JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Charles Collins on February 23, 2023, 12:36:32 PM
-
I am reading an interesting book: “Oswald and the CIA” by John Newman. Here is a snip from pages 116-118:
Time and place:
November 16, 1959
Moscow, Russia
Snip:
Room 319, the Metropole
“So I went back to the hotel, mail in hand, and I asked the lady at the end of the hall on the second floor if there was an Oswald there,” Priscilla recalls. “Yes, he is in Room 233,” the lady answered. “And I went to his room and knocked on his door, and there he was.” It was about five-twenty P.M. Priscilla describes what happened next this way:
So the door opens and Oswald came out, and he stood in the door, not letting me in his room but talking to me. I said, “My name is Priscilla Johnson and I work for the North American News Alliance. I am a reporter here and I live in your hotel, and I wonder if I could talk with you. He said “Yes,” and I said, ”Well, when can I come and see you?” He said, ”Nine tonight. I’ll come to your room.“30 Oswald showed up on time. He talked with Priscilla until one or two in the morning.
In December 1963 Priscilla wrote her recollections of the interview. Oswald began, she recalled, by saying he had dissolved his American citizenship, “as much as they would let me at that time,” and he then complained that “they refused to allow me to take the oath at that time.”31 Priscilla says she next put a question to him about “the official Soviet attitude,” and he responded that the Russians had “confirmed” that he would not have to leave the country. Oswald then added, “They have said they are investigating the possibilities of my continuing my education at a Soviet institute.” This 1963 description of the way the interview opened matches almost precisely her 1959 notes written during the interview with Oswald.32
Oswald explained that since the embassy had “released”33 the story of his defection, he was granting this interview “to give my side of the story—I would like to give people in the United States something to think about. “He continued. “Once having been assured by the Russians that I would not have to return to the United States, come what may, I assumed it would be safe for me to give my side of the story” [the underline was in Priscilla’s contemporaneous notes and may have been Oswald’s emphasis].34 Again, Priscilla’s 1963 account matched her 1959 notes, but what did Oswald mean by “safe”?
Please not that there is not an underline (that the author refers to) in my Kindle version of the book. But, based on the point that Newman is making, I would assume his reference involves the “would be safe” comment. I am the one who underlined the “something to think about” comment. It would be easy to speculate what LHO might have meant by that remark. Newman is concerned with whatever secrets LHO might have had (and was willing to give the Soviets) regarding his radar experiences in the USMC, including the U2 spy plane. I don’t believe that LHO could have even imagined the JFK assassination in 1959. But he did (eventually) achieve his goal of “giving people of the United States something to think about.” We are still thinking about it almost 60-years later…
-
:D
The only thing Mr. Oswald gives us to think about, 60 years on, is how on earth a man drinking Coca Cola on the fourth step of the Depository entrance managed to assassinate Pres. Kennedy
-
I am reading an interesting book: “Oswald and the CIA” by John Newman. Here is a snip from pages 116-118:
Time and place:
November 16, 1959
Moscow, Russia
Snip:
Room 319, the Metropole
“So I went back to the hotel, mail in hand, and I asked the lady at the end of the hall on the second floor if there was an Oswald there,” Priscilla recalls. “Yes, he is in Room 233,” the lady answered. “And I went to his room and knocked on his door, and there he was.” It was about five-twenty P.M. Priscilla describes what happened next this way:
So the door opens and Oswald came out, and he stood in the door, not letting me in his room but talking to me. I said, “My name is Priscilla Johnson and I work for the North American News Alliance. I am a reporter here and I live in your hotel, and I wonder if I could talk with you. He said “Yes,” and I said, ”Well, when can I come and see you?” He said, ”Nine tonight. I’ll come to your room.“30 Oswald showed up on time. He talked with Priscilla until one or two in the morning.
In December 1963 Priscilla wrote her recollections of the interview. Oswald began, she recalled, by saying he had dissolved his American citizenship, “as much as they would let me at that time,” and he then complained that “they refused to allow me to take the oath at that time.”31 Priscilla says she next put a question to him about “the official Soviet attitude,” and he responded that the Russians had “confirmed” that he would not have to leave the country. Oswald then added, “They have said they are investigating the possibilities of my continuing my education at a Soviet institute.” This 1963 description of the way the interview opened matches almost precisely her 1959 notes written during the interview with Oswald.32
Oswald explained that since the embassy had “released”33 the story of his defection, he was granting this interview “to give my side of the story—I would like to give people in the United States something to think about. “He continued. “Once having been assured by the Russians that I would not have to return to the United States, come what may, I assumed it would be safe for me to give my side of the story” [the underline was in Priscilla’s contemporaneous notes and may have been Oswald’s emphasis].34 Again, Priscilla’s 1963 account matched her 1959 notes, but what did Oswald mean by “safe”?
Please not that there is not an underline (that the author refers to) in my Kindle version of the book. But, based on the point that Newman is making, I would assume his reference involves the “would be safe” comment. I am the one who underlined the “something to think about” comment. It would be easy to speculate what LHO might have meant by that remark. Newman is concerned with whatever secrets LHO might have had (and was willing to give the Soviets) regarding his radar experiences in the USMC, including the U2 spy plane. I don’t believe that LHO could have even imagined the JFK assassination in 1959. But he did (eventually) achieve his goal of “giving people of the United States something to think about.” We are still thinking about it almost 60-years later…
Oswald was a narcissist who desired attention. He aligned himself with an outlier political group (Commies) because that brought notoriety to himself. He was otherwise a nobody in American society. Perhaps he was even a true believer in some of the Marxist ideology. He no doubt had contempt for mainstream American society in which he was a powerless and invisible person. So an opportunity to lecture Americans on the ills of their society was right up his psychological alley. He was smarter and knew better than the average American citizen who he viewed as sheep. He was going to educuate them.
-
Oswald was a narcissist who desired attention. He aligned himself with an outlier political group (Commies) because that brought notoriety to himself. He was otherwise a nobody in American society. Perhaps he was even a true believer in some of the Marxist ideology. He no doubt had contempt for mainstream American society in which he was a powerless and invisible person. So an opportunity to lecture Americans on the ills of their society was right up his psychological alley. He was smarter and knew better than the average American citizen who he viewed as sheep. He was going to educuate them.
It is interesting to compare his willingness to divulge “US secrets” to the Soviets with the reported reason he became interested in communism ideology in the first place (the plight of the Rosenbergs). They were convicted of espionage and LHO apparently had a lot of sympathy for them. Perhaps he wanted to identify with the Rosenbergs and the “something to think about” had to do with his idea that they suffered an injustice?
-
It is interesting to compare his willingness to divulge “US secrets” to the Soviets with the reported reason he became interested in communism ideology in the first place (the plight of the Rosenbergs). They were convicted of espionage and LHO apparently had a lot of sympathy for them. Perhaps he wanted to identify with the Rosenbergs and the “something to think about” had to do with his idea that they suffered an injustice?
Oswald was an angry malcontent who blamed society for his situation. He could play the anti-hero as a means to gain attention and exercise his contempt for society. I doubt he gave a whit about the Rosenbergs or anyone other than himself. He considered himself a victim. He wanted attention and to stick it to mainstream American society. And he accomplished both.
-
Oswald was an angry malcontent who blamed society for his situation. He could play the anti-hero as a means to gain attention and exercise his contempt for society. I doubt he gave a whit about the Rosenbergs or anyone other than himself. He considered himself a victim. He wanted attention and to stick it to mainstream American society. And he accomplished both.
You're describing modern-day Republicans. :D
-
It is interesting to compare his willingness to divulge “US secrets” to the Soviets with the reported reason he became interested in communism ideology in the first place (the plight of the Rosenbergs). They were convicted of espionage and LHO apparently had a lot of sympathy for them. Perhaps he wanted to identify with the Rosenbergs and the “something to think about” had to do with his idea that they suffered an injustice?
One of the odd instances of history surprising us is that the main/chief author of the Warren Commission Report, Norman Redlich, was a vocal defender of the Rosenbergs at that time and protested their death penalties (he was a life long opponent of capital punishment). Redlich was a critic of HUAC, McCarthy (he represented clients called before the committee; remember that JFK and RFK were on that committee as well), argued Hiss was innocent, and was not "fond" of Hoover. He was a man of the political left (imagine a young Oswald and Redlich marching down Broadway Avenue together protesting on behalf of the Rosenbergs?).
So we have Rosenbergs+Oswald+Redlich+JFK+RFK in a strange historical danse macabre.
Re Oswald's "something to think about" statement: I think the Oswald of 1959 was a far different person, less cynical and angry, than the 1963 version. By November of '63 he was lost, without hope, trapped in a dead end job in a country he hated. He wanted to tell the American people in 1959 how awful the US was, how much it had hurt him and his family. Four years later I don't think he really cared much about the American people, he thought they were sheep and fools and were incapable of understanding what he knew about America. In a way, it's remarkable similar to the conspiracy view of the US: that the American people don't know how the government has lied to them all of these decades. Very cynical view of the US.
As to Oswald in the USSR: We have the latter learned fact that the Soviets/KGB never really questioned Oswald as to what he knew. Not in a serious, deep way. He sort of fell through the security cracks. When Yuri Nosenko defected and told the CIA this they didn't believe him; to them, that wasn't how the KGB acted with defectors. This led to the belief that Nosenko was a fake defector which meant Oswald *did* have a deeper relationship with the KGB. This in turn led to Angleton turning the Counter Intelligence division upside down over the issue and ultimately contributed, in part, to his firing.
The key point in this is that IF Oswald was indeed a CIA agent or asset then Angleton would have known from him (Oswald) that Nosenko was correct. So all of the internal strife caused by Nosenko's defection and Angleton's over reaction would have been avoided. But that's only if Oswald was indeed a CIA asset (which for me is absurd).
BTW, the Johnson news article on Oswald can be read here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=306
Her notes on the interview (hard to read) are here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=297
-
One of the odd instances of history surprising us is that the main/chief author of the Warren Commission Report, Norman Redlich, was a vocal defender of the Rosenbergs at that time and protested their death penalties (he was a life long opponent of capital punishment). Redlich was a critic of HUAC, McCarthy (he represented clients called before the committee; remember that JFK and RFK were on that committee as well), argued Hiss was innocent, and was not "fond" of Hoover. He was a man of the political left (imagine a young Oswald and Redlich marching down Broadway Avenue together protesting on behalf of the Rosenbergs?).
So we have Rosenbergs+Oswald+Redlich+JFK+RFK in a strange historical danse macabre.
Re Oswald's "something to think about" statement: I think the Oswald of 1959 was a far different person, less cynical and angry, than the 1963 version. By November of '63 he was lost, without hope, trapped in a dead end job in a country he hated. He wanted to tell the American people in 1959 how awful the US was, how much it had hurt him and his family. Four years later I don't think he really cared much about the American people, he thought they were sheep and fools and were incapable of understanding what he knew about America. In a way, it's remarkable similar to the conspiracy view of the US: that the American people don't know how the government has lied to them all of these decades. Very cynical view of the US.
As to Oswald in the USSR: We have the latter learned fact that the Soviets/KGB never really questioned Oswald as to what he knew. Not in a serious, deep way. He sort of fell through the security cracks. When Yuri Nosenko defected and told the CIA this they didn't believe him; to them, that wasn't how the KGB acted with defectors. This led to the belief that Nosenko was a fake defector which meant Oswald *did* have a deeper relationship with the KGB. This in turn led to Angleton turning the Counter Intelligence division upside down over the issue and ultimately contributed, in part, to his firing.
The key point in this is that IF Oswald was indeed a CIA agent or asset then Angleton would have known from him (Oswald) that Nosenko was correct. So all of the internal strife caused by Nosenko's defection and Angleton's over reaction would have been avoided. But that's only if Oswald was indeed a CIA asset (which for me is absurd).
BTW, the Johnson news article on Oswald can be read here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=306
Her notes on the interview (hard to read) are here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=297
Thumb1:
Very informative, thanks!
-
Thumb1:
Very informative, thanks!
Sure, 'welcome.
Imagine being Priscilla Johnson? She works for JFK when he was in the Senate (she spoke French and said JFK asked her a lot of questions about France's colonial policies in SE Asia); then she gets a job for a news service in Moscow (she also speaks fluent Russian) and interviews this odd young American. Then four years later that same strange man kills JFK? Then she writes, for me, the definitive book on Oswald and Marina. Pretty amazing journey.
BTW, she also wrote a terrific biography on Robert Oppenheimer. There's a movie coming out about his life. Looks interesting. He was later haunted, of course, by his work on the atomic bomb, that he had helped unleash horrors he was sure were going to destroy mankind. Something JFK was deeply worried about.
-
:D
The only thing Mr. Oswald gives us to think about, 60 years on, is how on earth a man drinking Coca Cola on the fourth step of the Depository entrance managed to assassinate Pres. Kennedy
Yes. And also why on Earth a supposed madman would say while in police custody, "The only reason why I'm here is because I lived in Russia. I'm nothing but a patsy."
-
Oswald was a narcissist who desired attention.
Yes, he was a narcissist who was worried about his daughter getting a new pair of shoes while in police custody.
-
The Cubans who met Oswald in Mexico City when he tried to defect to Cuba said he was angry, erratic, demanding and seemed unstable. The KGB officers who met him at their Embassy in Mexico City said the same things: he was angry, emotional, erratic, unstable, thought the US government was out to get him.
So the Warren Commission's characterization of him in 1964 - angry, disaffected, erratic - was something years later both Cuban and Soviet personnel agreed with. It's all the same general story about the man, his makeup, his personality. How did the Warren Commission get the Cubans and Soviets to go along with this supposed fake image of Oswald? They created a fake story and then years later along comes the Cubans and Soviets to help them out?
How much more information about the man is going to rejected? Is everything about him faked? Including what the Cubans and Soviets said? Does that make sense to you?
-
Pricilla Johnson had a long relationship with the CIA. Which is why I find it hard to believe her interview with Oswald in the USSR occurred by chance, just as she didn't accidentally gain access to Marina Oswald, Soviet defectors and others.
From JFK Facts:
A witting source is someone who knows they are giving information to the CIA. In 1959 many patriotic Americans were witting sources, of course. There was nothing wrong with supplying the U.S. government with useful information. McMillan was certainly not a tool of the Agency, not at that time. She was considered for Agency employment several times and rejected for her youthful association with leftist groups.
Nonetheless, McMillan maintained contact with Agency officials who recognized she was sympathetic to the Agency’s purposes. British popular historian John Simkin cites a declassified December 1962 CIA memo, which stated about McMillan before she married.
“I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want. It will require a little more contact and discussion, but I think she could come around…. Basically, if approached with sympathy in the cause she considers most vital, I believe she would be interested in helping us in many ways. It would be important to avoid making her think that she was being used as a propaganda tool and expected to write what she is told.”
A mutually useful relationship developed and was documented in McMillan’s CIA file. According to this January 1975 CIA memo, the Agency classified McMillan as a “witting collaborator.”
https://jfkfacts.org/why-cia-ties-were-omitted-from-obituaries-of-priscilla-johnson/
-
Oswald was a narcissist who desired attention.
None of us can say for certain who Oswald actually was or diagnose him with a mental or personality disorder.
Except for Oswald's defection to Russia and his summer in New Orleans in 1963, what other examples can you name of him going out of his way to attract attention to himself?
His life in 1963 is peculiar to me because in Dallas, he mostly kept to himself and seemingly tried to hide where he lived and not draw attention to himself, but in New Orleans he did the opposite and went out of his way to draw attention to himself.
Some speculate that he was mixed up in a COINTELPRO operation targeting the FPCCC. Outside of that explanation, it just looks bizarre.
He aligned himself with an outlier political group (Commies) because that brought notoriety to himself.
Aligned himself how? Why didn't he have any communist friends or join any socialist clubs? Where were his Leftist friends and associates?
I guess if we stretch the definition of Leftists to include Liberals like Ruth and Michael Paine, that's the closest I can come up with.
He did have some friends but none of them identified as communists or marxists. And he was not an official member of the FPFCC or Communist party.
Strange if he genuinely believed in those ideologies.
-
One of the odd instances of history surprising us is that the main/chief author of the Warren Commission Report, Norman Redlich, was a vocal defender of the Rosenbergs at that time and protested their death penalties (he was a life long opponent of capital punishment). Redlich was a critic of HUAC, McCarthy (he represented clients called before the committee; remember that JFK and RFK were on that committee as well), argued Hiss was innocent, and was not "fond" of Hoover. He was a man of the political left (imagine a young Oswald and Redlich marching down Broadway Avenue together protesting on behalf of the Rosenbergs?).
So we have Rosenbergs+Oswald+Redlich+JFK+RFK in a strange historical danse macabre.
Re Oswald's "something to think about" statement: I think the Oswald of 1959 was a far different person, less cynical and angry, than the 1963 version. By November of '63 he was lost, without hope, trapped in a dead end job in a country he hated. He wanted to tell the American people in 1959 how awful the US was, how much it had hurt him and his family. Four years later I don't think he really cared much about the American people, he thought they were sheep and fools and were incapable of understanding what he knew about America. In a way, it's remarkable similar to the conspiracy view of the US: that the American people don't know how the government has lied to them all of these decades. Very cynical view of the US.
As to Oswald in the USSR: We have the latter learned fact that the Soviets/KGB never really questioned Oswald as to what he knew. Not in a serious, deep way. He sort of fell through the security cracks. When Yuri Nosenko defected and told the CIA this they didn't believe him; to them, that wasn't how the KGB acted with defectors. This led to the belief that Nosenko was a fake defector which meant Oswald *did* have a deeper relationship with the KGB. This in turn led to Angleton turning the Counter Intelligence division upside down over the issue and ultimately contributed, in part, to his firing.
The key point in this is that IF Oswald was indeed a CIA agent or asset then Angleton would have known from him (Oswald) that Nosenko was correct. So all of the internal strife caused by Nosenko's defection and Angleton's over reaction would have been avoided. But that's only if Oswald was indeed a CIA asset (which for me is absurd).
BTW, the Johnson news article on Oswald can be read here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=306
Her notes on the interview (hard to read) are here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=297
He was a man of the political left (imagine a young Oswald and Redlich marching down Broadway Avenue together protesting on behalf of the Rosenbergs?).
If LHO had lived to go to trial, and Abt had declined to defend him, I suppose it is possible that Redlich might have stepped up and volunteered.
Here’s something about Redlich that I found in Wikipedia that is interesting. I have read Belin’s books and am familiar with his theory.
He was credited with disproving the Belin Theory, which related to a city bus ticket in Lee Harvey Oswald's pocket helping him escape to Mexico.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Redlich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Redlich)
Does anyone know the source of the claim that Redlich disproved Belin’s theory?
-
Yes, he was a narcissist who was worried about his daughter getting a new pair of shoes while in police custody.
If Oswald was worried about his daughter (or the young children of the two men who he murdered) he would not have committed the crime in the first place.
-
If Oswald was worried about his daughter (or the young children of the two men who he murdered) he would not have committed the crime in the first place.
Thumb1:
-
If Oswald was worried about his daughter (or the young children of the two men who he murdered) he would not have committed the crime in the first place.
Duh, it goes both ways. Oswald didn't know he was going to be set up as a patsy for the murder. So of course an innocent man would be worried about his kid getting new shoes. They probably had already talked about it before he was falsely arrested. Duh.
-
Duh, it goes both ways. Oswald didn't know he was going to be set up as a patsy for the murder. So of course an innocent man would be worried about his kid getting new shoes. They probably had already talked about it before he was falsely arrested. Duh.
He talked about it with Marina and left her most of the money that he had.
-
Duh, it goes both ways. Oswald didn't know he was going to be set up as a patsy for the murder. So of course an innocent man would be worried about his kid getting new shoes. They probably had already talked about it before he was falsely arrested. Duh.
He was so worried about his wife and kids that he was trying to ship them back to Russia. LOL. Oswald didn't give a hoot about them. He forever placed them under a black cloud due to their connection with him and his murderous legacy. They had to live their entire lives with that unfair notoriety.
-
At the end of the day, we're all speculating. I just wish some would be more humble and admit that it's not possible to know with absolute certainty that others weren't involved or what Oswald's motives were if he did in fact do it alone...
-
At the end of the day, we're all speculating. I just wish some would be more humble and admit that it's not possible to know with absolute certainty that others weren't involved or what Oswald's motives were if he did in fact do it alone...
Absolute certainty is an unreasonable standard in human affairs. No conclusion could ever be reached if absolute certainty is the standard. Oswald himself probably couldn't articulate his motive with absolute certainty. His act was not a rational one. What we have is the evidence. And the evidence links Oswald to this crime beyond doubt. There is no credible evidence in nearly six decades that links any other person to this crime.
-
He was a man of the political left (imagine a young Oswald and Redlich marching down Broadway Avenue together protesting on behalf of the Rosenbergs?).
If LHO had lived to go to trial, and Abt had declined to defend him, I suppose it is possible that Redlich might have stepped up and volunteered.
Here’s something about Redlich that I found in Wikipedia that is interesting. I have read Belin’s books and am familiar with his theory.
He was credited with disproving the Belin Theory, which related to a city bus ticket in Lee Harvey Oswald's pocket helping him escape to Mexico.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Redlich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Redlich)
Does anyone know the source of the claim that Redlich disproved Belin’s theory?
Never heard/read that he "disproved" the theory. Not sure how he could have done that. The Shenon book has this account on Belin's theory:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9966011236/Key5ya4mina5ft4/belin theory.JPG)
-
Never heard/read that he "disproved" the theory. Not sure how he could have done that. The Shenon book has this account on Belin's theory:
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9966011236/Key5ya4mina5ft4/belin theory.JPG)
Thanks, that makes sense. Now, I do believe I remember Belin writing something similar in his book regarding the WC staff discussions.
-
What we have is the evidence. And the evidence links Oswald to this crime beyond doubt.
BS:
-
Absolute certainty is an unreasonable standard in human affairs. No conclusion could ever be reached if absolute certainty is the standard.
But that IS the standard for most complex historical events and I think we can agree that the Kennedy assassination is a complex historic event. Even among the LN side, there are disagreements about some of the specific details.
There's often more than one interpretation of historic events depending on the context and consensus views among historians can and does change sometimes.
So I don't think it's fair to imply that there are no legit questions left to discuss and debate about the Kennedy assassination. Even if you're absolutely certain that Oswald acted alone, you can't be certain of what his motive was because he was so secretive and didn't leave any clues that point to any animosity towards JFK.
Oswald himself probably couldn't articulate his motive with absolute certainty. His act was not a rational one. What we have is the evidence.
You are certain that Oswald acted alone therefore his alleged motive is not relevant to you. That's fine. But not everyone agrees that the case is closed. Many view the evidence as inconclusive.
Often times evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. Two experts can view the same evidence and reach different conclusions and that's been the case throughout the JFK assassination research community.
-
Pricilla Johnson had a long relationship with the CIA. Which is why I find it hard to believe her interview with Oswald in the USSR occurred by chance, just as she didn't accidentally gain access to Marina Oswald, Soviet defectors and others.
From JFK Facts:
https://jfkfacts.org/why-cia-ties-were-omitted-from-obituaries-of-priscilla-johnson/
Pricilla Johnson had a long relationship with the CIA. Which is why I find it hard to believe her interview with Oswald in the USSR occurred by chance, just as she didn't accidentally gain access to Marina Oswald, Soviet defectors and others.
From JFK Facts:
https://jfkfacts.org/why-cia-ties-were-omitted-from-obituaries-of-priscilla-johnson/
Alpha Theta Chapter of Sigma
Chi, in June, 1944, was still suf-
fering from the lack of active
members caused by the induc-
tion in the summer before of all
save one member into the En-
listed Reserve Corps.
William Ritchie and “Tod”
Howland were the only civilian
active members; those in the
Navy were John Frei-
berger, Jack Brannan, Robert
Fauvre, Winchell Hayward, John
Taylor, Stuart Ed-gerly, Robert
Spoerl. Of the ofñcers, Ritchie
was Consul, Freiberger was
Pledge Trainer, and Howland
was Magister. Hunter M. Ben-
nett, Jr., “Gary” Coit, Jr., and
Bruce Mayer were then pledges.
Accordingly, the chapter con-
ducted a vigorous and successful
July Rush Week. John Taylor
was Rushing Chairman and
among his most active assistants
were Howland, Freiber-
ger, Brannan, Bennett and Coit.
A large class was pledged,
headed by Norman Meullen and
followed by Carl Bergmann,
Thomas Devine, Bradford Endi-
cott, Robert J enkíns, Perry N ies,
Howard Hendershott, Robert
Drye, James Langley, Robert
Hirsch, Watt Webb, James Ry-
der, William Edgerly, Austin
Marx, Kenneth Conger, Otto
Wetzel and Philip Starin. The
(îhalptet` house was then full.
A regular initiation was held
on July 30 and the chapter mem-
bership was augmented by Ben--
nett. Coit and Mayer.
Students Don Ear Muffs to Shut Out Band Music
?
Pay-Per-View -
Daily Boston Globe - Aug 14, 1947
... Day which drew no enthusiasm from the group IRowland Vance of Columbus 0 ., one of 16 Tech students livings in the adjoining Sigma Chi fraternity ... Other student were Thomas Devine of Rochester who told of taking refuge in an attic and
Gary Coit lived in the M.I.T. Univ. Sigma Chi frat house with close friend of Bush, also a future CIA officer, Tom Devine, assigned
three weeks after DeMohrenschildt, before leaving Dallas, had asked, "Lee, how could you miss?" to find out all he could about DeMohrenschildt.
Devine, his two fellow Rochester native friends, Joseph Dryer and William Macomber, as well as Macomber's Andover secret society residence housemate, Bush, were all "read in" on Devine's and Dryer's simultaneous surveillance of Charles and DeMohrenschildt.
David Lifton, defender of Priscilla and Marina, ignored my question about her excuse for the long delay in completing
"Marina and Lee,"
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/8045-priscilla-l-johnson/?do=findComment&comment=272768
..inferring in her HSCA testimony that her father's sudden death in 1969 was a "concealed suicide." The last man
to see her father alive reported him missing to Locust Valley police. This is a description of his sister, Eleanor.
Note the names attending Eleanor Lansing Thomas's reception. They include Allen Dulles's wife and Dulles's brother Foster's wife.
https://archive.is/esTuB
(https://archive.is/esTuB/acd369eb3e71dd5fb2e02bb9c3cfd6afc89638cc.jpg)