Shh! Don't tell anyone!
For the next few minutes, I'm going to be a very irresponsible blogger. I'm going to outline a conspiracy theory. It's not a theory that I necessarily believe, and I certainly don't expect you to believe it.
Just...think about it. Use it as an intellectual chew-toy.
A couple of posts back, I discussed a St. Petersburg Times article on the Clinton Curtis affair. The article included the startling news that an unnamed personage had hired a fairly well-known DC-based private eye to dig up evidence of vote fraud. The gumshoe's name is Kevin Walsh.
As noted in that previous post, Walsh has been associated with the Assassination Archives and Research Center in DC, founded in 1984 by Bernard (Bud) Fensterwald Jr. and Jim Lesar. This archive is devoted to collecting material arising out of the JFK assassination controversy.
Please understand: I have nothing against that group. They perform a valuable service, and their holdings include lots of cool stuff.
But...
Well, how shall I put this? The first thing you have to learn about the JFK research community is that everyone in it hates everyone else. When disagreements arise -- and for some forty years, they've arisen on almost an hourly basis -- buffs tend to fling "spook" accusations against each other. That claim should never be taken very seriously; it is simply a way of saying "I don't like you."
AARC is in an odd position. While a lot of people like the materials warehoused by that group, it has been on the receiving end of more than the usual share of "spook" accusations. Most of those accusations center on the late Bud Fensterwald. AARC's core holdings derive from Fensterwald's earlier organization, founded in 1969: The Committee to Investigate Assassinations.
Cute acronym, huh?
JFK buffs of that period were alienated by more than just the initials. Fensterwald, a lawyer, was long rumored (and not just by conspiracy buffs) to have "relationships" with various CIA personnel; he also appears to have been useful to the FBI over the years. His client list was an espionage junkie's "Who's Who," and included such names as Richard Case Nagell, Otto Otepka, James Earl Ray, and James McCord of Watergate ill-fame.
For a rather biased look at Fensterwald's history by a buff who disliked him, you may want to skim this page. This source (and please note that I cannot verify all that he says) alleges that "The Committee To Investigate Assassinations was funded by McCORD ASSOCIATES, which for all practical purposes, was a CIA proprietary."
A number of books on Watergate mention a still-mysterious arrangement wherein CIA man James McCord -- before the break-in, and well before he officially met Fensterwald -- sent a number of large checks to (or through?) Fensterwald's CtIA. To this day, no-one has explained why McCord would be funding Fensterwald. One occasionally hears the argument that the Committee to Investigate Assassinations was being used as a money laundry.
The press discovered this odd business in 1973. At that time, a fellow named Louis Russell, a one-time security cop who acted as a McCord-Fensterwald go-between, died of a heart attack; some believe that he was actually murdered. Some also believe that Fensterwald's own much-later death was unnatural.
I have no idea if these speculations have any factual basis; feel free to look into such matters for yourself, if you feel so inclined.
Now the reason I took you down that long, strange path comes down to this: I'm really, really curious to learn just who is paying a private investigator good, hard currency to find proof that Bush stole the election.
As we mull over that conundrum, consider these facts:
1. The only "evidence" that today's reporters might recognize as such would be a confession by a conspirator. Everything else is considered mere speculation.
2. A number of people employed (or recently employed) by the CIA have reason to hold a grudge against our current president.
3. The CIA is forbidden to operate domestically, and must therefore use cut-outs. A ground-level cut-out may not even know the ultimate identity of his employer.
If you've read this far, you can probably piece together the rest of my little conspiracy theory for yourself. Am I convinced of this idea? Nope. Do I want you to be convinced of it? Nope.
But keep the scenario in the back of your mind. Who knows how this little mystery will play out...?
3 comments:
"Now the reason I took you down that long, strange path comes down to this: I'm really, really curious to learn just who is paying a private investigator good, hard currency to find proof that Bush stole the election."
-
"2. A number of people employed (or recently employed) by the CIA have reason to hold a grudge against our current president."
Bull. Yeah a lot of people have recently been purged, and yeah they were all against the Bush administration for various reasons but they had their chance to do something before/during/immediately after the election and they blew it, literally - wtf happened to their version of the 9/11 investigation that named-names? It was meant to be leaked.
They could have done that, made a fuss about Plame, government pressure on them, and any number of things. Hell they could have staged a fake-assignation attempt of Kerry by some sort of Christian extremist group.
And what good would getting rid of Dubya do now? President Cheney. That’s what, with a presidential pardon with-in 24 hours of taking office. And there’d be no way for re-doing the election. But that’s a fantasy, what would be more likely would be that the buck would be passed down as far as possible - I'm look at you Mr. Blackwell - and that’s if the people who come out with this aren't smeared within minutes by the noise-machine.
LamontCranston
bah, *Assassination* but of course you all knew that.
LamontCranston
assignation/assassination--whatever. These
days, there's not much difference.
Post a Comment