a full review of the relationship with the Australian Whitlam Government in the "political-security area".

Nixon, through Henry Kissinger, set out six areas to be investigated, all dealing with the supposed security threat to the U.S. military bases from the Whitlam government.

Of most importance is that one of the six areas in this now-released memo has been blacked out for security reasons.

This document is of vital importance to understanding that the Whitlam government was indeed seen as a threat by those in power in Washington. The memo was addressed to the acting Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA and also sent to the Joint Chiefs of Staff!

The censored area, taking up four lines of text, now seems to be the "smoking gun" in the case. After twenty years the American Government still deems these few lines of so vital importance that they are withheld from us completely. What the censored order says is open to conjecture. Could it be an order to contact friends or agents within the government or opposition parties? Could it be an order to unstabilize the Whitlam Government?

Or could it be an order to re-activate Sir John Kerr as an agent for the CIA?

We will not know until the document is unclassified completely.

The document is available here.

We have the key in the lock, one more twist and the door will be wide open.

"Maintain the Rage"
Whitlam addresses thousands of
supporters who surrounded Parliament
House after his sacking

* * * * *

Kennedy & Whitlam - The Parallels

	KENNEDY	WHITLAM
Populist Image:	"Camelot"	"It's Time"
Thawed realations with:	Russia, Cuba	Russia, China, Vietnam
Reformist Policy Base:	Civil Rights Help for the poor	Social Reforms National Health Sysytem Established "Australia First" Policy
On Vietnam:	Prepared for withdrawal	Ended Conscription, withdrew all troops Criticised US and Nixon's role in war
Secret Government:	CIA / FBI / PENTAGON Threatened to scatter CIA to the winds Fired heads Allan Dulles and Richard Bissell	ASIO / ASIS / CIA Fired heads of both ASIO and ASIS Stormed ASIO HQ for documents Launched inquiry into practices and liaisons with USA and CIA
Military Industrial Complex:	Saw JFK as a threat: Possibility of withdrawal from Vietnam Bay of Pigs fiasco Missile Crisis	Whitlam threatened US bases in Australia with closer scrutiny and possible closure
Final Acts:	Signed NSAM #273 starting the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam	Prepared Speech to Parliament to expose CIA operatives in Australia and CIA infiltration of Military Bases (Speech due on November 11, 1975)
Coup D'Etat:	November 22, 1963	November 11, 1975
How?:	Killed in Crossfire in Dallas Most probably by 3 men.	Government Dismissed by Governor General Sir John Kerr. Whitlam Government destroyed undemocratically by 1 man.

---

To the editors and readers of Probable Cause:
an open letter by Walt Brown

It is with a deep sense of sadness that I compose my thoughts for the final issue of this always excellent journal that devoted itself to insightful articles that both brought us in touch with, and closer to the reality of the JFK assassination (and related events) and did so in a way that left the reader entertained and looking eagerly forward to the next issue.

Naturally, the ultimate hope was that Probable Cause would "stop the presses" when the ultimate truth(s) in the JFK assassination and other political anomalies covered within its pages were all brought to light. Alas, this was not to be, but in its all-too-brief lifespan, Probable Cause raised some powerful issues that the movers and shakers in the corridors of power in America could never have dealt with in any meaningful way.

I will always count it among my highest personal accomplishments that I was allowed to contribute to every issue of Probable Cause. It was an honor to be a part of something so vital. Like many of the other journals, Probable Cause did not always have all the answers, but they were unmatched in having all the valid questions. Had the Warren Commission been possessed of Probable Cause's sense of insight and curiosity, perhaps things would have been different. Perhaps, perhaps ......

I have tried always to say as much as possible while maintaining an economy or words, and I shall not violate that principle here. Nor will I put to paper all the maudlin thoughts I have as the final issue approaches. Nevertheless, I would be seriously remiss if I failed to thank the readers of this journal on a personal level. As a 16 year old on the day President Kennedy was killed, I lost more than a President; I lost my surrogate father, a man 48 days younger than my own father. Since then, I have worked to bring that November 1963 tragedy to closure. It is against the background of those thoughts that I extend my deepest gratitude to the editors and readers of Probable Cause, many of whom are not American, for caring about what happened thirty-two years ago in Dallas. To all of you to whom President Kennedy meant so much, please accept my deepest thanks.

If I can help any of your research in any way, please contact me at PO Box 174, Hillsdale, NJ USA; if your question(s) are beyond my ken, I will tell you so. Thanks also for the mail you have sent to this date. Lastly, researcher Jan Stevens and I are going to launch The JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly, scheduled to publish its first issue on October 28. We hope that it will complement the existing quality journals, and certainly one of our first notices will be the loss of Probable Cause. (Please feel free to contribute articles or to subscribe...)

To Probable Cause: your efforts can never be overstated; your successes can never be counted. Only your loss can be measured. God be with ye, Steve, and may the road always rise up to meet you and may the wind always be at your back. I look forward to seeing you sometime soon--I count you and the members of the staff that I met as true friends. From the US--thanks!!

Walt Brown, Ph.D.

---

The Warren Commission/The Warren Omission by Walt Brown, Ph.D.

[This is taken from the "White Lies" section of Treachery in Dallas; that which does not appear in "Treachery" is material that will expand the concept in an upcoming book, "The Warren Omission."]

The Warren Commission, or, more properly, "The President's Commission on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy," was created by Executive Order 11130 on November 29,1963, in the face of a public outcry following the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby. That public outcry might well have led to the creation of investigating bodies by the House, Senate, or the state of Texas, and somewhere in that mix, someone might have discovered the truth. The Warren Commission saved Lyndon Johnson, and the conspiracy that killed JFK, from that concern. It was immediately unique in that seven prominent Americans, who were headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and who had no time to give to the effort, were asked to solve the murder of the President. They were also unique in that although they were appointed by a Democrat, their political makeup was 5 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Presidential commissions, except those doomed to fail, always contain a working majority from the party in power. Except the Warren Commission.

Although appointed on November 29, 1963, they did not take any testimony until February 3, 1964, nine and a half weeks later. What they did in the meantime can be dealt with in two syllables: nothing. The interval, however, allowed many an evidentiary trail to go cold, although it did not much matter, as the Commission only planned to pursue one path, the one pointing to the sole, unaided guilt of Lee Oswald. After all, their mandate as a Commission was three-fold: find out who killed JFK; find out how JFK's killer, Lee Oswald, was killed in custody; and make future recommendations for Presidential security. The third mandate need not concern us, as it didn't particularly concern the Commission. The language of the first two, however, make it obvious that the "seven honorable men" knew the contents of the future "Warren Report" before they called their first witness, who, as it turned out, happened to be the terrified widow of Lee Oswald. The second and third witnesses would also be named Oswald, Marguerite and Robert, respectively. They were called prior to any substantive witness, so they could never rebut material that leaked (not that Robert Oswald would have .... ), and to what purpose were they called? Neither Robert nor Marguerite had seen Lee for a year, and Marina was shown a rifle and asked if she could identify it. Such a course of action would have been proper procedure if there had been evidence introduced into the record that the rifle she was shown had something to do with the assassination, but since she was the first witness, that was not possible, and it demonstrates a "you go ahead and tell us what we want to hear and then we'll find somebody to match what you told us to the evidence" mentality. And a weak one at that.

The Commission was given power to subpoena witnesses, grant immunity, and deal with perjury. They used the subpoena power poorly, as many witnesses only knew to appear thanks to a call or visit from local Secret Service agents. With respect to immunity, it was never used. In the case of Robert Alan Surrey, and others, it should have been. Surrey, a General Walker lackey, was asked a number of questions regarding the publication of the "Wanted For Treason" leaflets that appeared shortly before JFK's arrival in Dallas. Surrey invoked his Fifth Amendment "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might incriminate me" rights thirty-one times. Thirty- one. And the Commission did nothing. Surrey wasn't a suspect; he was there to answer questions about the state of mind in Dallas in November, 1963. He should have been told he was being given immunity (from a prosecution that he obviously felt more strongly about than did the Warren Commission), and told, "Now, sir, you will answer our questions, or your butt will be parked in a detention cell until you do." But it just wasn't done. Surrey declined to answer and the Warren Commission, charged with finding all the information related to the death of the President, could have cared less.

The Warren Commission treated their perjury rights with an equal degree of avoidance. Of course, they had to, as they could not very well publish a Report based on false statements, so all statements had to be true. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, although, in fact, much of what is in the 15 volumes of testimony is nothing but rubbish. And there is much perjury. Howard Brennan lied about his position as an eyewitness, and although David Belin caught him at it, it was swept under the rug (see 3H 142). J. Edgar Hoover, Will Fritz (Oswald's gun, when broken down, would fit in a 27" bag and Helen Markham was a very reliable witness), Jesse Curry (Jack Ruby might have known 25 Dallas cops), and several high ranking Dallas cops and FBI experts also committed perjury. DPD reserve officer William Newman was called a d--- l--- (one presumes "damn liar") by Counsel Burt Griffin, and told to return the following evening with the truth. The following evening, Newman was back, but the questions were asked by Leon Hubert and the previous day's "unpleasantness" was not revisited. "Case Closed," so to speak.

The Commission's published record was blatantly dishonest with respect to attendance by Warren Commissioners at the testimony of witnesses. It should be noted that although 488 witnesses gave testimony, only 93 gave testimony with a Commissioner (as opposed to Counsel, a la Specter, Belin, et al) "present." But even then, those who were "present" frequently were not. There are countless instances of a day's testimony from three, four, or five individuals who were often present together (to guarantee the same story was told???), and Chairman Warren would have a few words to say to the first witness, and then depart for his duties at the Supreme Court. The record, however, indicates he was "present" for all five, and he was, but only in the sense that all five were present when he said, "Please stand to be sworn in" to the first witness. He never said--or heard--a word during the testimony of the others listed. Likewise, there are many times when a Commissioner is listed as "present" for the testimony of those three, four, or five, but the record indicates that, for example, the Commissioner arrived during the testimony of witness three and left during witness four, suggesting absence, not presence, for one, two, and five. In still other cases, individuals are cited as present, and there is no indication if, or when, they arrived or left, but what arrests the reader's attention is that a Commissioner is cited as present for a given witness and never asks one question, suggesting either rehearsed boredom, or absence.

No witness gave testimony in front of all seven members of the Warren Commission, the most damning indictment of the failures of that august body.

Where necessary, the record was altered. Amidst the one-day blitz of medical testimony that takes up only 150 pages of the beginning of Volume VI (and it is arguably among the most valuable, yet it gets little space, compared to Volume XII and the front of XIII, devoted to Dallas cops repeating the obvious--that Oswald was killed by Ruby), there appears the testimony of Jean Hill, cited as having been given at the Dallas post office on the same day as the medical testimony at Parkland. Ms. Hill insists her testimony was given at Parkland, and the record bears her out. On that day, and the times are given precisely, Arlen Specter took a six-page deposition from Diana Bowron at 2:06, then met Jean Hill for twenty-two pages at the post office at 2:30, then was back at Parkland Hospital for Dr. Paul Peters at 4 pm. That timing problem, as stated, makes three shots in five seconds seem easy. Specter's 2:06 deposition with Diana Bowron would have taken virtually until 2:30, the time he was supposedly miles away at the downtown post office. Jean Hill's twenty-two pages no doubt consumed a block of time, which would only allow Specter a moment or two, not a several mile ride back to Parkland, for Dr. Peters at 4.

Of course, with Specter, all things were possible. When confronted with the "problem" that the Parkland consensus suggested the throat wound as an entrance, Specter proposed a hypothesis, which said, without quoting the exact drivel, "There was a hole in the front of the throat. Assume the bullet was fired from the rear. Given that set of assumptions, was the hole in the throat an entrance or exit?" There is, of course, only one answer for Specter's speculation, and the doctors cooperated, or at least gave honest answers to Specter's hypothesis. (Hypothesis posed in 3H 362, 373, 4H 113, 122, 127; 5H 70, 168, 171; 6H 5, 14, 38, 42, 49, 66, 102, 110-111, and 143.) Researchers have noted this in the past. Largely unnoticed, however, is the second of Specter's word games. When Ruby was polygraphed, the examiner told Ruby every question that was to be asked prior to asking them, which is standard procedure. One question was "Did Tippit or Oswald ever visit the Carousel?" Specter insisted the question be changed to "Did Tippit and Oswald ever visit the Carousel?" (14H 557) That's a horse of another color altogether. In addition, when a group of psychiatrists presented a consensus that Ruby was out of touch with reality, making his lie-detector exam useless, Specter had another hypothesis ready: "Assume for the moment that Ruby is in touch with reality..." (14H 586) It was so easy to invent the truth.

Beyond that, just what did the Warren Commission actually do? They called 488 witnesses, as noted, but failed to call people like David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Yuri Nosenko, more than 30 people present at the autopsy, and seven of the eight Secret Service agents in JFK's followup car. On the other hand, they did call Bennierita Smith, Viola Peterman, Edward Voebel, Philip Geraci, Vance Blaloek and Alfreadia Riggs, about whom dozens of words have since been written.

The Commission asked 109,930 questions; I counted them, and evaluated them from a perspective of usefulness. The questions were broken down into preliminaries, to the point, not vital, clarification, leading/hearsay, conclusionary, foregone conclusions, and nonsense. I also categorized the person to whom the questions were being asked. Some had knowledge with respect to the killings of JFK, Oswald, or Tippit. The vast majority, however, were character witnesses--people like Ruth or Michael Paine, George Senator, Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin (and, by extension, the entire "Russian emigre community"), and many others.

The results destroy the Commission's claim even to being an investigative body. The character witnesses, 185 of them, were asked 57,224 questions, the largest amount by far. Ninety-three witnesses were asked 16,836 questions about the death of Oswald, an event which truly held little mystery, at least for anyone who owned a television in 1963. Questions regarding the killing of the President were asked to 177 witnesses, and totalled 30,530 questions. But of those 30+ thousand questions, only 2,065 were questions with validity. Thus of the 109,930 questions asked by the Commission investigating the murder of the President, only 2,065 questions, or 1.8% of the total, were valid questions. The other 107+thousand questions fill a shelf full of shiny volumes and prove nothing.

The Commission's focus in that regard is equally troubling. In my opinion, and I offer it only as an opinion, the key focus is medical: the doctors at Parkland and Bethesda. If you recognize and understand the wounds- ballistics-pathology thoroughly, you know the case, and with a far greater degree of accuracy than if you are dealing with two dozen people who subjectively thought they heard shots from several locations. The medical people, however, were given short shriff. The 109,930 questions, when divided by 488 witnesses, yields an average of just over 225 questions per witness. Yet the medical people were only asked an average of 81 questions each. The three autopsy doctors were asked a total of 304 questions (Humes 215, Boswell 14, Finck 75), yet James Martin, an attorney who handled Marina's contracts after the assassination, was asked 979; Ruby's brother and sister were asked 947 and 918, respectively. It mocks the very word "justice."

I've often asked people at conferences whom they would like to "grill" if they could ask folks the right questions, and the answers have understandably covered a wide range of individuals. Yet when I identify the people asked the most questions by the Commission, there is much that is surprising. Bearing in mind that the autopsists combined were asked 304 questions, the top ten totals included Ruth Paine (5,236), Curtis LaVerne Crafard--of all people-- (3,972), George Senator (2,792), Marina Oswald (2,615), Robert Oswald (2,351), George DeMohrenschfidt (1,628), Andrew Armstrong (1,592), John Pic (1,325), Michael Paine (1,019), and Jesse Curry (1,002). It should be born in mind that nine of those names are character witnesses. Two--Robert Oswald and John Pic--had not seen Lee Oswald since the previous Thanksgiving, November 22, 1962, and two others, Curtis L. Crafard and Andrew Armstrong, are clearly related only to Jack Ruby.

Within the survey itself, I was as scrupulously fair as I could be. Ruby's accountant, of all people, was asked if he knew how Ruby got into the basement to shoot Oswald. The question is valid, and was counted as such, but it might as well have been asked to a derelict in Cairo. (And if you are going to ask that question to Ruby's accountant, you might as well ask Ruby himself how to depreciate long term capital gains.)

Equally troubling was the Commission's unwillingness to hear testimony that was given, or be troubled by obvious inconsistencies. In this regard, they raised the concept of "hear no evil" to a higher level art form and became masters of changing the subject, or calling a recess or going off the record-- often in the middle of an answer. Robert Oswald gave a strong indication that he believed his brother was in league with Jack Ruby; the next question did not deal with that allegation, but rather asked if there was friction between Marina and Marguerite Oswald. A Dallas detective was asked if Oswald exhibited bruises during questioning on Friday evening. The detective answered that he was called away from the questioning to take a phone call detailing a conspiracy that killed JFK. The Commission ignored the conspiracy statement and reasked their question about Oswald's bruises. Roy Kellerman testified that the entrance wound in JFK's head was in the hairline in front of the right ear. Clint Hill indicated the rear of JFK's head was removed but was present on the seat of the limo. Both were ignored. Michael Paine was asked if he could locate the site where the photos were taken of Oswald with his rifle. His answer indicated he was shown the famous "backyard photos" on Friday night. The Commission ignored that fact.

Overlooked in the research is the concept of the very name of the Commission. In the upcoming "Warren Omission" I've included a lengthy time- management study which strongly suggests that based on presence at hearings, involvement in questioning, ability to sidetrack events, and taking a leading role in going "off the record," the Commission should not have been named after its nominal chairperson, Earl Warren, but after Allen Dulles, the former head of the CIA whom Kennedy replaced after the failure at the Bay of Pigs. It is hard to imagine a bigger injustice than asking the people of America and the world to accept the findings of the "Dulles Commission," presided over by a former covert operative fired by the man whose death he was charged to investigate thoroughly.

A bigger injustice, however, is possible. Ultimately, the Warren Commission's case boils down to the credibility of three witnesses, without whom their case becomes almost Posnerian. The Warren Commission relied on the testimony of Howard Brennan, Helen Markham, and Mary Bledsoe to convict Lee Oswald in the public mind for the murder of the President.

For years we have worked with what the Warren Commission did. In Treachery in Dallas, as well as the narrowly focused "Warren Omission: A Microstudy of the Methods and Failures of the Warren Commission," I have looked at how they got their results as well as what they did not do. Far more interesting than the Warren Commission is the Warren Omission.

[Walt Brown, Ph.D., is the author of The People v. Lee Harvey Oswald, plus The JFK Assassination Quizbook, as well as Treachery in Dallas, and The Referenced Index Guide to the Warren Commission. He has contributed to every issue of Probable Cause, and has served as Keynote Speaker at ASK in 1994 and COPA Program Chairperson in 1995. He is also working with LMP Systems in Dallas to help produce the CD-Rom which will contain the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission Testimony and Exhibits, due very soon.]

---

Rosco Who? by David B. Perry

In issue number 9 of Probable Cause, there appeared an article by Ralph D. Thomas entitled The Strange Story of Rosco White - Information, Disinformation or Misinformation. What is intriguing about the piece is that includes all three aspects of the White saga. That is, there is some information, some disinformation and lots of misinformation.

Australia is a long way from the United States both in distance and time so unfiltered details of Kennedy assassination related events are probably hard to come by. I feel it incumbent, because I have researched the White episode for over four years, to provide those of you interested in the story additional details, which for some reason, Thomas neglected to put in his account.

Mr. Thomas previously marketed this article as a chapter in his Missing Links In The JFK Assassination Conspiracy. Missing Links was published as "a collector's edition imprint" by Thomas Investigative Publications, Inc. in 1992. In the three post publication years more has been uncovered and several principals have passed away including Geneva White - February, 1991, Joe West - late 1992 and Larry Howard - January 8, 1994.

I intend to cover many of the points contained in The Strange Story Of Rosco White and provide up to date investigative results. I have submitted copies of some of the documents mentioned to both Steve Gerlach and Mr. Thomas. If the reader wishes to view or obtain duplicates of this material Steve is the closer and less expensive conduit.

"A photograph has been published by assassination researchers for years of a group of Marines in Japan in front of a tent. Oswald is in the photograph and so is a person who looks just like Rosco White. According to the White family, it's Rosco."

The photograph has not been published by assassination researchers. The rights to the photograph belong to former Marine John Marckx. Marckx permitted Edward Epstein to use the photograph in his book Legend - The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald. It also appeared in Time magazine of November 28, 1988 on page 36 and Life of February 21, 1964 on page 75.

Marckx did not take the photograph in Japan but on the northern end of the Philippine archipelago. Oswald's radar unit was involved in a practice exercise, Operation Strongback.

The photograph does not show a group of Marines in front of a tent. The group is sitting in an open clearing waiting to board the USS Terrell County.

The only members of the White family who have identified the Marine in the background as White are Ricky and Geneva. Those that fail to see any resemblance, because the bill of a baseball type cap covers the face of the Marine in question, include his sister - Linda Wells, mother - Merle Rogers, as well as Ora Lowery, Mary Tyndall and Benny Toland, respectively Geneva's sisters and brother.

"The only people who read the diary were:
Ricky White
Geneva White (Ricky's mother)
Tricia White (Ricky's wife)
Denise Carter (a family babysitter)"

There is confusion surrounding this claim. In the very next paragraph Thomas states: "According to the JFK Assassination Information Center, Ricky White was the only known person to have read the November 63 accounts although many others can testify to the existence of the diary."

On page 166 of the Texas Monthly article Ricky claimed "The only people who say they have SEEN THE JOURNAL (emphasis mine) are Ricky, his mother, his wife, and a woman named Denise Carter, who read parts of the journal while babysitting with Ricky and Tricia's two children."

Based on the evidence at hand it seems only Ricky and Denise Carter read any of the diary entries.

"Records show that Rosco White obtained employment with the Dallas police... about seven weeks before the assassination, as a clerk and photographer."

The records of the Dallas police department released to the public on January 27, 1992 show White was employed October 7, 1963 as an Apprentice Policeman. There is no record showing he joined the force as a clerk and photographer.

"White's personal file contained no references."

Not true. The Dallas police in their September 25, 1963 employment background check indicate they contacted the following references: J.M Langford of Corvair Corp. of Fort Worth, Texas. White worked there from May 8, 1956 to July 28, 1956. Mr. A.L. Fletcher, Manager of American National Insurance Company of Dallas, Texas. White had been employed as an agent since December 17, 1962. Mr. O.P. Pool, Manager of Farmer's Insurance Company of Dallas, Texas. Roscoe had been employed as a part time agent since August 13, 1963. The record indicated he was also employed by Roadway Express Company of Dallas.

The report includes a notation which corroborates White's military record in that he "...received an honorable hardship discharge due to his wife's health." on December 4, 1962.

"Rosco White was assigned to the identification section."

There is no evidence supporting this statement. His employment record shows he was hired as an apprentice patrolman on October 7, 1963, promoted to probational patrolman on October 7, 1964 and patrolman on January 7, 1965.

(Rev.) "Shaw has stated that Rosco told him he didn't think that the fire was an accident."

Partially true - Reverend Shaw did make this statement at the press conference held at the JFK Center on August 6, 1990. However, he was interviewed on February 20, 1992 for the Dallas CBS affiliate, television station KDFW by investigative reporter Richard Ray. Shaw recanted many of his original assertions claiming "everything I heard came from Geneva."

Shaw claimed Roscoe made several admissions as he lay on his deathbed at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. It appears neither the JFK Center or Shaw realized another victim of the explosion and fire, Richard Adair, was in the bed next to White during the period of hospitalization.

I interviewed Adair on September 12, 1990. He told me nobody had a private visit with Roscoe. Also, Roscoe's sister and mother told me visitors were not allowed in the room alone. Even the immediate family, because of Roscoe's condition, were obliged to enter the room in pairs.

Since I was involved in the KDFW interviews I asked Richard Ray to notify Shaw of the results of my investigation. When Ray did so, Shaw admitted that he "heard everything from Geneva."

Adair told me the fire was indeed accidental. "In the past I had warned Roscoe not to weld near stored cans or containers because we didn't always know what was in them." Court records show welding slag from White's torch fell on the metal top of a can containing a solvent used to clean cement trucks. When the slag burned through the cover an explosion ensued.

(Rev.) "Shaw has stated that Rosco told him that he saw a man running from the fire."

True - but there are no sinister implications. The explosion occurred in a vehicle repair bay of a converted Texaco gasoline station. White and Adair were fabricating a replacement part for a Clark fork lift in the bay closest to the office. The running man was the representative from Clark Fork Lifts, Inc. who fled the office after the explosion.

"Rosco told him (Rev. Shaw) that he was troubled as he had lead a double life, had killed people in the past and that he felt that his family was in danger."

Another, statement Shaw rescinded claiming "everything I heard came from Geneva."

"The day of Rosco White's funeral a man who's name has only been given as 'Bill X' by the White family, delivered a package of photographs."

True as far as it goes. Many of us wondered why Ricky, Geneva and the JFK Center would keep the name of a corroborating witness under wraps. We soon discovered that the Assassination Archives and Research Center in Washington, D.C., the parent of the JFK Assassination Information Center in Dallas, was concerned the Roscoe White story was a hoax.

The AARC had a private investigator interview "Bill X." He is in reality a man named Philip Jordan. Jordan was interviewed by