Thursday, February 25, 2010

The Strange Death Of Nelson Rockefeller

Why is it that the deaths of so many post war, mostly white males, leaders are best described by Churchill’s metaphor about riddles, enigmas and conundrums? The passings of Kennedy, King,  and Foster are but a few of the marquee names whose deaths are shrouded in suspicion. To that list we can add Nelson Rockefeller, the 4 time governor of New York, whose expiration eventually turned into a tabloid circus. We will review a few of the theories which hold the most promise in explaining the death of Mr. Rockefeller.

The People

We should introduce some of the key characters of the drama, the first of whom is the former governor and Vice President born July 8, 1908, and reported dead January 26, 1979. He of course was the son of billionaire John D Rockefeller, Jr reputed a billionaire in his own right. His family still owned Rockefeller Center at the time of his death.

The next most prominent character is Megan Marshack, a native of Sherman Oaks, CA, whose name is sometimes spelled Marshak or Marshach, but which we suspect are errors due to lack of access to source biographical documents. Her birth date is given variously as c. 1952 or October 1953, while contemporary news accounts reported her age as anywhere from 25 – 31. She was described by People, in February, 1979, as a former AP radio night editor who was making about 15,000 USD when Rockefeller offered her a position as his assistant for 60,000 USD per year in 1977. The jump in income is quite startling and would be 4-5 times that number in constant 2009 dollars. Marshack received forgiveness of a 45,000 USD interest free loan Rockefeller had made to her for purchase of a co-op two doors from his townhouse.

Her whereabouts since the death of Rockefeller remain enigmatic. The New York Times reported on November 13, 1979 that she accepted a position as a publicity agent for Broadway producer Anthony Cohen. Subsequently she was reported as a writer or producer for WCBS-TV in New York. There are a few articles from 2003-2004 with a byline of the name Megan Marshack in the North County Times, but we failed to obtain confirmation from the publisher that the writer was indeed the same person of our story. Her Wiki article cites Personality Parade of December 28, 2008 claiming that “Marshack married a journalist and was living in Southern California.” That citation is bogus although other ones seem accurate.

The next person of interest is Ponchitta Pierce who, like her friend and neighbor Megan, was not exactly a household name nationally but was more well known in New York city as a TV hostess, as People magazine put it. She was reported as being 36 at the time. Her SourceWatch.org biography adumbrates an extensive career in telecast and print journalism as hostess, writer, and contributing editor. She also serves on numerous non-profit organization boards as well as on the Council On Foreign Relations.

In an article published in The Straits Times, Singapore on October 19, 2004 she is quoted:

"Greater coverage of news beyond our borders would help to balance the focus on ourselves, enable us to understand and appreciate the lives and cultures of other people, and make us more informed partners in an increasingly globalised world.”

This is semantically verbatim to the views of David Rockefeller given in an interview by Benjamin Fulford on December 2, 2007. We can see that Pierce may be a noteworthy cog in the Illuminist / CIA controlled press whose job it is to shape world opinion in favor of what they perceive as unified and inevitable world government. Fulford is also an admitted Illuminist which explains his ability to interview such an elusive character as David Rockefeller.

One other actor in this saga worth mentioning is Hugh Morrow who, as spokesman for the Rockefeller family, created considerable confusion with his varied stories about the timing and location of Nelson Rockefeller’s death. Morrow had been a longtime public relations advisor and aide to Rockefeller beginning in 1959 who also was the recipient of at least two loan forgivenesses and gifts from Rockefeller, including a 100,000 USD gift and 30,000 USD loan.

The Drama

News accounts vary because the story kept changing as the days following Rockefeller’s death passed. Keep this in mind as you research yourselves the timeline preceding and following his death. We present what we believe is the best redaction of events.

January 26, 1979 Event Source

?? ?? Rockefeller eats dinner with family at 812 Fifth Avenue David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace, 1981

?? 20:45 Rockefeller at townhouse at 13 West 54th Street driven by chauffeur Andrew Hoffman David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace, 1981

20:50 20:59 Rockefeller invites Marshack to his townhouse to work on art book David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace, 1981

21:00 21:30 Marshack leaves her co-op at 25 W. 54th St to visit Rockefeller wearing long black evening dress Attire according to Morrow

21:30 22:00 Rockefeller dies; Morrow is with Marshack Time of death by Peter David Beter; Morrow’s presence per Marshack

22:50 23:00 Marshack calls Ponchita Pierce to come to townhouse; EconomicExpert.com

23:15 Pierce arrives at townhouse from the building at 25 W. 54th St EconomicExpert.com

23:16 Pierce calls 911 Peirce according to Peter David Beter

23:20 23:30 Two police arrive one named George Frangos;

Rockefeller found on floor in suit (other reports claim he was on sofa and another without shoes on) David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace; New York Daily News 11/6/1998

23:30 23:40 Paramedics (one named William McCabe) arrive. Time is interpolation by author David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace

January 27, 1979

00:00 Paramedics leave for Lenox Hill Hospital rather than closer St. Claire’s Hospital New York Daily News 11/6/1998

00:20 Dr. Ernest Esakof declares Rockefeller dead New York Daily News 11/6/1998

01:00 Morrow delivers statements about the last hours of Rockefeller’s life; says Rockefeller died at Rockefeller Center New York Daily News 11/6/1998

January 28, 1979

?? 11:59 Rockefeller cremated Peter David Beter

The above timeline is not without problems or controversy. Perhaps the most controversial element is the time of death for which I have quoted the dubious Dr. Peter David Beter whose audio newsletter 43 provides the timing. Beter alleges that Marschack, Henry Kissinger, and David Rockefeller were all murdered within a few days of Rockefeller’s alleged murder. However, Beter does make use of known news reports for other details and provides a time of death which makes more sense of the highly conflicted reports provided by official spokesmen.

Causes of Death

The official story regarding the sequence of events changed at least 3 times with the location, time of death, and people present at the time of death subject to continuous revision. The Rockefeller story imploded under the weight of the facts so much so that the family eventually issued a statement declaring that they would say no more about the death.

The official cause of death was a heart attack yet no autopsy was performed. Some have simply speculated on the cause without evidence.

Silence breeds speculation and speculation has indeed run rampant. There are three primary interpretations of Rockefeller’s death. The quasi official story is that Marshack was Rockefeller’s mistress and by implication – though never explicitly stated - was engaged in sexual intercourse when he was struck with a heart attack. One version claims that Marshack struggled for an hour to get from underneath Rockefeller, implying that they were on the floor doing it. Somehow I don’t think that Rockefeller was that athletic at 70 despite his personal physician Dr. Kenneth Ryland's claim that he was in excellent health.

Another variant also claims sexual antics but this time homosexual bondage. The theory holds that he died of a heart attack during this activity and that the family proceeded with haste to dispose of the evidence and story. However, they could have easily squelched or explained away the bruises offering that he had a heart attack - as you do - when you get to a certain age.

The other major explanation put forth by Beter is that Rockefeller was murdered. His proof is slender although some would say non-existent. Beter contends that Rockefeller was shot in the forehead after which a doctor was called to cover up the wound with Calamine Lotion. After the place was cleaned up, the paramedics and police were called. The story has some commendations but there is the opposing claim that Rockefeller had just died when the paramedics arrived. They in fact administered life support yielding a faint sign of life according to the New York Daily News. Yet in the end he was doomed.

Riddles and Conundrums

This story is full of  riddles and conundrums which may never receive satisfactory answer. We will start at the top and work our way down in order to untangle them. Marshack is a completely elusive character. Not only has no one caused her to talk to date but no one knows when she was born nor has anyone shown a picture of her since 1979, which picture was probably taken a few years earlier. For someone so critical to the story one would think that the vaunted investigative skills of the New York Times would have been able to uncover those bits of detail. And yet it is as though no one cares.

After the death of Rockefeller she remained holed up in her apartment for days – though not the weeks others reported.

Ponchitta Pierce is a strange bird flying in and around the activity. We understand that she knew Rockefeller 10 years, yet after she placed the call to 911 she left the house to return home. Why would a friend who was a news woman leave such an historic scene? Ms Pierce has remained silent on this story although she has been quite visible as a journalist and philanthropist.

Hugh Morrow, acting like The Three Stooges all by himself, must have suffered vertigo after wearing out three fabled stories in less than as many days. His actions have all of the traits of someone afraid of the truth and desperately wanting to cover up something. Many have thought that there was some embarrassment regarding Rockefeller being found with his mistress which he was attempting to side skirt; and while we agree that it is awkward, Rockefeller would not be the first man so compromised. We need only recall Franklin Roosevelt and his mistress in the much circumspect days of the 1940s.

But the accelerated cremation of Rockefeller’s body puts a lie to that explanation. The family could have maintained with a straight face that Marshack was working on a book with Rockefeller that evening, had a heart attack, died, and went to his reward. Instead there was a cacophonous circus of stories which didn’t add up, leaving the distinct impression that something jarring had shattered the otherwise stoic demeanor of the Rockefellers. Remember, it was Morrow’s job to be a public relations and communications expert. Yet he fell all over himself in a pot pourri of lies and contradictions.

It is also interesting that, as a relative newcomer to Rockefeller’s life, Marshack found herself in his will – especially for a somewhat trivial amount of 45,000 USD. Why would he have taken the time to update his will with that detail? Marshack had started working for him privately in 1977 yet two years later was a beneficiary in his will.

It also seems strange that Rockefeller’s 18 year old grandson Steven was often quoted in the press at telling moments. Out of the quite fecund Rockefeller family, one would have thought that a more mature and knowledgeable source could be found. One surreal quote was, "I don't know what Megan's role was exactly but if she was involved with Grandaddy, I hope she did the best she could and that she was instrumental in some of his success." The implication would be that she may not have been his mistress – a conclusion which most had certainly drawn by then. He surely knew that she was his grandfather’s aide yet that did not provide any meaningful understanding of the events.

Was It Murder?

To conclude with murder we would like to have a motive and theory of operations. One could argue that Morrow and Marshack stood as benefactors of Rockefeller’s death.  They were the only two with him at the time of death – at least as far as we are able to discern. Friends described her as a gold digger; yet that is not nearly the same as a murderer. As circumstantial as the evidence, we have to believe that he would be worth more to them alive than dead.

But if they were involved in murder, I would think that they would have coordinated their stories better. Instead Morrow is completely undone by a series of second rate stories suggesting that he was rattled by an unexpected event.

Could a professional assassin have murdered Rockefeller? If so, we would need to ask who would have benefitted materially from Rockefeller’s death. Whom did he piss off so badly? For that I have no answers although Dr Beter stated that Henry Kissinger was behind the plot. Kissinger certainly has the personality for murder, and is indeed guilty of political assassination, and, I believe, involved in Kennedy’s murder. However, without a motive we need to pause in our thoughts.

To assume murder means that the paramedics did not notice a bullet hole in his forehead as Beter avers was doctored. Maybe they truly did not attempt resuscitation. The public record seems to indicate that they attempted revival, but if they did not it would not be the first time the newsfakers of the press have lied to us.

For all of its defects I for one believe that murder makes the most sense of the incoherent stories, the refusal of an autopsy, and rush to cremate. I also believe that Pierce’s involvement had more import than we currently know. There is no evidence that Marshack is alive - a condition which is quite consistent with Beter's claim that she herself was murdered in February 1979. The similarities between Monica Lewinsky, Chandra Levitt, and Linda Tripp suggest strongly an intelligence operation.

Finding out who wanted him dead would be a ripe area for further investigation.

References:
New York Times
People
New York Daily News
Peter David Beter, Audio Newsletter 42,43
David Wallechinsky & Irving Wallace, Internet

Copyright 2010 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Do Conspiracies Exist?

If an authority figure wants to shut down discussion about historical or current events which don't follow the party line, his one trump card is to label an idea a conspiracy theory. But is a conspiracy nonexistent  because someone - especially someone in authority - calls it a conspiracy theory? And what does it mean when the authority figure becomes personal and calls you a conspiracy theorist? We say bring it on. We believe that conspiracies exist and will always exist whenever two or more are gathered in the name of politics.

Cass Sunstein a law professor at Harvard taking a leave of absence to serve as Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs co-authored a paper on "Conspiracy Theories" in which he defines a conspiracy as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

So far so good. Unfortuntely the not so good professor proceeds to debunk conspiracies as essentially the workings of an unhinged mind. With this assessment we strongly disagree by calling upon the witness of history and its players to demonstrate otherwise.

The most primitive example is the story of Julius Caesar wherein leading Senators of SPQR determined that it was in their and the republic's best interests to remove Caesar from power. We assure you that the histories do not report a lone nut as the culprut, Brutus being a prominent and respectable Roman politician.

I would surmise that the Roman populace would not have inveighed against those anticipating a plot against Caesar's life as such intrigue frequently surrounded the throne and centers of power. Indeed, when the Praetorian Guard become the primary king making apparatus, anyone not believing in conspiracies had to be  a little off his rocker.

Another important example of conspiracy was the plot to assassinate Jesus. As most Christians are aware, the leading Jewish citizens - especially those of the Sanhedrin - had sought for some time to silence Christ who was attracting quite a following and whose teachings seemed seditious to their rule. Judas was bought for 30 pieces of silver and the rest is history and salvation. I can assure you that Judas did not act or conspire openly among the other 11 disciples and thus sought to conceal his role.

Although these examples are interesting and constructive, we have a more systematic presentation of the concept of conspiracy with Machiavelli whose treatise The Prince - whether satire or not is immaterial - develops the notion of the prince of the realm needing to promulgate certain strategems to consolidate, retain, and perpetuate power. Whatever one may think of Machiavelli, he is not known as a kook.

One would think that it is self evident that various parties in a society conspire in varying degrees of stealth to obtain objectives - certainly in the political realm. Did Richard Nixon earn the sobriquet Tricky Dick because he was an upright practicing Quaker who showed his poker hand to one and to all so as to give all an equal chance to destroy him? I think we all know the answer to that question.

We will admit that conspiracy theories prosper in the absence of facts and knowledge. We admit that some are totally wacky and not worthy of serious consideration. We agree that those who argue that the moon landing was a hoax are mistaken. But the way of resolving such ambiguities is not through invective but through examination of the facts and discoveries of missing links. Indeed the fact that facts are missing is often itself an indication of conspiracy.

A relatively recent example of partial facts in the aftermath of fact finding is the case of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination in which a court found James Earl Ray guilty of conspiring (with himself of course ) to kill Dr. King. Unfortunately the court did not hear all of the facts. However, a civil trial which began in November 1999 in Memphis revealed a mountain of facts demonstrating without question that the government of the United States murdered Martin Luther King, Jr.

It is of a verity that people often disguise their true motives and means to achieve their political aims. We all have seen this from the time of competing with siblings, to competing in school, to survival in business, church, and elsewhere. Did the Archbishop of Canturbery Thomas à Becket die from a random act of lone nutness and Henry II not have plausible deniability?

The moral of the story is that conspiracies occur all of the time and that they may well explain the truth of an otherwise insoluable mystery. We will do much to expose conspiracy in this country both in real time and in history.

Copyright 2010 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Who Sunk The USS Maine?

American nationalists stoked the flames of foreign adventurism and empire in the late 19th century through the sensational yellow journalism alleging to document the evils of Spain on the backyard island of Cuba. These flames soon engulfed the island when the USS Maine sank amidst an explosion on February 15, 1898. Many investigations followed over the years which sought to identify the perpetrator but those efforts failed to find a culprit. We believe that the most likely culprit is the fox guarding the chicken coup.

The splendid little war which followed the sinking of the Maine launched the USA on an imperial adventure which continues to this day. Leading Americans wished to see the country take its place among the great powers lest she lose advantages to European states. If war were required to bring the fruits of empire then let it be done and done quickly.

A causus belli requires convincing proof. Thus an investigation into the sinking of the Maine was quickly launched under the direction of Captain William T. Sampson whose investigation concluded, without the advice of outside experts, that the Maine sunk from a mine explosion which in turn triggered an explosion in the ship's magazines. The commission failed to assign responsibility although that was but a detail to Theodore Roosevelt who resigned his position as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to lead the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill.

In 1911, after excavating and extensively documenting the remains of the Maine, a court of inquiry headed by Rear Admiral Charles E. Vreeland examined the site before the Maine was sent to its final repose. Its findings corroborated much of the Sampson inquest but noted that a smaller explosive was used to cause the damage.

Still not satisfied with the findings of earlier courts of inquiry the US Navy commissioned Admiral Hyman Rickover in 1976 to investigate the explosion after which his commission concluded that an internal fire in the coal room caused by spontaneous combustion ignited the magazines in a conflagration.

Not to be outdone, the National Geographic conducted its own investigation in 1999 after which it concluded that both internal coal room fires and external explosion conspired to sink the Maine.

Foreign commentators have viewed the sinking in less sympathetic terms among whose ranks include many who believe that the United States or US nationals deliberately sunk its battleship as a pretext for war with Spain. Enter Captain Jorge Navarro Custin, a Cuban naval historian who defected from Cuba in 1961 to the United States, who has published a book offering a more original thesis implicating US industrialists and Cubans.

The logic ot the collaboration rests upon mutually beneficial politics which provided the Cubans a benefactor who could deliver them from Spain and the United States a convenient pretext to declare war on colonial power. He further details the work of Frederico Blume, born in Denmark, who worked his way to Peru in service to the country in its wars against Chile. His specialty was naval explosives.

Blume is credited with inventing wave, battery, and clock activated mines which attached to ships. The explosive power of the devices was not great but it was sufficient for sinking ships among whose first targets were Chilean naval vessels. The designs for the explosives were sent to New York through the mediation of Cuban patriots where they were fabricated into working mines and then sent to Cuba where Cuban revolutionaries worked with the Americans to sink the Maine. The Cubans sunk other Spanish ships with these devices including the gunboat Relámpago.

The explanation makes the most sense of those offered to date. The exploding coal theory has been debunked sufficiently elsewhere that it has no credibility as an explanation of the sinking of the Maine. The two earliest inquiries each concluded that external explosions caused the destruction. Custin has now extended those findings by attaching to the Maine event names and a web of connections from Peru to America to Cuba. And what a tangled web it is.

When considered with the heated rhetoric of the times, when the Hearst and Pulitzer papers were inciting agitation and war against Spain, the story of Custin fits very nicely with the political maneuvering of Roosevelt and other jingoists of the day who fought McKinley in his preferences to avoid war.

References:
Apuntes Históricos Sobre la Historia de Cuba - Volumen I
CUBA: The Spanish American War - the sinking of the "Maine"

Who Killed James Forrestal?

When a former Secretary of Defense plunges to his death news and speculation will run rampant. James Forrestal’s plunge from a window at Bethesda Naval Hospital sent shocks throughout official Washington and the nation at large. Naval officials lost no time in establishing an investigation looking into the death. Unfortunately the report was sequestered until released by a Freedom Of Information Act request which has shed some new light on the case. However, after carefully examining its contents, we believe that James Forrestal killed himself.

The conclusion of suicide is not an easy one to make especially in the case of such a personage as Mr. Forrestal who whether reviled or admired commanded respect and attention. Many strange details uncovered at the time of the investigation and later provided abundant grounds to suspect foul play. In fact enough evidence existed that police officials should have been investigated to determine the sufficiency of the evidence for a conclusion of suicide.

Time Of Death

The drama started during the very early hours of May 22, 1949 when Hospitalman 2d class William Eliades heard a loud thud coming from across the room where he was reading a magazine. He rushed to the bacteriology lab to find the cause of the sound when looking out the window he saw a body lying face down. At the same time LT Dorothy Turner who was a nurse working the nearby towers also heard a loud thud. She hurriedly made rounds to see if her patients were all right.

In the mean time Eliades went onto the 3d floor ledge to check the pulse of the body but found none. Shortly thereafter LT JG Francis Westneat arrived on the scene whereupon he pronounced the man dead.

Concurrently Dorothy Turner realizing that Forrestal was under watch in tower 16 ran to LT Regina Harty who was the nurse in charge of Forrestal to determine his whereabouts. They ran down to his room, flipped on the lights only to discover Hospital Apprentice Robert Harrison groping around in the dark looking for Forrestal with Hospital Apprentice Edwin Utz’s flashlight after Utz came to him in Forrestal’s room from the nursing station to perform a bed check requested by the Information Desk. Forrestal was not in the room but his bed had broken glass and Turner noticed the slippers with a razor blade next to them.

Harrison went to the galley about 15 minutes later where he notice the window open and the screen pulled away.

Soon camera men were photographing the body on the ledge while hospital officials notified senior commanders and the county coroner who provided authorization to move the body into the morgue where it was identified as that of James Forrestal. The body was clad in pajamas and found with a bathrobe sash tied around its neck.

The Investigation

Hospital officials lost no time in convening an investigation which Rear Admiral M D Willcutts launched with a panel of five physicians. They began hearings later in the day by going to the morgue to identify the body for the record and request an autopsy to be performed. The following day they began closed door testimony from twenty witnesses who had material knowledge about both the patient and the activities in the hospital on the night of the death.

The Doctors

The doctors told a very consistent story about Forrestal’s mental condition which was described as reactive depression from as early as Forrestal’s consultation with Dr. William Menninger and Dr. George Raines in Hobe Sound, FL. The latter was a Naval doctor who was the physician in charge of Forrestal’s case and care. The story was so consistent it sounded rehearsed.

The doctors stated that Forrestal was a very fatigued and depressed man who carried potential of suicide though no suicidal acts occurred in Hobe Sound or at the hospital. Forrestal was admitted to the Bethesda Naval Hospital on April 2, 1949 after first flying to Hobe Sound for rest on March 29. However Robert Lovett a friend who lived on Jupiter Island noticed that he was sleepless, restless, depressed – a diagnosis with which Forrestal agreed and called his former aid Ferdinand Eberstadt to come to him in Florida with Dr. Menninger of Topeka, KS. All agreed that Forrestal required immediate hospitalization and had him flown to Bethesda.

He was admitted under suicide precautions though not necessarily suicidal. Dr. Raines prescribed insulin sub-shock therapy to keep him sedated and constant 24 hour observation with someone assigned to his room. Two other interns, Dr Robert Deen and Dr David Hightower were to stay in the adjoining room to provide immediate care if required.

Doctors Raines and Stephen Smith conducted lengthy therapeutic interviews in order to assess and treat the mental stresses plaguing Forrestal. They testified that Forrestal did not show any suicidal thoughts nor did he have any specific suicidal ideation though Dr. Raines stated that were Forrestal to commit suicide he would chose hanging or pills. He specifically stated that Forrestal would not choose jumping or razor blades. He related a story where Forrestal handed him a razor blade. He asked what it was for. Forrestal told him that it was proof that he would not use a razor blade to kill himself.

The testimony uniformly confirms that Forrestal did not pose a specific suicidal danger although it was certainly risk which they needed to manage. In time Forrestal began to recover in a slow steady though erratic manner. His progress warranted the relaxation of initial restrictions which forbade leaving his room and visitors. The doctors testified that such relaxations were essential for reconnection with the world and development of self confidence.

The Corpsmen and Staff

The corpsmen, Price and Harrison, testified that though Forrestal’s behavior on the day of suicide was peculiar it was not outside the norms of previously established boundaries and was thus not cause for alarm. However Price noted that Forrestal was heavily pacing that evening in a way that he had not previously seen and had opened the window of the adjoining room which was also somewhat out of the ordinary because he raised the blinds to the top. They both noted that he did not take his sleeping pills which, again, was not terribly unusual as he had recently developed a pattern of sporadic consistency in taking them.

Because of Forrestal’s restlessness the corpsman and nurse recommended a consultation with Deen to determine how to handle it. Forrestal had been up for orange juice and coffee and then asked who had just visited his room after Harty left after a routine check. That seems to have been the straw which broke the camel’s back for them but Deen after consulting with Harty determined that the choice for taking the sleeping pills should be Forrestal’s.

The rest of the night staff who interacted with Forrestal that night stated that beyond these quirks he was in good spirits though not ebullient; showed friendliness to Utz; and seemed to show no troublesome aberrations.

The Pathologist

The board called Dr William Silliphant last who was the pathologist who conducted the autopsy. He stated that Forrestal died from injuries resulting from a fall from a high place. He enumerated multiple injuries and traumas consistent with such a fall. But when the board asked him about strangulation he emphatically denied asphyxiation or strangulation as a cause or factor in death stating that absolutely no evidence was found for it.

Wrap Up

After hearing all of the witnesses the board called back Raines to find out why Raines left town when Forrestal was at a vulnerable stage in his recovery. Raines had previously said that the most dangerous point in suicidally risky patients is when depression lifts and patients begin to recover their vitality as was clearly happening with Forrestal. He had used this to explain and exculpate his actions. Raines recycled the script that he needed to allow his patient more autonomy and independence in order to facilitate recovery and confidence. The board meekly acquiesced.

The board concluded its investigation within less than two weeks which was summarized by a Finding of Facts which essentially said that the treatment was consistent with state of the art psychiatric care, the patient died from severe traumas from a fall, and that no negligence could be attributed to the staff. The report was reviewed and slightly amended to fix the precise time of death and then locked away for 60 years.

Evidence For Murder

The silence was as deadly as the fall because it begat incessant speculation about the death. Was it murder, an accident, or really suicide? The gossip columnists were vicious with even some administration officials suggesting questions many years later during their oral histories at the Harry S. Truman Library.
The board clearly did not have any forensic competence even though they were highly qualified doctors. Some of the suspicious findings to emerge over time which did not have satisfactory answers included

  • Broken glass in Forrester’s bed
  • Broken glass on rug
  • A hand written poem by Sophocles by a hand other than Forrestal’s
  • Scuff marks on the window sill in the kitchen
  • An immediate sterilization of Forrester’s room
  • Suppression of the autopsy and the Board of Investigation Report
  • Forrestal’s improvements versus a sudden regression and lack of suicidal evidence
  • The new corpsman assigned
We admit being troubled by these artifacts and had assumed at one point that they revealed an open and shut case of foul play. However, we delved into additional evidence, particularly the Nurse’s Notes to synchronize the testimony with Forrestal’s state of mind. Those Notes hold the key to unlocking the testimony.

The Nurse’s Notes

As part of watching Forrestal 24 hours per day, the corpsmen assigned to Forrestal maintained a detailed log documenting his medication, feeding, and behavior. It included insightful observations about his activity as well as very mundane things such as bowl movements. The notes are not necessarily exhaustive especially when continuous 24 hour surveillance was cut back. Nonetheless they are a running history of the man in as much detail as one could want.

After reading through them one gets a strong sense of Forrestal’s mind and recovery. Certain indicators stand out strongly such as appetite, outside interests, and physical activity. While progressing through the Notes one starts to sense the rhythm and expected behavior at certain shifts in Forrestal’s engine. The day of death exhibited a number of low keyed but disturbing differences from the pattern which had been developing.

A couple of weeks before his death, Forrestal asked the corpsman if his conversations between him and doctors were recorded. The corpsman told him no but Forrestal did not accept that. He became so insistent that the Corpsman invited him to call the Doctor which he did. Still not entirely satisfied he made yet another search of the room for recording devices. He found none and eventually gave up but the interesting activity preceding this outburst was an intense spasm of pacing.

Raines told the BOI that Forrestal expressed an acute concern over the press reports of his hospitalization and the rumors which certain columnists had been spreading. Sometimes it was too painful to hear so Forrestal asked Raines to listen and summarize the radio broadcast. After comparing the two episodes I developed the opinion that Forrestal began to fear for his reputation and thought that some of the details of his hospitalization had been leaked to the press. I suspect that reports got out but cannot say if it was deliberate or who let them out. Forrestal had relatively few visitors with family, President Truman, and Secretary of Defense Johnson being the most notable. There was only one other or possibly two others beyond these visitors.

Another typical behavior of Forrestal’s was to wake between 5:15 -06:00 and remain awake. On the day of his death he awoke, asked what time it was, then pulled the sheets back and rolled back to sleep for another 60-90 minutes, something which he had never done before. I was quite alarmed when I read that.

The corpsmen note that Forrestal was very quiet during the day. At that point in his stay they usually noted something about his mood and various conversations he might make but on this day it was almost a solemn quiet. Again, the persistence of the Notes in this vein also struck me as uncharacteristic. Although he ate well he did not eat as well as he had and ignored his extra feeding which by that point was very uncharacteristic. Raines notes at one point that although Forrestal gained 5 pounds it was still quite short of the 20 or so pounds he had lost over the past several months.

Perhaps the most disturbing comment Forrestal made on the Saturday morning of his death was that he did not want to see his planned visitor. According to Dr Deen he actually saw Paul Strieffler, his business manager, for a short time but his attitude of wanting to cancel the visit was contrary to his attitude of the past few weeks where outside visits seemed to put him in a good mood.

Both Price and Harrison recorded heavy pacing as we mentioned previously. We have seen that this activity was a sign of heightened agitation. Forrestal also refused his sleeping pills which when accompanied by his pacing indicated that he was in no hurry to go to sleep. Pace also testified to Forrestal raising the window and blinds as high as possible in the adjoining bed room but when Pace approached him he let them down stating that he did not want to get him in trouble.

Forrestal also did two uncharacteristic things by asking for orange juice and then drinking coffee. For someone who was not falling asleep but who should have been long asleep this was not a good idea. In fact Forrestal was caught in the galley by Utz alone. He drank the coffee then went to bed. But when the Nurse came by for a routine checkup he asked Harrison who just left showing again that sleep was far from his mind. Normally he would have been long asleep.

Putting It Together

We, the doctors, and corpsmen noted that these activities viewed in isolation would have not violated the pattern which Forrestal had recently shown but considered together they raised a big bright red flag. It is my belief that Forrestal was in some measure embarrassed by the press coverage which would diminish his future credibility in whatever endeavor he chose to pursue. His life had been so absorbed in his work which he recently lost that it seemed improbable that he could resume a self-respecting life. His statements and actions clearly signaled premeditation of suicide which he saw as the only remedy of his predicament.

But what about those suspicious evidences noted above? Let’s start with the scuff marks. The scuff marks were probably made by Forrestal in struggling to open the window. Other testimony mentioned that some of the windows were difficult or impossible to open. He more than likely put one of his slippered feet on the sill to gain better leverage. He may have been interrupted from flying out the window when Utz came in with coffee to which Forrestal ad-libbed with a late midnight coffee break – something without precedent for him.

The broken glass in his bed is a puzzle – it is hard to know the significance of that. Maybe it was plan B or a decoy. Maybe Forrestal broke something in frustration. In any event the slippers and razor blade are significant. The razor blade was a message to Raines that he still had that option but was not interested in using it.

The poem was never properly handled by the BOI. It clearly is not written by Forrestal. Perhaps he had his son or wife write it. Maybe his Butler brought it to him on a visit. In any event, I believe that Forrestal did leave it. Although he does not strike me as one interested terribly much in poetry he did well in English and classics in school and he did have a reputation as an intellectual.

The broken glass on the rug could have been accidentally left from the cleanup of Forrestal’s room later that day. The room should have been preserved for clues for criminal intent but it now all seems moot.

The board could have quelled a lot of latter day speculation and confusion if it had released its report in its entirety but there were understandably sensitive and private data in it so its release would not have been in the interest of Forrestal’s family – especially his sons.

And what about the noose around his neck? That too was a playful reminder to Raines of their conversation where stated that he would die by hanging himself but that either he had changed his mind or that the facilities for hanging were not satisfactory. In essence, the razor blade and noose were Forrestal's sad farewell to his psychiatric caregiver who was not available for him at his deepest moment of need.

We also laid out the movements of each actor in the testimony to see where they were at each moment from midnight to 02:00 and realized that there was too much movement and too little time for a team of assassins to enter the room and toss Forrestal out the window. Raines was right when said that Forrestal was still quick after all these years.

The End

It thus seems to us, after consolidating the evidence, that instead of using the razor by Forrestal’s slippers we should use instead the razor given to us by Occam – to wit: the simplest explanation is to be preferred over the more complex especially when it is sufficient to explain phenomena.

We are open to continued exploration of the role of murder in Forrestal’s death but we feel that the evidence provides satisfactory explanation of suicide.

References:
Medical Records of James Forrestal
Autopsy of James Forrestal
Wilcutts Investigation of Death
 
Copyright 2009, David Bonn

Monday, February 22, 2010

Should You Own Gold?

The quack economist John Keynes called gold a barbarous relic but he was just talking his butt. Central bankers the world over have applied great diligence in observing the behavior of gold relative to their funny money. Thus if the central bankers are concerned about gold, it would behoove our dear readers to do likewise. We believe that one should buy gold early and often.

We will return frequently to the many topics surrounding gold but in this missive we will state that its value is vastly under appreciated by most money managers and I would hasten to add that we are all money managers. The recent economic troubles plaguing the world have caused many professional money managers to re-evaluate their stances toward gold. Greenlight Capital went the extra step of converting all of its paper gold holdings to physical bullion in recognition that gold was bound to revert to the mean in terms of valuation.

Some studies note that gold holdings of 5-15% reduce risk and increase returns by 6% or so. Perhaps the study over sampled the period 2000-2009 when gold showed its best performance since the 1970s.

But this point aside, we would note that the pathologies which central bank currencies are suffering - acutely since 2008 - provides powerful incentive to at least diversify gold holdings. But why gold? Why not something sexier and more complicated? Haven't you read the myriad jeremiads against gold?

We have heard all of the calumnies against gold and find them wanting. The most powerful argument in favor of gold that it has always been money and it cannot be manufactured out of thin air like paper and electronic currencies. Its physical existence cannot be manipulated by a few mouse clicks or a fecund print shop.

We admit that the price of gold can be manipulated but we also note that the central bankers losing control over the price of gold - hence its robust rise in price over the past 10 years. But this begs the question: is gold rising or are other monies declining. While ultimately the answer is a combination of both, the primary answer is that other currencies are imploding. Thus gold serves as a hedge of protection for mismanaged currencies.

We also accept the notion that gold is not truly an investment. It was never intended to be. It is only when irresponsible central bankers - a redundant phrase - debase currencies in excess that gold asserts its role - not as a store of wealth although that is indeed one of its features - as a thermostat indicating that trouble is afoot. The incessant rise of gold since 2000 indicates loss of faith and fidelity in the currency and market place. Disease in the currency readily metastasizes to this economy it serves.

Gold should be around 2200 USD assuming it correlates positively with the money supply or price inflation. Gold has not kept pace with this standard due to massive suppression schemes. Thus its reversion to the mean gives it still much upside potential - but only because price suppression schemes are failing and monetary realities are beginning to assert themselves.

We will say much much more about gold in the coming weeks. Visit the Selected Links on our home page to begin studying the details gold and its preeminence as money.

Who Killed FDR?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was easily America's longest serving president who true to the bidecennial curse died in office on April 12, 1945 of what was reported as a cerebral hemorrhage. Over the years the public increasingly understood that Roosevelt's health had been in progressive decline but it is only recently through the ground breaking research of Steven Lomazow, M.D. and Eric Fettmann that we understand the severity of his health problems which were anterior causation of his cerebral hemorrhage in Warm Springs, GA.

Before proceding we should put to rest any anxieties our headline might have given. Although we are inveterate conspiracy exposers we have no evidence whatsoever that Roosevelt died by other than natural pathological causes - meaning that no one did him in but nature itself.

Lomazow and Fettman spent over three years interviewing hundreds of first rate medical doctors in their pursuit of a better understanding of FDR's health. What they uncovered was astonishing. At this point it is fairly common knowledge that FDR's health was at best precarious but few if any have understood that the etiology leading to the cerebral event was located in melanoma and prostate cancer.

The sleuthing is a testament to their perseverence because some sources which could have facilitated this study stubbornly refused to provide access to medical records. Indeed it is the paucity of medical records which has hampered investigations of Roosevelt's health. His physician Dr. Howard Bruenn  was less than forthcoming in his assessment of his patient's health both at the time of his presidency as well as post mortem. It is commonly claimed that his records disappeared or were destroyed. I can assure you that medical records 10 miles long and 2 miles wide do not just disappear. Dr. Lomazow has expressed similar reservations.

Dr. Lomazow suspects that the records are yet to be found - perhaps not all of them but substantial portions of them which could settle once and for all the depth of Roosevelt's health problems. Nonetheless based upon photographic evidence, first hand observations, and surviving fragements some very interesting if not shocking revelations have emerged.

Adding to the evidence of severe physical disabilities is the panapoly of doctors attending the president. He had at least a cardiologist, urologist, general physician, and more who were responsible for his health. FDR checked in and out of Bethesda Naval Medical Hospital on at least 26 occassions under assumed names and this does not account for the various excursions for Swamp Fever on different naval vessels such as the USS Tuscaloosa.

One of the most sensational details is the near death of FDR in 1941 due to severe gastrointestinal bleeding. Dr. Lomazow's best diagnosis is that it was due to radiation bowel disease consequent to the treatment of prostate cancer. Indeed he notes discussions of an orchiectomy which has been used in severe cases to treat prostate cancer.

Some have suggested in recent years that FDR suffered from Guillain-Barre Syndrome rather than from polio. Such theories gained currency from respectable medical publications such as the British Journal of Medical Biography. Lomazow easily debunks this myth and concludes that FDR indeed suffered from poliomyletus a subject about which he notes that Roosevelt was as knowledgeable as the most learned physicians.

The other major source of cancer which the authors address is that due to a pigmented lesion seen above the president's left eye which in the 1930s was rather prominent but which by 1940 is vastly reduced if not vanished. Unfortunately the melanoma metastasized where its primary location of infestation is the gastointestinal tract. This fits well with the previous discussion above regarding FDR's massive blood losses.

But that is not the only location of metastasis - his brain was infected too. The authors discovered through some unique research studying his reading patterns indications of hemianopia — a left-side visual field impairment.

If these two cancers were not enough, the authors also speak of episodes of complex partial seizures which some of his staff - including Frances Perkins - note in various memoirs. Many of FDR's incoherencies can be explained by arteriosclerosis and other cardiovascular impediments.

All of these maladies suggest a chief executive who was not fully capable of functioning as president of the United States. Indeed Lomazow reports that FDR was restricted to a 4 hour work day with 14 hours of sleep. This is corroborated by a casual reading of Daisy Suckley's diary - his paramour - where work is a minority preoccupation with the president - his health challenges taking first place.

Of course all of this impinges upon the question of whether Roosevelt should have been in office. His chief physician lied to America in September 1944 when he averred that Roosevelt was in good health and capable of discharging his duties. Roosevelt and his closest advisors knew that he had less than a year to live. The FBI - no paragon of virtue - had at least one filed report indicating that his poor performance at Yalta was attributed to advanced disease. Advisors - including cabinet - noted frequent fainting and dazes which would overcome the president from moments to minutes at a time making him completely incommunicado.

Roosevelt clearly over stayed his usefulness and safety after his second term. He had no business serving on the basis of health to say nothing of his noxious economic policies. We urge those interested to read Dr. Lomazow's blog and book - both of which contain a mountain of evidence explaining the ultimate demise of the 32d president.

References:
FDR's Deadly Secret Blog

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Who Killed William Colby?

When the inimitable "Marla Singer" of Zero Hedge indignantly told me to take my "goddamn" murder theories regarding William Colby elsewhere I realized that my moment in the bloglight had arrived. So after a bit of time and some research, I took her advice producing the following morality tale for would be CIA directors. You will learn how and why the assassins killed the former CIA director on April 27, 1996. His death may have been mysterious as the newsfakers reported but it was certainly not a boating accident - or any other kind of accident for that matter.

It is not every day that a CIA director is murdered - in fact more presidents have been assassinated than have been CIA directors. But the world of spooks and spies is murky where finding the truth is a labor of love. Such labor did Zalin Grant put into the mystery that he wrote an account of Colby's death in War Tales published by Pythia Press.

Grant is not the first investigator to tread the waters of Cobb Island where Colby vanished. A defunct Agora Press publication reported within weeks of the murder that foul play claimed his life and revealed a clue which Grant leaves dangling. Before we can get to that clue, we need to develop the background.

After a hard day preparing his boat for the upcoming sailing season, Colby returned to his home, called his wife in Texas, and watered his willow tree. While watering the tree his gardener introduced him to his visiting sister. They left, Colby returned the hose to its place in the garage, and prepared dinner. While seemingly mundane these events provide timing clues to his disappearance and death.

Grant did what the professional investigators failed to do - he compiled a timeline of Colby's activities provided by eye witnesses and a helpful cooking inference from his wife to determine that Colby probably sat down to eat around 8:30p - well after dark - when all of a sudden he decided to get up to go canoeing - as you do.

The following day concerned neighbor Alice Stokes called the police. Hours later Kevin Akers unknowingly found Colby's canoe beached full of sand near the junction of Neale Sound and the Wicomico River and towed it back to the marina.

Colby's body was found nine days after his disappearance. After a quick autopsy on May 6, 1996 by David R. Fowler, assistant medical examiner for Maryland John Smialek, Maryland’s chief medical examiner, declared death by heart attack - a declaration having the salutory effect of dispersing the news media.  Unfortunately there was no evidence for such a conclusion. Grant was told different stories about the cause of death depending upon whom he asked and the time of day.

As Grant pulled together other details of the murder he was able to determine that a squad of 3-5 assassins in two groups engineered the murder. One group grabbed Colby whom they demanded to empty all of his pockets and then took by car to the murder location. The other team commandeered his boat and brought it to the location where Akers found it. The location was required because it had the sand needed to secure the boat in place. The place was needed because it was the only location with an accessible road to the water and out of view of potential witnesses.

After the killers murdered Colby, they allowed his body to decompose for 9 days in order to make it impossible to determine the cause of death. So the internal organs rotted while the exterior retained excellent composure. Thus they assumed correctly that the coroners would rule accidental drowning.

When they dumped the body at the crime scene the killers had not counted on the currents which would drift the body to a location other than where the boat was found. This detail would help solidify the case for murder.

As for that clue phone we mentioned earlier? Colby had routed his Cobb Island phone to his Washington home so that all billing would occur there so as to limit visitors from running up long distance calls. Only the Colbys knew the dial out code. Should there be calls on the line after the suspected time of disappearance of 8:30 there would be hard evidence that abductors had come to take him away.

Mrs. Colby refused to cooperate with Grant in providing that evidence - information which Strategic Investor had suggested as early as 1996 as being a key piece of evidence in understanding the cause of Colby's death.

So why was Colby murdered? A CIA director can make a lot of enemies which Colby managed to do in spades. Perhaps his biggest sin was his willingness to honestly answer Congress the questions they put to him. In fact his candor caused Kissinger to instruct President Ford to fire him which he did in November 1975. Twenty years later Colby was scheduled to speak before Congress again and the spooks at Langley wanted to take no chances of more family jewels being cast before swine.

References:
Who Murdered The CIA Chief

What Are The Economic Prospects For America in 2010?

After the tumultuous economic crash of 2008 experts everywhere hailed 2009 as the year of recovery with many sighting greenshoots like weeds in an untended garden. GDP for 2009 declined for the second consecutive year - a feat not seen since the Great Depression. So we ask ourselves if 2010 is the year that the economy shows marked improvement. Our short answer is, no.

That does not mean that some cannot make a plausible case for solid recovery in 2010 - indeed the permabull financial press has been declaring a recovery since March of 2009. Some recent evidence lends some credibility to such claims such as rises in the index of leading economic indicators, a vigorous growth of GDP of 5.7% in 01Q10, and rising exports among other notable signs of sustained growth.

While on the face of it these improvements offer cautious optimism our opinion is decidedly against any recovery in 2010. In fact we believe that the USA is headed for another pronounced slump. Reasons vary for this case as well but one of the leading concerns is the decline of M3 money supply since fall of last year. The astute observer may object that the Federal Reserve stoppped publishing M3 statistics in 2006 - just in time for the many crises of 2007-08. While that is indeed true, it is not true that these numbers are not available in large measure due to the heroic work of John Williams at Shadow Government Statistics.

No economic recovery or growth has occurred in the face of declining M3 yet year over year contraction is hovering around 5%. Not only is M3 declining but so is bank credit which has contracted continuously for over 11 months - another unprecedented behavior. Some folks point to burgeoning corporate coffers which stand at over 1 trillion USD but the fact is that much of the money represents borrowed funds or cuts in capital spending due to lack of demand. There is no current evidence of any of that money being invested. In fact Zero Hedge reports that companies have cut back capital expenditures to ride out the economic storm. The cuts are so severe that they are eating into capital stock.

Now this is probably a good thing because so much malinvestment was encouraged by a profligate Fed which warped interest rates artificially low. But given that liquidation is in progress, economic growth is on hold.

Chronic high unemployment will also impede economic growth. Even though the bulk of unemployment is clustered in the lower income deciles the loss of purchasing power is still sufficient to drag economic growth and certainly enough to overwhelm state relief resources as has happened across the country already. In any event, an unemployment rate of 22% - as we have now - is not a recovery.

Looming on the horizon is FASB 166/167 which requires that companies pull their off balance sheet liabilities onto their balance sheets. Although FASB deferred this requirement for 18 months it is nonetheless a real concern which healthy and smart companies will want to address sooner rather than later with the result that investment - and hence growth - are also deferred.

We must note that the marginal productivity of debt is negative meaning that each new dollar of debt shrinks GDP. The private sector may be liquidating in places but the governments are accumulating debt in drunk sailor fashion. The additional debt will absolutely preclude economic growth.

Finally we should note the utter insolvencies of the banks. They have 1 trillion USD stored at the Federal Reserve - a phenomenon which is totally uncharacteristic of health. Whether the banks are purposely not lending credit or incapable of doing so for fear of collapse is another question. The bottom line is that they are not lending which means that the economy is not growing. A negative aspect is the huge overhang of bad mortgages both in the residential and commercial sectors, the latter possibly being worse than the former. In any event it hamstrings the banks many of whom should have gone out of business last year.

No, dear reader, the economy is not positioned to grow in 2010. Yes there may be another quarter or two showing growth but the fundamentals of the economy are stacked against sustained growth for this year. In fact we believe  that the downturn will intensify in the 2d half of 2010. Hold on to your hats, voltatility in the markets is high and only growing higher.

References:
Zero Hedge
Shadow Government Statistics

Is Barry Soetoro A U.S. Citizen?

Considerable controversy surrounds the citizenship of the candidate elected to the presidency in 2008. A small minority claims that the man known as Barack Hussein Obama is actually not an American citizen and therefore lacks Constitutional eligibility to serve as president. After investigating the matter, we have concluded that as the majority are not always right the current White House occupant, Barry Soetoro, is indeed an Indonesian citizen born in Kenya. Americans have been lied to yet again by their government and leaders.

Mr. Obama has spent at least 900,000 USD defending against various lawsuits challenging his elegibility to be president but refuses to use the most basic nuclear option possible - presentation of a vault copy of his birth certificate. Yet the conclusion is as simple as it is obvious: there is no vault copy because Soetoro nee Obama was born in Kenya. So how did we get to this point?

One man leading the charge for truth is a Democrat operative named Philip Berg who is a practicing attorney in Pennsylvania. He is litigating at least three lawsuits filed on behalf of several plaintiffs who challenge the veracity of Obama's claims about his presidential qualifications. One Judge Surrick and a Court of Appeals have determined that Berg has no standing in the matter and thus does not have a right to know if Obama is qualified to be president. Ignorance makes an informed electorate.

Although the material on Berg's website is voluminous it is slightly convoluted and is worth recapitulating here for clarity. This then is the relevant history of Barry Soetoro. Stanley Ann Dunham (November 29, 1942 – November 7, 1995) met Barack Obama, Sr. (April 4, 1936 (?) − November 24, 1982) while she was a student at the University of Hawaii in 1960. He was in the USA studying under a special program providing scholarships to third world students so that they could help their countries develop upon returning to their native lands. She conceived in November of that year, married Barack in February 1961 and delivered Barack, Jr. on or around August 4, 1961.

The Obamas setup house in Hawaii but they decided to travel to Kenya to meet Barack's parents. Whether or not they planned to have the baby in Kenya is unclear but that is indeed what happened. Shortly thereafter, someone called a Hawaiian hospital to register the birth - perhaps Ann's mother - for which a Certification of Live Birth would be issued. A COLB is a simple document acknowledging that someone with residence in Hawaii had given birth to a child. It is distinct and wholly different from a Certificate of Birth which is issued to the parents upon birth of their child on Hawaiian soil.

An important point about Ann is that she was 18 at the time of birth and thus ineligible according to US law to transmit citizenship to her son who was born in Kenya. We have taped testimony from Sarah, Barack's grandmother, that he was indeed born in Kenya.

After this point Ann and Barack separated - him for school and her to Washington to care for her new son who was most likely named Barack Hussein Obama II. However we have no objective evidence for the claim so simply mark at as a high probability. In short time, Ann moved back to Hawaii where she filed for divorce which was granted in January 1964. Barack, Sr. would visit his son one final time in 1971.

At some point in 1965 Ann met then married Lolo Soetoro who was an Indonesian citizen. They returned to Indonesia in either 1965 or 1966 where they established permanent residence. Soetoro either legally adopted or claimed Barack, now known as Barry, as his own, which enables him to enroll in the public Indonesian schools. Extensive research by Berg with Indonesian legal consultants demonstrate that Barry was legally named Soetoro and that he was an Indonesian citizen - a requirement for enrollment in school.

In 1971 Barry was sent alone to Hawaii to live with his grandparents, his grandmother a vice president of a local bank, who enrolled him in an expensive private school. When Barry entered the United States - probably on his mother's passport, he did not visit immigration. There is no record whatsoever that Ann applied for Barry's USA citizenship when he returned with her in 1961. As such Barry entered the USA illegally and has lived here ever since illegally. There is also no record of Soetoro ever changing his name to Obama.

One other interesting detail about Soetoro's citizenship relates to his travel to Pakistan in 1982. At the time, Pakistan was proscribed for travel to US citizens. It is thus most likely that Soetoro's travel there was based upon his Indonesian citizenship. As a further aside, Indonesian law required that minors upon reaching their majority  between the ages of 18-21 were required to affirm in writing  abdication of their citizenships should they desire that election. There are no records of Soetoro ever filing this affidavit with the result that he retained his Indonesian citizenship.

It is also worth noting that at the time of Barry's residence in Indonesia the law prevented dual citizenship and that as such even if he acquired US citizenship prior to arriving in Indonesia c. 1965 that he lost it due to the workings of international law, not the least of which was the Hague Convention of 1930 to which the USA was a signatory.

The case is air tight that the man known as Barack Obama is still legally Barry Soetoro and is an Indonesian citizen and therefore unqualified to be president of the United States.

Congress and in particular Nancy Pelosi have acted shamefully and treasonously by lying to the American people when they certified his eligibility to be president. It was Pelosi who certified Obama's eligibility during the Democrat Party Convention.

A man does not become president of the United States without the help of a lot people and even if they were few, there were still enough Democrats (and Republicans) who knew that Obama was not a qualified presidential candidate. Thus the question is why did so many participate in this hoax upon the American people? We shall explore that in a future article.

References:
Obama Crimes

Who Killed Martin Luther King, Jr?

Most Americans are taught that James Earl Ray killed Martin Luther King, Jr on April 4, 1968 but the facts do not support such a conclusion. Few know that the King family after extensively interviewing Ray determined that he was not guilty of killing their patriarch. Fewer yet know that a civil trial in Memphis, TN in 1999 fingered the real culprits. Most will be surprised to learn that the United States Government murdered the civil rights leader.

The explosive trial revealed that a consortium of FBI, CIA, US Army, Memphis Police Department, and local hoodlums murdered Dr. King due to fear that a planned march on Washington, DC would turn ugly. Yet according to James Douglass who attended the entire trial, no one from the press covered it except for a lone reporter from the Lisbon newspaper Publico. It is true that occasionally reporters would announce gossipy events such as Coretta Scott King or Andrew Young testifying but there was no substantive reporting of the trial until Mr. Douglass spoke openly about its content.

What else was revealed during the trial? The first point is that the King family brought suit against Lloyd Jowers who owned  Jim's Cafe which was located across from the Lorraine Motel where King was murdered. Jowers was the bagman so to speak for the assassin who fired the lethal shots from the bushes across from the hotel. Another murderer, Raoul Escobar, took the weapon from the assassin and gave it to Jowers who took it to his cafe for immediate safekeeping.

The care, as Douglass put it, which the government took to plan and execute the murder was quite startling to the jury - down to US Army Intelligence taking video of the assassination most likely for subsequent study for debriefing and improvement of technique. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had been meeting days before and after the assassination with the Phoenix team - an elite Army force which had been operating in Vietnam under William Colby, future director of the CIA under Richard Nixon. Former Congressman William Fauntroy who was removed as an investigator on the House Select Committee On Assassinations because of his delving into intelligence connections to the murder confirmed the involvement of US Army forces in the attack on King. The Phoenix team was positioned all around the Lorraine Motel as back up for the assassin in case he missed.

Other meticulous acts of planning included transferring sensitively positioned black police and fire men from their normal assignments to bizarrely placed locations in order to keep them away from either protecting or protesting the murder of King. The number of men so moved was astoundingly large that it would be impossible for a thinking person to consider the moves as coincidences. The man who ordered the reassignments was Frank Holloman who headed both the police and fire departments and was a senior aide to Hoover up until 1968 when he conveniently retired to join the Memphis Police Department.

One other key assassin was Merril McCullough who at the time worked as an undercover agent for the Memphis Police while at the same time worked as Minister of Transportation for the Invaders, a black protest group who were dissastisfied with the peaceful course of King's program. McCullough was subsequently transferred to the CIA. McCullough was part of a group of King insiders who had been positioned or suborned within the King organization to assist with his murder. McCullough is seen in picture checking King's pulse in order to confirm that he was dead - another careful act of planning on the part of the government.

The jury concluded after 2 1/2 hours of deliberation that it had a no-brainer verdict of guilty for which the judge, in contempt no doubt, awarded the King family 100 dollars compensation.

Barry Soetoro hired Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein as his Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein published an article in 2008 entitled "Conspiracy Theories" which pursues in effect the thesis of Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, that "It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion." One of Sunstein's conspiracy theories - a pejroative for him - is that Martin Luther King, Jr was killed by the government.

So if we know so much about the murder, who in fact pulled the trigger? The name remains a mystery but it appears certain that it was a sharpshooter police officer of the Memphis Police Department.

The evidence is solidly and invincibly against Sunstein who is pursuing with a vengeance the destruction of the truth. We do battle against falsehoods. It is of a truth that the United States government murdered Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4th, 1968.

References:
Interview With James Douglass
Pepper, William F., Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King, 1995