PART 6:FINAL JUDGMENT:LITTLE MAN'S LITTLE MAN .LANSKY &MARCELLO

By Michael Collins Piper
Chapter Ten 

Little Man's Little Man: 

Meyer Lansky & Carlos Marcello— 

Did the Mafia Kill JFK? 

Meyer Lansky's Louisiana front-man, Carlos Marcello, has become a favorite target for J.F.K assassination researchers who like to claim that "The Mafia Killed JFK." 

The fact is that Marcello's most formidable chief accuser, G.Robert Blakey,staff director of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, had been on the payroll of a key figure in the Meyer Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate. 

Marcello was only one cog in the Lansky Syndicate. His key placement in New Orleans—scene of much of the preassassination planning—makes him the perfect fall guy. Marcello also had ties to Israel's allies in the CIA. There's a lot more to the Marcello story than meets the eye.

It was Lee Harvard Oswald's pathetic cry, "I'm just a patsy," that has become immortalized. Ironically, though, one of the most widely alleged JFK assassination masterminds—New Orleans' widely-publicized supposed "crime boss"—might himself be able to make that same claim. We are speaking, of course, of the colorful Carlos Marcello—nicknamed "Little Man"—a sobriquet he happened to share with Meyer Lansky. 

BLAMING MARCELLO 

One book, John W. Davis's Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, names Marcello as the likely mastermind of the JFK murder. Standing alone, with no further evidence such as that we have cited in the pages of Final Judgment, in this chapter and elsewhere, Davis' contention seems reasonable. But, as we've said, his conclusions are not based on the totality of all the evidence available to those who are interested in the big picture. 

DISTORTING THE TRUTH 

David Scheim, writing in Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy, likewise blames "the Mafia" for the JFK assassination and also points the finger at Carlos Marcello in particular. For whatever reason, however, Scheim is devoted to underplaying (even ignoring) the critical role of Meyer Lansky in the underworld. 

In Scheim's view, Lansky was little more than a bit player—this in direct contradiction to even standard histories of organized crime which, by virtue of reality, are forced to recognize Lansky's particular influence.

Scheim, in fact, goes to great lengths to suggest that Lansky was of little consequence in the whole scheme of things. He writes: "The late syndicate financier Meyer Lansky could take no action without the approval of Mafia superiors."338 This is simply not true in any sense whatsoever. That Scheim even suggests this indicates that he is determined to ignore the entire picture. 

Scheim notes, incorrectly, that Lansky's alleged "Mafia superiors" kept him under constant surveillance through one Jimmy "Blue Eyes" Alo whom Scheim describes as a "capo regime" in the Genovese Mafia family out of New York. 339 Alo was indeed closely associated with Lansky, but, in fact, was not only a close personal friend, but also a working partner. He was not, contrary to Scheim's bizarre concoction, a Mafia handler of Meyer Lansky. 

CLAY SHAW AND THE CIA 

Scheim's own determination to ignore the role of the intelligence community in the JFK assassination conspiracy—particularly that of the CIA—is also interesting. In his book Scheim goes to great lengths to portray New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison as a tool of the Mafia and an associate of Carlos Marcello. He also comes down hard on Garrison's investigation of international businessman Clay Shaw. 

According to Scheim, "Equally bizarre was Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, who became his prime culprit. A retired director of the New Orleans International Trade Mart, Shaw was a soft-spoken liberal who devoted most of his time to restoring homes in the Old French Quarter." 340 

What Scheim fails to note—and what he could not miss inasmuch as he is self-portrayed as a longtime JFK assassination researcher—is that Shaw was, indeed, involved with the 

CIA. IGNORING THE FACTS 

This was a fact well known among JFK assassination researchers at the time Scheim's book went to press. There is simply no rational excuse for Scheim's deliberate deletion of this critical fact. 

Be that as it may, in Chapter 15 we shall examine Shaw's central positioning in the conspiracy that involved not only the CIA and the Mafia and the Meyer Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate, but also Israel's Mossad. 

Obviously, in order to perpetuate the myth that "The Mafia Killed JFK," Scheim is forced to avoid the facts that damage his thesis. And this is precisely what he has done.

Scheim's own book (and the aforementioned work by John W. Davis) both rely heavily on a previously-released work, The Plot to Kill the President: Organized Crime Assassinated JFK by G. Robert Blakey and Richard N. Billings. 

(Scheim's book, in fact, is hardly more than a re-write of much of the same material and, actually, constitutes little more than a history of the Mafia, available in many standard sources. Scheim's book, all in all, fails miserably in its attempt to lay the blame anywhere for that matter. 

(And in light of the facts that we are uncovering in the pages of Final Judgment it is probably worth noting that Scheim's publisher, Shapolsky Publishers, is an affiliate of an Israeli-owned company—a fact that could perhaps have something to do with the decision to promote a book pinning the assassination of JFK on "the Mafia.") 

That Scheim and Davis relied upon the Blakey/Billings work is unfortunate, particularly since this book comes from what can only be charitably described as suspect sources. 

Blakey, of course, was director of the House Assassinations Committee which concluded that there had probably been a conspiracy behind the president's assassination and that, more than likely, elements of the "Mafia" may have been been involved. 

SABOTAGING GARRISON 

Richard Billings, who served alongside Blakey in the House Committee investigation, was no stranger to the JFK assassination conspiracy. In fact, Billings had been the Life magazine editor who led a team from his magazine to New Orleans ostensibly to collaborate with then District Attorney Jim Garrison in his investigation into the JFK murder. 

Garrison notes, however, that Life, instead, did just the opposite. Life ran several major articles which linked Garrison to organized crime—to the Mafia—to Carlos Marcello, specifically, thereby discrediting Garrison to many who believed the tales.341 

As a consequence when Blakey and Billings teamed up to write the book based on their experiences with the House Assassinations Committee, they reserved harsh criticism for Garrison and suggested that he was pointing the finger, wrongly, at the intelligence community and, in effect covering up for Marcello's involvement in the crime. 

Billings, it also just happens, was an in-law of C. D. Jackson, the publisher of Life magazine whom investigative journalist Carl Bernstein has described as "[Life owner] Henry Luce's personal emissary to the CIA."342 Billings also—perhaps not coincidentally—played a recurring role in Life's coverage of CIA-backed Cuban exile raids on Castro's Cuba. 

ORGANIZED CRIME 'EXPERT' 

So it was that Blakey and Billings' work put much emphasis on Marcello as having been one of the prime movers in the conspiracy. Yet, Blakey's allegations about the role of "the Mafia" can only be described as suspect, to say the very least. There's much more to the story as we will see. 

A professor of law and the director of the Notre Dame University Institute on Organized Crime, Blakey is often loudly trumpeted by the media as one of the nation's leading authorities on "the Mafia." Previously a special prosecutor in the Justice Department under then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy, Blakey is the author of the famous Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute that has become a major tool in federal organized crime prosecutions. 

Thus it is that Blakey's conclusions about the role of "the Mafia" (and specifically Carlos Marcello) in the JFK assassination conspiracy have received widespread recognition and credibility. However, just two years before he was named director of the House Assassinations Committee, Blakey had a different relationship with organized crime: he had been on the payroll of a top figure in the Lansky Syndicate.

BLAKEY'S LANSKY CONNECTION 

After Penthouse magazine had published an article alleging that the La Costa Country Club in Carlsbad, California was linked to the underworld, several of La Costa's founders filed a lawsuit against Penthouse. One of the plaintiffs in the La Costa case was Morris "Moe" Dalitz, a former Detroit and Cleveland bootlegger-turned-Las Vegas casino boss, who had longstanding and close personal and business ties with Meyer Lansky. 

Brought in as part of Dalitz's legal team was Robert Blakey himself. This was certainly an unusual position for a self-promoted "crime fighter" such as Blakey. The longtime crime fighter, in fact, provided an affidavit on Dalitz's behalf against Penthouse. 343 

Blakey's employer Dalitz was very much an integral part of the Lansky Syndicate. In Chapter 4 we learned that it was the notorious "Purple Gang" in Detroit that had put out a contract on the life of Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the future president, during Prohibition for interfering in their "territory." Kennedy, as we saw, made contact with Chicago Mafia chieftain Sam Giancana who intervened on the elder Kennedy's behalf, convincing the Purple Gang to cancel the proposed "hit." At that time, in fact, one of the key leaders of the Purple Gang was none other than Moe Dalitz, an up-and-coming mob figure. 

DALITZ, SIEGEL AND LANSKY 

According to FBI organized crime expert William Roemer, "Moe Dalitz started his criminal career way back in the Prohibition Era. He had been one of the admirals in 'the Little Jewish Navy' in Detroit when, as a rum runner, he ferried booze across the Detroit River from Canada to quench the thirst of the many Motor City citizens who were eager to taste the whiskey, wine, and beer forbidden by the 'Noble Experiment.'"344 This was the beginning of a long, lasting, close working relationship between Lansky, "the chairman of the board of organized crime" and Morris Dalitz. 

In fact, according to Roemer, it was Dalitz who was the prime mover behind the Syndicate's move against Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel, Lansky's boyhood friend and fellow racketeer who was shot dead in 1947.

According to Roemer, it was Lansky who sent Dalitz to Las Vegas to inquire into the activities of Ben Siegel. Dalitz, reports Roemer, "was the main contributor to the growing opinion that everything was not on the up and up. His report was the major reason why Lansky, [Frank] Costello, et al, made their report to the [organized crime] assembly in Havana in December 1946 and later in June when it was finally decided to chop Bugsy."345 

In Chapter 13 we shall review the Lansky-Siegel connection further and examine the bizarre role that the colorful thug, Mickey Cohen, Siegel's successor as Lansky's West Coast henchman, played in Israel's intrigues against JFK and in the JFK assassination conspiracy. 

In fact, as a direct consequence of Seigel's assassination, Dalitz stepped in as Lansky's official liaison in Las Vegas, becoming the so-called "godfather of Las Vegas." However, it would be nearly thirty years later that Robert Blakey, the chief proponent of the theory that "The Mafia Killed JFK" would end up on Morris Dalitz's team, proclaiming Dalitz innocent of any mob connections and directing attention away from any direct Lansky connections to the JFK assassination conspiracy. 

Unfortunately for Blakey, Dalitz and La Costa, Penthouse prevailed and beat back their libel suit and, in effect, repudiated Blakey's character reference on behalf of Dalitz and his associates. 

So it was that the chief proponent of the theory that "the Mafia Killed JFK" had lined up in defense of one of Meyer Lansky's closest associates— Moe Dalitz, a legendary figure in the underworld himself. 

Some seven months after Blakey and the House Assassinations Committee issued their report that "The Mafia Killed JFK"—a report that carefully and studiously ignored Lansky's high-level influence over "the Mafia"—the Wall Street Journal reported in September of 1979 that Dalitz had long been identified by federal authorities as an ongoing senior adviser to organized crime.346 This time Dalitz did not bring a libel suit. 

ISRAEL HONORS DALITZ 

Dalitz' public image, however, did not suffer as a consequence of the Penthouse victory in the libel suit or as a result of the report in the Wall Street Journal. Instead, in 1983 the aging mob figure and Las Vegas "philanthropist" was honored by the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L) of B'nai B'rith with its prestigious "Torch of Liberty Award." 

Evidently the A.D.L did not see any problem with giving its highest honor to one of the top leaders of organized crime. Dalitz's service to the cause of Israel was apparently deemed more significant than his activities in the underworld. And Dalitz was indeed an active supporter of Israel's cause. 

In fact, Dalitz himself was the key mid-West contact for the Sonneborn Institute—the Israeli arms smuggling entity—that we first encountered in Chapter 7 where we examined the long-standing ties of the Lansky Syndicate to Israel. So we can certainly understand why the ADL would be so eager to award Dalitz for his services.

In Chapter 17 we shall examine the immense influence that the A.D.L itself has on the American news media. We shall also see one instance of how a longtime A.D.L collaborator floated a "new" theory about the JFK assassination—a widely-publicized cover story that seems to have been orchestrated by Israel's friends at the CIA. 

For his own part, Dalitz's defender, Robert Blakey, clearly prefers to look at the Italian elements of the underworld, but no further. As we saw in Chapter 7 (and which we will discuss further in this chapter and elsewhere) the differences between "the Mafia" and organized crime as a whole are far more profound that Blakey would allow us to imagine.

BLAKEY AND THE CIA 

Blakey, likewise, has refused to acknowledge the role of American intelligence, specifically the CIA, in the JFK assassination. No wonder then that prominent JFK assassination researchers such as Mark Lane, writing in Plausible Denial, and Jim Marrs, writing in Crossfire—among many others—have commented critically on Blakey's close relationship with the CIA during the period of the House Assassinations Committee investigation. In his own book, Conspiracy, Anthony Summers documents—in frightening detail—the CIA's subversion of the House investigation which, it appears, was aided and abetted by Blakey himself 

Blakey himself did nothing to allay the suspicions of his critics by first clearing his own book with the CIA. The concluding paragraph of Blakey's book—which another JFK assassination researcher, Carl Oglesby, caustically remarked should have appeared on the opening pages rather than buried at the end of the book—read as follows: 

"Pursuant to agreement with the Select Committee on Assassinations, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation reviewed this book in manuscript form to determine that the classified information it contained had been properly released for publication and that no informant was identified. Neither the CIA nor the FBI warrants the factual material or endorses the views expressed." 347 

Thus, while Blakey was busy pointing the finger at Carlos Marcello and away from the CIA and its allies in the Israeli Mossad, the facts about the Lansky-Marcello relationship belie Blakey's claim that "the Mafia" was the driving force in the JFK assassination conspiracy. 

LOUISIANA FRONT MAN 

The fact remains that whatever role Carlos Marcello or any of his underlings played in either the JFK assassination or the cover-up, Marcello was nothing more than a front-man for the "boss of all bosses"—Israel's longtime patron, Meyer Lansky himself. Marcello was indeed, Little Man's Little Man. Lansky was, in fact, much, much bigger—in terms of power and influence—than Carlos Marcello would ever be, Marcello's fame and reputation notwithstanding.

To understand the fatal flaws in the Davis, Scheim, Blakey-Billings theories—and to underscore the thesis of Final Judgment—it is vital to remember this all-important fact. 

Interestingly, Davis himself makes clear that Marcello was, in fact, a protégé of Lansky. The author does not, however, place the significant emphasis on Lansky's superiority over Marcello that must be made in presenting any theory that "The Mafia Killed JFK." 

For the full story of the Lansky-Marcello relationship we are indebted to Hank Messick, the fearless investigative reporter who specialized in Organized Crime coverage. In his biography of Meyer Lansky, Messick described how Lansky picked Marcello out of relative obscurity and set up Louisiana's supposed "Mafia boss" in business. Messick told how Lansky (through his partner and longtime associate Frank Costello) first moved into Louisiana. 

Under heat from New York reform Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, Lansky and Costello had decided that New Orleans was an ideal location to relocate their slot machine operations. Costello met in New York with then Louisiana Governor Huey Long who agreed to open up his state to Organized Crime. 

Lansky-Costello associate "Dandy Phil" Kastel was sent in to take charge of the project. However, it was Lansky himself who went to New Orleans to cut the final deal with Long. The two met at the Roosevelt Hotel which was owned by a mutual crony, Seymour Weiss. 348 

(This was not the first meeting between Lansky and Long, however. The two had first met at the 1932 Democratic Convention in Chicago which nominated then-New York Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt for president. It was during that brokered convention that Lansky bribes, along with Long's support, enabled F.D.R to win his party's nomination. Lansky's longtime associate and primary link to the Italian underworld, Charles "Lucky" Luciano, described that momentous meeting in his historic posthumously-published memoirs.) 349 

THE LONG-LANSKY DEAL 

It was during their second fateful meeting that Long and Lansky cut a deal which sealed their fates irrevocably and which, in fact, ultimately led to Long's untimely demise at the hands of an assassin. Here was the deal: in return for allowing Lansky's syndicate to operate in Louisiana, Long agreed to take a $20,000 monthly kickback. Lansky's slot machines were installed by a company chartered for "charitable contributions." However, out of the first $800,000 made by Lansky and his cronies in New Orleans, widows and orphans got exactly $600. 350 

This cozy arrangement between Lansky's Organized Crime syndicate and Huey Long's powerful Louisiana political machine made possible the rise of Carlos Marcello. Lansky biographer Messick described the origins and nature of the Lansky-Marcello relationship as follows: "Lansky was smart enough, however, to recognize that even the innovation of slot  machines which paid off in mints as well as cash would not suffice forever. [Lansky's] brother Jake was listed as an officer of the Louisiana Mint Company, the new outfit controlling the slots, but something more was needed. 

"In the Algiers section of New Orleans, across the Mississippi, he found Carlos Marcello. Born in Tunis, he had come to New Orleans in 1910 and made a living in a variety of ways, none of them successful. Nor had he bothered to become a U.S. citizen. 

"Lansky gave Marcello a franchise for the Algiers section, allowing him to keep two-thirds of the slot profit. By 1940 he had 250 machines in operation and proved himself as an efficient businessman. Later he was given a piece of the plush Beverly Club, the biggest rug joint (a posh gambling casino) in the area and at that time second to the Beverly Hills Club outside Newport, Kentucky."351 

MARCELLO TOOK THE HEAT 

Messick's concluding comments regarding the Lansky-Marcello relationship, however, are probably the most significant: "As a front man, Marcello worked out perfectly. In years to come he was touted as the Mafia boss of Louisiana—despite his birth in Tunis—and resisted all efforts to deport or jail him. 

"With all the heat on Marcello, the role of Lansky was almost forgotten—exactly what Meyer wanted. Ultimately, Lansky was able to shift Kastel to Las Vegas and leave Marcello and Weiss to run New Orleans."352 

"Meyer Lansky once explained why he left New Orleans to Marcello and others to run. 'There was just too frigging much to do elsewhere,' he said." 353 

As Messick elaborated even further, if only to drive home the point: Even Marcello's famous Beverly Club was not, in reality, Marcello's personal fiefdom. According to Messick, "Costello and Kastel were partners, Marcello had a small piece, but Lansky was the real boss." 354 

Aaron Cohn, who was director of the New Orleans Crime Commission, lends credence to Messick's analysis of the relationship. According to Cohn, "The Commission had long been suspicious of the massiveness of Marcello's holdings—which were much too large to be controlled by a single don—even one as powerful as Marcello." 355 Marcello, in short, was indeed fronting for Meyer Lansky. 

All of this, of course, taken together, sheds a more accurate light on the truth about the Lansky connection and Carlos Marcello. 

LANSKY, MARCELLO & THE CIA 

There is also evidence that Marcello was working directly with the CIA in at least one other sphere of influence that also links Lansky, whose own connections with American intelligence we examined in Chapter 7 and which we will examine further in Chapter 11, Chapter 12 and Chapter 14. 

According to Sam and Chuck Giancana, in their biography of Chicago Mafia boss, Sam Giancana, "Marcello was a co-conspirator with the CIA in gunrunning operations and a fervent supporter of the anti-Castro exiles. It was an arrangement [Giancana] said more than once, aimed at returning Cuba to its pre-Castro glory—meaning its lucrative casinos and vice rackets." 356 

But there was another realm in which the Lansky-CIA-Marcello nexus had a close working relationship: the illicit traffic in narcotics. The Senate Committee on Government Operations report to the 88th Congress on "Organized Crime and Illicit Traffic in Narcotics" had pinpointed New Orleans—at that time—as having been the key distribution point for drugs coming into the United States. 

Most observers believe that one of Marcello's "legitimate" businesses, a shrimp-boat operation, was, in fact, part of the drug-smuggling—and gunrunning—network. 

(In Chapter 12 we shall see, in fact, that Lansky was the prime mover behind that drug network working in conjunction with the CIA.) 

Needless to say, Marcello's central positioning in New Orleans made it such that it was inevitable that the Mafia chieftain would have an inside track to gaining first-hand knowledge about developments—at least in New Orleans—in the JFK assassination conspiracy. 

MARCELLO, FERRIE, BANISTER & THE CIA 

After all, Marcello's personal pilot was CIA contract agent David Ferrie, (now widely known as a result of his portrayal in Oliver Stone's Hollywood extravaganza, JFK). Ferrie's still-undetermined part in the JFK assassination conspiracy, and his apparent association with alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, is but another piece of the whole puzzle. 

It was Ferrie's associate, Guy Banister, whose New Orleans private detective agency (a conduit for CIA arms to the anti-Castro Cuban exiles) employed several other Marcello cronies. Banister, who had been with the Office of Naval Intelligence, and was later special-agent-in-charge of the Chicago office of the FBI, had re-located to New Orleans. 357 

According to the Giancanas, Banister had long been close to the Chicago Mafia and that it was their good offices that brought Banister into Marcello's sphere of influence when the former FBI man went to New Orleans, initially working for the city police department.358 

(During the summer of 1963 the Cuban Revolutionary Council, a creation of the CIA's chief liaison with the anti-Castro Cuban groups, E. Howard Hunt, also maintained offices in the same building as Banister. 359 We first met Hunt, of course, in Chapter 9 where we learned of a libel trial in which both Hunt and the CIA were directly implicated in the JFK assassination.) 

Banister, clearly, was the intermediary between the CIA and the Lansky/Marcello operation in New Orleans. And it was through his office that Lee Harvey Oswald, was being set up as the patsy. (In Chapter 11, Chapter 14, Chapter 15 and Chapter 16 we shall examine that aspect of the JFK assassination conspiracy further.) 

Without question, New Orleans and the Marcello fiefdom were an integral part of the Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate. But to suggest that Marcello was the driving force behind the JFK assassination conspiracy is to ignore the whole picture. 

LANSKY & THE LONG ASSASSINATION 

As a passing historical note, it is probably appropriate to refer to the demise of Huey Long and the role that Lansky and his associates played in that important political event. 

By 1935, Long had been elected to the Senate and had risen to national prominence. In fact, Long was generally considered a major threat to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1936 re-election chances. Long had made it clear that if he didn't run as a Democrat—or as a third party candidate—in 1936, he certainly intended to play a major part in that election, and not on FDR's side. 

This, obviously, was of major concern to FDR. Thus, a Justice Department investigation of Long and his finances was unleashed. Such an inquiry was dredging up Long's tangled financial arrangements and threatened to break the back of the very profitable machine that Long had assembled. There were more than a few Louisiana political figures and Long associates who were frightened of their impending demise alongside Long at the hands of federal prosecutors. 

As Messick notes—and this is ironic—it was in a Dallas, Texas hotel room that the federal authorities made the decision to indict Long. The colorful Louisiana Senator was shot that same day by a "lone assassin" who was himself promptly shot to pieces by Long's bodyguards. 

To this day there are myriad conspiracy theories relating to Long's murder. Some say that the alleged assassin never fired a shot—instead, that he swung a punch at Long and that the "murder weapon" was planted on the scene afterward by the bodyguards who wanted to cover up the fact that it was one of them who accidentally shot Long when firing at his assailant. There are those, however, who say that Long was, in fact, deliberately shot by one of his bodyguards. 

The Giancana family, in their biography of the Chicago Mafia boss, say that Sam Giancana later claimed that "Some of our friends in New York had him hit—worked it out with a New Orleans [Mafia] boss. They figured it out so it would look like a loony did it."360 

The real truth may never be known. Whatever the case, Long died in the hospital some hours after the shooting. What we do know is that Long's death removed from the scene a major threat not only to the Roosevelt administration, but to the Long machine which relied so heavily on the Lansky Organized Crime Syndicate. With Long out of the picture, the federal authorities gave up their interest in Louisiana and its murky political underworld. 

The evidence now indicates that Long's death could have been prevented. Hank Messick told the story: at a meeting in Hot Springs, Arkansas at the Arlington Hotel, shortly after Long's death, Frank Costello filled Lansky in on the truth about Long's departure. "We could have saved him," Costello told Lansky, "but I didn't see much use in it. The doctors had their orders to let him die."361 

This apparently was Meyer Lansky's first major involvement in the assassination of an American political figure with whom Organized Crime had collaborated. It would not be the last time, however. 

That Lansky's lieutenant, Carlos Marcello had his own reasons for wanting John F. Kennedy out of the way cannot be doubted. The Justice Department under Robert F. Kennedy had targeted Marcello repeatedly. 

John Davis's interesting biography of Marcello provides a detailed analysis of the Kennedy campaign against Marcello. No wonder Marcello made his famous oft-told exclamation, "Livarsi na petra di la scarpa" (Take the stone from my shoe.") Yet, such an emotional outburst does not an assassination order make. 

In fact, there is no evidence anywhere whatsoever that Marcello took any further affirmative action to have his order—if indeed one can call it an order—fulfilled. 

STALKING LANSKY THROUGH MARCELLO 

It's worth noting, in this regard, that Robert Kennedy's systematic prosecution and harassment of Marcello would have only been a logical first step in the Justice Department's ultimate prosecution of Meyer Lansky. 

This, of course, is a standard procedure in all similar organized crime prosecutions: first the underlings are targeted—then the boss. In this case, of course, it would have been the so-called "chairman of the board," Meyer Lansky. 

Seth Kantor, Jack Ruby's acquaintance and biographer, summarizes it well: "As Attorney General, [Robert F. Kennedy] got more indictments on members of America's criminal industry than had any previous prosecutor, pursuing them relentlessly. 

"Meyer Lansky, for instance, no longer was safe behind the bolted doors of that industry's executive suite. The Attorney General put together what was known inside the Justice Department as the OCD (Organized Crime Division) and was stalking Lansky's secret operations in the Bahamas and Las Vegas."362 

The assassination of John F. Kennedy and the demise of Robert Kennedy's campaign against organized crime as a direct consequence prevented this from happening. The end of the Kennedy war on organized crime was a major consequence—a major victory—for the organized crime fiefdom of Meyer Lansky.

Of course, as we have said, even if the JFK murder was strictly a "Mafia" operation—with no tentacles leading elsewhere—it would have been Lansky who ordered it from the start. 

Meyer Lansky was Carlos Marcello's immediate superior in the world of organized crime and not vice versa. There is simply no way of getting around Lansky's critical positioning in the center of the vast conspiracy. What we are demonstrating here is that the conspiracy reached above and beyond "the Mafia." And that is central to our thesis. 

LANSKY'S 'KOSHER NOSTRA' 

Interestingly, Ruby biographer Seth Kantor differentiated between what he called "Lansky's 'Kosher Nostra" and what the separately referred to as "the hot-blooded Sicilian Cosa Nostra." 363 Certainly, Carlos Marcello breathed a sigh of satisfaction when John F. Kennedy died in Dallas. However, Meyer Lansky was, of course, the ultimate beneficiary. 

Any major operation such as the assassination of a president—even if proposed by Marcello single-handedly—would have first had to have been cleared by Marcello through his boss, Meyer Lansky. Thus, it would have been Lansky himself who most certainly had to have given the go-ahead, even if the Kennedy assassination plot originated with Marcello alone. 

The evidence, of course, suggests, however, that Marcello and his associates in New Orleans were simply pawns in a more far-reaching conspiracy that originated elsewhere. Their proximity to Oswald and the New Orleans end of the conspiracy, however, makes them an easy target for those who seek to find a "Mafia" conspiracy behind the murder. 

WEASEL WORDS 

As noted previously, those very sources who point to Marcello as the mastermind of the JFK murder choose to ignore Marcello's secondary positioning to Meyer Lansky in the syndicate chain of command. Lansky linked Robert Blakey's House Assassinations Committee gingerly skirted around the issue, however. In its final report the committee concluded: 

"Given the far-reaching possible consequences of an assassination plot by the commission [i.e. the national `commission’ of Organized Crime], the committee found that such a conspiracy would have been the subject of serious discussion by members of the commission, and that no matter how guarded such discussions might have been, some trace of them would have emerged from the surveillance coverage [by federal authorities]. 

"It was possible to conclude, therefore, that it is unlikely that the national crime syndicate as a group, acting under the leadership of the commission, participated in the assassination of President Kennedy. 

"While the committee found it unlikely that the national crime syndicate was involved in the assassination, it recognized that a particular organized crime leader or a small combination of leaders, acting unilaterally might have formulated an assassination conspiracy without the consent of the commission." 364 

These are weasel words, to be sure. However, one could also conclude from the committee's presumption that if indeed Organized Crime did play some significant role in the assassination conspiracy, that it was not a conspiracy that originated with "the Mafia," for example. Perhaps then the conspiracy originated elsewhere. That, of course, is the conclusion presented in Final Judgment. 

Unwittingly, then, the House Committee has provided us even further basis for the conclusions drawn here. 

LANSKY NOT MENTIONED 

The House Committee report had nothing to say about the LanskyMarcello connection. This is par for the course in standard accounts of the JFK assassination which promote the theory that "The Mafia Killed JFK." What is also particularly interesting is that Robert Lacey's Lansky biography, Little Man, never once mentions Lansky's sponsorship of Marcello, nor does Marcello's name appear once in the book. The New Orleans connection is barely mentioned at all, and only in passing. Was Marcello—who even the FBI has said headed "the first family" of the Mafia—that unimportant? 

Could it be that because Marcello's name has been repeatedly linked to the JFK assassination that for Lacey—a very friendly biographer who worked closely with Lansky's family—to bring up Marcello's much-abused name would obviously draw in the Lansky connection to the JFK assassination? 

Is it possible that Marcello and his associates such as David Ferrie were deliberately drawn into the periphery of the assassination plot in order to deliberately plant the possibility that the blame for the assassination could be laid upon Marcello and the Mafia—in the event, perhaps, that the image of Lee Harvey Oswald as a "pro-Castro agitator" failed to work? 

This is indeed a possibility and would fit firmly into the long-standing Israeli Mossad policy of using "false flags" in its criminal endeavors. 

Clearly, there's a lot more to the relationship between Meyer Lansky and key "suspects" in the JFK assassination than meets the eye. All of which, again, points toward Lansky's central role in the international conspiracy which we document.

next
Cuban Love Song: 
Meyer Lansky, the Mafia, 
the CIA and the Mossad and 
the Castro Assassination Plots

Footnotes
Chapter Ten Little Man's Little Man 
338 David E. Scheim. Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy. (New York: Shapolsky Publishers, Inc., 1988), p. 120. 
339 Ibid. 
340 Ibid., p.48. 
341 Jim Garrison. On the Trail of the Assassins (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1988), p. 163-164. 
342 Peter Dale Scott. Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1993), p. 55. 
343 Mark Lane. Plausible Denial. (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991), p. 34. 
344 William Roemer. War of the Godfathers.(New York: Donald I. Fine, Inc., 1990), p. 53. 
345 Ibid., p. 55. 
346 Wm. Pepper. Orders to Kill. (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1995), p. 63. 
347 G. Robert Blakey & Richard N. Billings. The Plot to Kill the President: Organized Crime Assassinated JFK—The Definitive Story. (New York: Times Books, 1981), p. 401. 
348 Hank Messick, Lansky. (New York: Berkley Medallion Books, 1971), pp. 82-83. 
349 Martin A. Gosch & Richard Hammer. The Last Testament of Lucky Luciano. (Boston: Little Brown & Company, 1974), pp. 156-157. 
350 Messick, Ibid. 
351 Ibid., pp. 86-87. 
352 Ibid., p. 87. 
353 Ibid. 
354 Ibid., p. 129. 
355Robert D. Morrow. The Senator Must Die: The Murder of Robert F. Kennedy. (Santa Monica: CA: Roundtable Publishing, Inc., 1988), p. 16. 
356 Sam Giancana and Chuck Giancana. Double Cross: The Explosive Inside Story of the Mobster Who Controlled America. (New York: Warner Books, 1992), p. 298. 
357 Morrow p. 30. 
358 Giancana, p. 255. 
359Anthony Summers. Conspiracy. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980), p. 316. 
360 Giancana, p. 63. 
361 Messick, p. 84. 
362 Seth Kantor. Who Was Jack Ruby? (New York: Everest House, 1978), p. 28. 
363 Ibid 
364 House Select Committee on Assassinations. The Final Assassinations Report. (New York: Bantam Books, 1979), p. 204. 

ANOTHER HOAX: LETS PUT THE SPOTLIGHT ON SPOTLIGHT

Let's put the Spotlight 

on Spotlight

 

by Miles Mathis
@http://mileswmathis.com/index.html 

First published January 9, 2017 

As usual, this is just my opinion, based on internet research anyone can do. I mentioned in a previous paper that I suspected the 2015 Academy-Award-winning movie Spotlight was a spook film, pushing a fake story. At the time, I suspected that only because it won the Academy Award. Based on past experience, it was a good bet that any promoted film would be a spook film. Most films now are, but the most promoted are the most spooky. As I have said many times, if the mainstream is telling you it is day, bet on it being night. 

Well, it didn't take much research to discover my hunch was right. This story is another avalanche of red flags, if you know how to read them. Although professional reporters don't seem to know how to do real research anymore—getting all their stories from Langley—I do. I actually started by watching the film, which is unusual. I usually start at Wikipedia and work out from there. But I had already spent the day reading mainstream theory for a paper on my science site, and was ready to rest my eyes a bit. The first red flag flapped loudly in my face at minute 7:11, when it was revealed the editor of the Boston Globe at the time was a man named Ben Bradlee, Jr. (acted by John Slattery). What are the odds? You may recognize that name from Watergate, since his father Ben Bradlee, Sr. was the executive editor of the Washington Post at the time. He was an admitted spook, since we know from his bio he was recruited right out of Harvard for Office of Naval Intelligence (O.N.I). He worked under Rear Admiral Norman Scott during the war. Scott is a name we have seen from my genealogy papers of the past year, linked to all the top families on both sides of the pond. We will see many more below. 

To give you a taste of Norman Scott, check out this sentence from his Wiki page: 

In December 1917, he was Executive Officer of USS Jacob Jones (DD-61) when she was sunk by a German submarine and was commended for his performance at that time. 

What? Commended for sinking? For clarification, we go to the page for the Jacob Jones, where we find this: 

In early December, Jacob Jones helped escort a convoy to Brest, France,  with five other Queenstown-based destroyers. The last to depart from Brest on the return to Ireland, Jacob Jones was steaming alone in a zig-zag pattern when she was spotted by Kapitänleutnant Hans Rose on the German submarine U-53. [11]  Despite having her rudder put hard left and emergency speed rung up, Jacob Jones was unable to move out of the way, and the torpedo struck her rudder. Even though the depth charges did not explode, Jacob Jones was adrift. The jolt had knocked out power, so the destroyer was unable to send a distress signal; since she was steaming alone, no other ship was present to know of Jacob Jones' predicament..[11] 

Makes no sense, as usual. If the ship was escorting a convoy, how could it be steaming alone? A convoy is a group of ships, by definition. And why would it be moving in a zig-zag pattern? To signal the submarine below which ship to fire upon? And how did they know what sub hit them with a torpedo? Subs strike invisibly, and they don't radio their identity afterwards, saying, “Hah, got you!” If the torpedo hit, it is very unlikely it wouldn't explode. Even more unlikely is that an unexploded hit on the rudder would knock out radio power. Why would the radio be affected by that? Are we supposed to believe the radio was strapped to the rudder? We are told the ship then sank, but why would an unexploded hit on the rudder lead to a capsize? The rudder is just a little attached flap on the back of the ship. If it is blown off, you can't steer, but you won't sink. 

We are then told the commander of the German submarine surfaced and rescued two seamen and radioed for help to the nearby Allied base. Right. How stupid do they think we are? And I guess we are supposed to believe the sub remained in the area until the rescue arrived, passing out hot chocolates and singing Christmas carols? 

This Admiral Scott married a cousin, Marjorie Guild. She was grand daughter of Mary Scott. Her brother was Douglas Scott Guild. The Scotts are related to the Kennedys, since Admiral Scott's son married a Patricia Kennedy (not, I assume, Patricia Kennedy Lawford). 

Admiral Scott also allegedly died under very strange circumstances. In 1942 in the Guadalcanal, his ship was sunk by friendly fire by a fellow heavy cruiser. Since Scott's ship was the flagship, that is very unlikely. You don't strafe your own flagship. Wiki gives us the clue on the page for Guadalcanal: 

At 0125 on 13 November, a Japanese naval force was discovered about 27,000 yd (25,000 m) to the northwest. At 0148, in almost pitch darkness, San Francisco opened fire on an enemy cruiser 3,700 yd (3,400 m) off her starboard beam. At 0151, she trained her guns on a small cruiser or large destroyer 3,300 yd (3,000 m) off her starboard bow. Then in an attempt to locate other targets, San Francisco accidentally targeted Atlanta. San Francisco's gunfire caused extensive damage to Atlanta, killing Admiral Scott and most of Atlanta's bridge crew. 

Did you notice the numerology? The paragraph leads with the number 0125. That adds to eight. Scott was 53, which also adds to eight. The two ships were 3,300 yds apart, a nice Masonic number. 

We are told Scott was buried at sea, which—under the circumstances—could mean his body was never found. 

But let's move on. Why did I include that? Because it indicates Scott was hoaxing projects back to W.W.1. Bradlee then worked under him in O.N.I, continuing the work. After W.W 2, Bradlee shifted the hoaxes out of the military and into the media, like thousands of other agents. 

That's Ben Bradlee, Jr. Would you buy a used car from this man? As we proceed, study the photos closely. Notice that all these people have crooked smiles and shifty eyes. I noticed this even before seeing pictures of them, since I noticed Mark Ruffalo was doing a strange thing with his mouth in the film. I wondered to myself if he had been hit in the mouth recently, changing his way of speaking. But no, it looks like he was just trying to match his character's real-life mannerisms, which include a very crooked mouth. We see a less pronounced thing with Bradlee above. If you study all these people in photos or film, you can read them before they say their first word. Or I can. Anyone who investigated the story by talking to the real characters would have known he was inside a con within minutes. Only by replacing these people with charismatic actors could this be sold as real. Not that the actors are any more trustworthy, they are just better at fooling you. It is their job, and they are very good at it. They were hired specifically because their faces don't (yet) match their black souls. 

As for Bradlee's genealogy, is is admitted he was from the top families, and Wiki tells us he was a Choate, a Crowninshield, and a Gersdorff. You may think the last name is the least interesting, but think again. Through his mother, Bradlee was descended from the Holy Roman Emperor, the King of Denmark, the King of Poland, and the King of England. It is not only the Kings that are interesting, it is which Kings. Henry VII of England, about whom I recently wrote a paper. And King Casimir IV of Poland, whom I have also hit. To cut right to it, I have outed them both as crypto-Jews. Casimir IV was a Jagiellon, which family I have analyzed in three long papers in the past year, including my paper on Napoleon. So for me to see them come up here again is astonishing, to say the least. Also astonishing to see this admitted at Wikipedia. Wiki doesn't admit the Jagiellons are Jewish, of course, but it does admit Bradlee descends from them. 

Bradlee, Sr.'s first marriage was to fellow Boston Brahmin Jean Saltonstall. She was Ben, Jr.'s mother. Do you want to guess what day they got married? No, it wasn't March 33rd. It was the next best thing, August 8. 8/8. Which leads us to look at his birthdate. 8/26/21. Since 2+6=8, we have the same thing. 

In 1952 Bradlee joined the staff of the Offce of U.S. Information and Educational Exchange (USIE), the embassy's propaganda unit. USIE produced flms, magazines, research, speeches, and news items for use by the CIA throughout Europe. USIE (later known as USIA) also controlled the Voice of America, a means of disseminating pro-American "cultural information" worldwide. While at the USIE, according to a Justice Department memo from an assistant U.S. attorney in the Rosenberg Trial, Bradlee was helping the CIA manage European propaganda regarding the spying conviction and execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on June 19, 1953.[16] 

That's straight from Wiki. We see a red flag about every three words. We have seen Voice of America as a leading propaganda bullhorn, tied to the Monica Lewinsky hoax   and many others. And the Rosenberg trial was also faked. Notice the Rosenbergs are Jewish as well, like everyone else we are outing. Despite all this admission of propaganda, we are supposed to believe that when Bradlee was at the Washington Post, he was no longer involved in propaganda projects: he was just a straight editor, right? 

In 1957, Bradlee married his second wife, Antoinette Pinchot. Do you recognize that name from my Kennedy paper? She was the sister of Mary Pinchot, wife of Cord Meyer. Meyer just happened to be a top CIA agent involved in Project Mockingbird. And what was that about? According to Wikipedia, it was a “program to influence the media”. But Bradlee was never influenced, right? He was just a straight editor later at the Post, right? 

Bradlee's new wife was also a close friend of Cicely d'Autremont, the wife of James Jesus Angleton. Wow. Angleton was of course later the number two man in the CIA under Helms. Angleton ran Project Chaos, which was even spookier than Mockingbird. Again, all this is up at Wikipedia: it is not “conspiracy” theory. Anyway, the red flags on Bradlee, Sr. stack to the moon. But I need to move on to his son and the others. Besides being at the Globe for 25 years, Bradlee, Jr. also wrote high-profile books on the Ambush murders and the Iran-Contra Affair. Given what we will discover below, we may assume those were both faked as well. In the film, they make it look like Bradlee was pulled along by the Spotlight team against his will, but we can be sure that wasn't the case. 

So who are the other characters in Spotlight? Well, we have the new editor of the Globe coming in from Miami, that being Marty Baron. His bio is another avalanche of red flags. We are told his parents were Jewish immigrants from Israel, but we don't get any names at Wiki. In the film, they admit he was the first (admitted) Jewish editor of the Globe. That should have always been a huge red flag, since the top Jewish families have been fighting with Rome for centuries. Did no one think to ask if that old war was going on here? Tied to that is the fact that the Globe had been bought out by the New York Times. The Times is old Jewish money as well, from the Sulzbergers. So, again, a huge red flag flapping in the same direction. 

So who is Marty Baron? Well, amazingly, Geni.com tells us. His mother is a Zimmerman, which links us to Bob Dylan for the millionth time. Her father comes from Poland. Her mother is a Stra(c)hilevitz, from Israel before there was an Israel. We also have Marcuses and Fishmans. Baron's father is given as Howard Naftali (Heinz) Baron, although we aren't told what the Heinz signifies. It isn't his mother's maiden name, since she is a Kohane. His grandfather is Naftali Herz Kohane, so I guess the Heinz comes from Herz. But we are being pushed sideways, since all of these names looked slightly fudged. Kohane is probably a variation of Cohen, which would connect Marty Baron to actor Sacha Baron Cohen. I have shown he is related to Karl Marx: the research wasn't difficult since the genealogies are posted and the link is explicit. This indicates to me that Marty Baron is also from those lines. We also find Rappoports on this side of his genealogy, which is more confirmation. We have seen them before in these same lines going back to Marx and before that to Poland. I don't know that I have linked them to the Jagiellons, but that would be my next assumption. My current hunch is Bradlee and Baron are probably related via these lines, which is why they were assigned to the same project at the same newspaper. Baron's Geni pages make this difficult to prove, since his father's line stops in the 1860s— not that long ago. No other genealogies of Baron exist on the internet, that I could find. 

However, the Naftali name is also a red flag. We have previously seen Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home party in Israel. He came up when we were researching the Bennetts—another one of the families. Then we have Peretz Naftali, an Israeli Zionist activist from the 1950's. Perhaps the biggest red flag on him is his joining the S.D.P in Germany in 1911. In my paper on the Beer Hall Putsch, I showed that—like the Socialist parties in the US at the same time—the S.D.P was a fake party manufactured by the usual suspects as opposition control. It appeared to be pro-worker but was really a front for the industrialists and billionaires. This is a clue here, because the same thing was happening in Boston in the late 20th century and early 21st. Not, I mean, as a matter of Socialism, but as a matter of infiltration and opposition control. We will see below that the Catholic Church was not so much a target here as an accomplice in a larger project. Or, the Church wasn't attacked from the outside: it was infiltrated and blown from within. 

The clue in the film is when Cardinal Law says, “this city most flourishes when its great institutions work together”. In the manufactured Catholic priest scandal, the institutions did work together, and one of those institutions was the Catholic Church itself. You probably won't understand how that could work at this point in our research, but I think by the end of the paper you will. 

This is who they chose to play Marty Baron: 

Do you see a small problem? That's Isaac Liev Schreiber, who is at least Jewish. However, he is about 6'3” and very charming, while Marty is. . . not. Schreiber tries to play it down, acting very shy and unassuming, but it doesn't really work. We know that editors neither look like that nor act like that. It is admitted that Schreiber's mother and her family were and are prominent Communists. This Heather Milgram was involved in the Socialist Party and “hung out with William S. Burroughs”. The Men's Journal admits that her father was tied to the Jewish mob, Murder Inc. No, really, not making that up. That's Schreiber's grandfather. 

Before we move on from Marty Baron, it is worth circling the name Heinz again. This links him to the current Heinz dynasty, which is also from the these same families hailing back to Marx and before. Like the Rockefeller's, Henry Heinz is sold as a good German from the Palatinate, but that is just a fudge. As we see from Marty Baron's ancestry, the name is Jewish. Baron is admitted to be Jewish on both sides, and the name Heinz comes up prominently. We see more evidence of this when we notice that Henry Heinz named his son Clarence Noble Heinz. Again, that is probably a fudge of Nobel, another one of these families. Think Nobel Prize. This Heinz was also a Trump and a Setzer, admitted to be an ancestor of Donald Trump. Since I have previously shown you evidence Trump is Jewish,, my job is done. Both the Heinz and Trumps descend from Kohl's, and the current rich American Kohl's are admitted to be Jewish. See Herb Kohl and the founders of Kohl's department stores Maxwell Kohl. On his father's side, Henry Heinz is a Muller, which should be Mueller, which I have previously connected to the prominent American Millers. 

I am going back and forth between Wiki, Geni, and the film. It is a very interesting way to do it, since viewing the movie piecemeal makes the clues that much more obvious. If you don't get swept up by the fake story, you see not only the holes but the clues left by the directors—indicating the fake as they fake it. One example of that? At minute 50:00 in the film, the Globe reporters are haunting the libraries, reading up on local priests. As one of them enters the room, he says, “What's that smell?” The one already there says, “It's a dead rat in the corner”. Really? Do you think that is an important part of the script? Why would that be in the script? Ask yourself that and demand an answer. The answer is it is a clue. There is a big smelly dead rat in the corner of this entire film, although it will remain invisible to most viewers. I am showing you how to smell it, spot it, and sweep it out. 

The next character to look at is Walter V. Robinson, played by Michael Keaton. He is the head of the Spotlight group. Notice anything about his name? I have outed the Robinsons in many papers. They have been hoaxing events in Massachusetts back to the Salem Witch Trials. More recently I showed you they were major players in the Lizzie Borden hoax. A Robinson was governor at the time, and he had relatives in Fall River involved directly in the hoax. Think that name Robinson is a coincidence? It isn't, and they give the clue in the film. The priest Geoghan is the main bad guy there, but they also reference the case of a priest named Porter from ten years earlier. And where was he from? Fall River, where the Borden hoax was run. Again, it is best you keep reminding yourself that, outside of Hollywood and Los Angeles, more events and projects have been run out of Eastern Massachusetts than any other place. It is no accident that this fake priest scandal was centered on Boston. Hundreds of other fake scandals have also centered on Boston (and nearby towns like Salem, Concord, etc.). The fake Boston Marathon bombing didn't just happen in Boston by accident. This is an epicenter of fake events. The entire city is like a big movie set, and if you have ever lived there or visited there, you may know what I mean. You can literally feel the MATRIX buzzing around you. 

Strange we aren't told what the V stands for in Walter V. Robinson's name. Although this guy has no genealogy posted, there is an earlier Walter V. Robinson, and his mother was a Voorhees. This may be our Robinson's father. The name Voorhees is suggestive, since it is also connected to these same hoaxing families. Remember, a Daniel Voorhees allegedly confessed to the murder of Elizabeth Short in 1947. Note the date. This was part of the faked Black Dahlia murders, since Voorhees was a suspect. Elizabeth Short had lived in Boston before moving to LA, which connects us again to our current mystery. Although Voorhees confessed to the murder, the LA police strangely ignored him. They didn't even ask for an alibi. They simply sent him to a psychiatrist for an exam. Although the exam was inconclusive, they just let him go. Is that how it works in the real world? His name was probably borrowed from an earlier Daniel Voorhees who was leader of the Democratic Party during the Civil War, chair of the Senate Finance Committee (and, of course, a spook). The son of this Daniel Voorhees was Charles Stewart Voorhees, which middle name should ring a bell. If not, see my paper on Tiger Woods, and the section on Payne Stewart. At any rate, the Voorhees family hails back to founders of New York and Brooklyn in 1660. More recently, we have seen an Erik Voorhees involved in the Bitcoin scam. He looks to me like a plant. 

The Walter Robinson in our story married a Barbara Wojtkiewicz, another clue here. The name is Polish, but it is Jewish as well. It also links us again to previous papers. Specifically to my paper on F. Scott Fitzgerald. You will remember that Fitzgerald was linked to a woman named Sheilah Graham late in life. Well, her real name was Lily Shiel, and she was Jewish. Her third husband was Stanley Wojtkiewicz. Oh the tangled webs they weave. For more, we find that Sheilah Graham's daughter was named Wendy Westbrook Fairey. Does that tie us to “artist” Shepard Fairey? Probably. 

Our next stop is Sacha Pfeiffer, the only woman on the Spotlight team. She is played by Rachel McAdams in the film. Pfeiffer is slightly less repellent than the other characters, and was probably hired for the team for that reason. She was likely the eye candy, sent in as the face when the team needed a spokesperson. Just a guess. She also has a nice speaking voice, and reminds me a bit of Elizabeth Gilbert. In interviews, she is almost as good at fooling you as the actors. 

Both of her names are clues in our current mystery. We already saw that first name above, didn't we? Sacha Baron Cohen. You may think that is a coincidence, but I rarely find coincidences in these name matches. They always indicates links among the families. In support of that is the fact that the name Pfeiffer is again probably Jewish—especially when joined to the first name Sacha. See for example famous cartoonist Jules Feiffer, originally Pfeiffer, admitted to be Jewish. His mother was Rhoda Davis, also Jewish, which tells us that even the name Davis can be Jewish. Sacha Pfeiffer's father is given online as Richard Coy Pfeiffer, Jr. If we search on “Richard Coy Pfeiffer genealogy”, the first result is for Robert Pfeiffer his grandfather. Although Richard Coy Pfeiffer's Geni page strangely is not listed in a search for that name, his father Richard Coy Pfeiffer, Sr. does have his own page linking out from his father's page. And his wife is given as Jennie Marie Stoll. Wiki tells us she worked many years at Pober's Clothing Store for children in Boston. Pober is a Jewish name. Stoll may be, too. Richard's middle name Coy is not usually given and his page is unlisted in a search because once we find it we discover he is related to the Howes, the Randalls, the Oviatts, the Griffiths, the Newtons, and the Bronsons. The families go back to Plymouth, MA, and Windsor, CT, and before that to the Irvings, Clarkes, Drakes, Bissells, Jones, Denys, Donnes, Moores, Webbs, and the Ardens and Shakespeares of Stratford-upon-Avon. We know we are on the right track, because these pages are managed by our old friend Erica the Disconnetrix and by a guy named Alan Rosenfield. That is Jewish. More interesting info is found at Geni, where we see that Richard Coy Pfeiffer, Sr. was a Special Agent, IRS. With a bit more digging, we find Sacha's mother as Janet Preskenis, but her genealogy is completely scrubbed. We do find that her brother Kenneth married a woman named Elaine Bloom. Bloom is a common Jewish name. And we find there that Kenneth and Sacha's mother was named Alice Matulaitis. That is also probably a Jewish name, from Vilnius. Wiki admits Sacha's mom was Lithuanian, which helps us here. 

At Googlebooks we find excerpts  from Lithuanian Social Democracy in Perspective, 1893-1914. There we find a Stasys Matulaitis, d. 1956, as an early member of the LSD and later a prominent Marxist. And indeed, he was so prominent we find he has page at Wiki Lithuania, which we have to translate. There, we find he was in a secret society at the University of Moscow in the 1890s. By 1898 he was already a prominent spook, working with the secret Pleiades Society. There he published journals as part of the fake Socialist movement. He was allegedly arrested and exiled for three years to Vologda. He returned and continued writing subversive literature under a variety of aliases. Much of his output was aimed against. . . wait for it. . . priests. Do you see how that fits into this paper so nicely? During the war he wrote for the Bolsheviks, editing the paper Tiesa, which means Truth. Pravda also means Truth. After the war he was arrested by Polish authorities, but allowed to escape. He was arrested again in 1925 but again skated. Stasys' niece Hannah moved to Michigan and married a Lodge. We have seen that name in my paper on Lindbergh his mother was Evangeline Lodge Land, from Michigan. 

OK, so on to Michael Rezendes, played by Mark Ruffalo. Rezendes is to your right. I must say again, it helps immensely to see the real people involved in this hoax. Hollywood of course hires people to play them who are far more charismatic and attractive, skewing your judgment. The actual people at the Globe are a giveaway at a glance, since you can read the conjob straight from their eyes. Wiki gives us no biographical info on Rezendes, not even DOB, but we do learn he wrote about 911 for the Globe before getting involved in the priest cases. Did he expose anything about 911? Of course not. He was paid to misdirect, like all other mainstream journalists. Despite a complete scrubbing of his genealogy online, I was able to find something, as usual. In the library at UMASS we find a box of material on Dennis Rezendes, who looks like he might be Michael's father. Why do I say that? Because Dennis tells us his mother was Martina Barreira, of Fall River, MA. Dennis went to Wharton School of Business. He later worked in the Mayor's office in New Haven. And boom, we find at that link that Dennis did have a son named Michael. The dates match, since Michael's grandmother is listed as being born in 1911. Michael looks to be in his 50's. I am 53 and my grandmother was born 1910. In this list of contents, we also find the names Mario Bettencourt Resendes, Martina Sousa Resendes, and Milena Pimental Resendes. Also a Manuel Carvalho. Remember that for later. There is a University of Maine scholarship named after him. That gives us five more names to research, and immediately tells us Michael was related to the Bettencourts. Why does that matter? Because Liliane Bettencourt is the richest woman in the world right now. She is the principal shareholder of L'Oreal. She was born a Schueller. Her husband Andre Bettencourt was French Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1973. He wrote Nazi propaganda during the war—which, as we have seen, doesn't indicate what you think it does. It does not indicate he was a Nazi. It indicates he was involved in the hoax. Liliane's father Schueller is also said to have been a Nazi, but like Andre Bettencourt he was a controller of the opposition, only pretending to attack Jews. In short, they were both crypto-Jews themselves. In support of that, we find that Francois Bettencourt, daughter of Andre and Liliane, married Jean-Pierre Meyers, a Jew. His parents supposedly died at Auschwitz. You can't make this stuff up. 

Dennis Rezendes tells us his father came from the Azores, which links us to the Portuguese Bettencourts back to 1600. See Joao de Bettencourt de Vasconcelos, who—as the majorat and captain- major—built the Manor of the Mother of God in Sé. The Bettencourts remained prominent in both the Azores and Portugal throughout history. This again confirms we have the right Michael Rezendes, son of Dennis, since in the film he admits he is Portuguese [minute 57:00]. 

If we research Andre Bettencourt, we find his maternal line scrubbed, which is a red flag. But we do find the name de Chalendar. That is interesting, since Pierre-Andre de Chalendar is the current chairman of Saint-Gobain Group, a large multinational. It expanded greatly in the late 1980s when it was bought by Jean-Louis Beffa. That is probably a Jewish name. See the musician Karol Beffa, who —according to this genealogy—is really Karol Beffa Zuber. Zuber is a Jewish name from Poland. More indication the de Chalendars are now or have always been crypto-Jewish is this post by a Jewish woman on her blog. She tells us she went to a Rosh Hashanah party hosted by Bank Leumi in London. Her invitation came from “her dear friend Guillaume de Chalendar who heads their media finance division”. You will say that evidence is circumstantial, so I will support it with another link There we find the same Guillaume de Chalendar at the launch of the UK Jewish Film Festival. Here he is: 

French or Jewish? Maybe both, but very Jewish. 

Finally, let's look at Mitchell Garabedian, the attorney for the plaintiffs in the film. On screen, he looks very Jewish, since he is played by Stanley Tucci. Wiki tells us Tucci is Italian, but I don't believe it for a second. 

Tucci couldn't look more Jewish if he were wearing a yarmulke. Remember, Tucci was married to Felicity Blunt, and her sister married John Krasinski. The Blunts' mother is Joanna Mackie. I will make this easy on you: they are all Jewish. 

This applies to Garabedian as well: 

Garabedian is well scrubbed on the internet. I found his name in a Tenney High School yearbook from 1969, Methuen, MA. Other than that, slim pickens. However, I found a way around the block, as usual. If we search on other Garabedians, we find a 2007 obit for a Julia Bendian Garabedian of California. Married Jack Garabedian in 1948. She has a son Jack in Miami. But what stood out was one of the surnames linked to her: Carvalho. We saw that above, didn't we? Michael Rezendes was related to a Manuel Carvalho. This means that Garabedian and Rezendes may be related. At the same message boards, we find more interesting info. We are told that a Hagob Garabedian, AKA Hakob Karapetian, brother of Soghomon Kirakosyan, born in Van, Turkey, was a famous merchant who “had to” immigrate to the US after the 1915 Armenian genocide. That of course indicates he was Jewish. This takes us to the Wiki page on Karapetyan, a variation of Garabedian, both of which are Armenian, confirming what we just found. Also confirmation is that the Garabedian character admits he is Armenian in the film. So every single person on the Spotlight team or connected to them turned out to be Jewish, and most of them were sold to us as lapsed Catholics. 

OK, I found enough data to make you very suspicious of this story. But what was it all about? Why fake a major story about pedophilia in the Catholic Church? Strap yourself down, because I still have a lot of things to hit, and many of them may not have occurred to you. Some may be difficult for us both. We will start with pedophilia itself. It is a word thrown around a lot, but what does it really mean? It means (sexual) love of children. Legally, a child is a person who has not gone through puberty, so we are talking about persons under 12-14, say. It varies, because not everyone goes through puberty at the same age. I mention this, because there is some confusion, and that confusion has been promoted on purpose. Pedophilia does not apply to all people under the age of consent, which is 17-18, depending on the state. The term that applies from age 14 to 17 is statutory rape, not pedophilia. In the US, you are not allowed to sleep with persons of that age, even with consent, since they cannot legally consent. But if you do, you are guilty of statutory rape, not pedophilia. There is a huge difference, which is why I am pausing to circle it. Historically, it has not been seen as being highly unusual to be attracted to persons beyond puberty. That is the way biology works, you know. You are supposed to be attracted to persons beyond puberty. In our country at this time, you are also supposed to be attracted to people near your own age, but there is nothing illegal about being attracted to those younger, in most cases. We do protect persons under 18 from older persons, and that is sensible in most cases, since they are naive and need protection and guidance. In this, we are actually far stricter than Europe, which in most cases lets post-pubescent persons fend for themselves. I am not saying Europe is better or worse, just telling you how it is, so you know. I have lived in both places, so I know. I have had weird experiences in both places, and both places are very screwed up—sexually and otherwise—so it is hard to choose. 

Anyway, we need to know all that in order to look at a statistic pushed by both sides in the Spotlight controversy. In other words, I have found this statistic being promoted both by the mainstream and by the defenders of the Catholic Church. We are told that 6% of the population inside and outside the Church is pedophilic. 32% is ephebophilic. That last term means they are sexually attracted to teens from 15-19. You should be highly suspicious of those numbers, since they don't make any sense. 

Notice in that linked Wiki page that these numbers come from the John Jay Report, which is even more strict about defining pedophilia than I was above. They create a third category for 11 and 12 year olds, so to be a pedophile you have to be sexually attracted to those younger than 11. Do you really think 6% of the general population is sexually attracted to those under 11? I don't. That would mean about one in every sixteen people is a pedophile. I have lived over five decades on this crazy planet, but I have never seen any evidence that is close to being true. Pedophilia is considered to be a very weird thing, which is why people are so shocked by it. It is highly unnatural. So how could something that one in every 16 people is be considered highly unnatural? 

Yes, most people think children are cute or pretty, because they often are, but thinking they are cute and wanting to have sex with them are two entirely different things. I think my kittens are cute, but I don't want to have sex with them. 

I simply don't believe 6% of the population is pedophilic. And since I have seen the mainstream lying to me about everything, I have no problem disbelieving this number. They make up statistics and numbers all the time to push various agendas, so best guess that is what is happening here. 

I don't doubt that some people are pedophilic, but based on what I know about people and life, I would guess something on the order of 6 in 10,000, not 6 in a hundred. That means the decimal would be . 0006, not .06. And if we whittle that down to those who would consider acting on such a horrible impulse, we would have to add another couple of zeroes, .000006. 

Another reason you shouldn't believe the 6% figure is that it would be impossible to arrive at using any questionnaire. Just think about it. Do you think one in sixteen people are going to admit on a questionnaire that they are sexually attracted to children under 11? Of course not. It would be like admitting to strangers that you had a body buried under your house. The same applies to Catholic priests. How could you possibly obtain that 6% number? Notice on the Wiki page for the John Jay Report that they glide you right past that. They have a section called “methodology”, but it is only four sentences and tells you almost nothing. What they do tell us is that the data came from “priests accused of sexual abuse”. So, that begs the question: “Does that mean they found 6% of those accused admitted to liking children under 11, or that 6% of all priests did?” It looks to me like they are saying 6% of those accused admitted liking or were assumed to like children under 11. On a closer look, we find it is even less than that. It says, “6% of the cleric offenders are pedophiles”. If you are accused, you are not an offender. To be an offender you have to be convicted. That is very different than saying 6% of all priests are pedophiles, isn't it? In fact, it would bring the percentage way, way down. Assuming they didn't just fake this entire survey, it would mean that we need to know what percentage of all priests were convicted to be able to do any real math. Let's use some round numbers to come to a likely figure. Let's say 1 in every 1,000 priests have been convicted in actual court documents. 6% of those priests then admit to liking children. What percentage of all priests are acting pedophiles, in that case? Well, that's 6% of .1%, which is .006% or .00006. Six in one hundred thousand. 

At the one-hour mark in the film, it is confirmed that they are selling the 6% figure as 6% of all priests. We are told that there may be 90 priests in the Boston area who are pedophiles. But I have just shown you they are massaging numbers by huge amounts. I have reminded you that the John Jay Report explicitly contradicts those numbers. You can see it yourself  if you don't believe me. According to the report, 4% of all clergy have been accused and “less than .1% have been convicted”. Despite the ever increasing culture of fear we now live in, the accusations curiously peaked back in the 1970's. 

The 6% figure is quoted in the report again, but this time it is that 6% of those accused were convicted. Again, that is very different than saying 6% of all clergy are potential pedophiles. In fact, it allows us to do the math using their own numbers. They give us a chart of ages as a percent of all cases. We find that about 53% of the cases were persons 13-17. About 25% were persons 11-12. So only about 22% were children under 11. Wikipedia misrepresents this number, reporting it as 22% were children under 10. Only 14% were children under 10, according to the posted chart. Therefore, we can throw out about half these cases as statutory rape, at the worst. Molesting a 17-year-old is wrong, but it isn't pedophilia. 

So, they have told us explicitly in a major report that 6% of offenders are pedophiles, 6% of those accused are convicted, and 4% of all clergy are accused. What percentage of all clergy are pedophiles? We just multiply the three numbers together. Which gives us .0144% or .000144 as a decimal. Or about 1 in 10,000. That is close to my guess above. 

Therefore, given 1,500 priests in Boston x .000144 = .216. Not 90 priests in Boston that are pedophiles, but less than one. 

At minute 1:02:00, they tell their editor Bradlee that there may be 90 pedophile priests in Boston. He says, “90 fucking priests?. . . and no one said a thing?” The Rezendes character says, “Good Germans”. Wow. You should pause to savor that line in the film. As a Mathis (Mathis is German), I did. Remind yourself that all these characters, and all these actors playing these characters, are Jewish, and then read that again. Now tell me there is no continuing war between the Jews and the Holy Roman Empire. 

In the opposite way, I disbelieve the 32% number. It should be much higher. By the definition of the John Jay Report, if we include 18-19 year olds in the data, almost every man on Earth would be an ephebophile. But you don't have to take my word for it: just look at statistics in porn. A disproportionate fraction of porn concerns late teen girls, or girls who look very young. I seriously doubt that every guy looking at naked 19 years olds online is 19-25 himself. If I had to assign a number to replace the 32% number, I would guess above 90%.* Older guys don't avoid 19 year olds because they are turned off by them physically, they avoid them for many other reasons: because the girls are silly or immature, because they have nothing in common with them, or because they don't wish to look like leches—in their own eyes. 

For this reason, even having a term “ephebophile” and including it in pedophile statistics is misdirection. It makes you think there is something odd about being attracted sexually to a beautiful 19 year old. There is nothing odd about it. It would be odd if you weren't. Which is not to say you should be chasing 19 year olds. It is just to say that there is nothing odd in thinking they are sexually attractive. Again, that is just the way biology works. 

One more thing to mention, and this may be the most difficult. However, if we are going to study this honestly, we have to include it. Watching the film, we have several excruciating scenes where we have to listen to men tell their stories of being molested when they were children. Not one story is believable to me, and I will tell you why. They always start out by saying that priests are like gods in the eyes of children in church. Baloney. Children are not that stupid or that easy to prey on. They aren't now and they weren't then. I remember being a kid, and none of my friends or I were like that. We didn't look upon any adults as gods, not even our parents. I looked up to my parents and some of my teachers and pastors, but there is no one I would have willingly been molested by. They couldn't have talked me into anything like that, not with sweets, favors, threats, or even large amounts of money. And I would have ratted them out in half a second for so much as suggesting it.[I totally agree I was baptized and confirmed in this Church before I had anything to say about it, and trust me, the priests bored the hell out of me,I have not been in a church in 45 years,but it had nothing to do with the priests, in my case I simply knew they were lying DC] 

In the film [minute 49:00], we are told that priests target boys not because they prefer them, but because they are less likely to talk, due to shame. No way. Boys talk, and they probably have less shame than girls. From my experience, girls are much more likely to bottle up stuff like that. They are also far easier for adults to buffalo, in general. Everyone knows that. That is why girls are easier to raise: in general they aren't so headstrong. 

You will say I was just lucky not to have been preyed upon. But I don't see it that way. In fact, I was the quintessential choir boy, with curly blond hair. I got mistaken for a girl a few times when I about 11 or 12. Men have always followed me around. They followed me around when I was ten and they are still doing it, so I didn't dodge anything. I have gotten propositioned many times over the years, although it is usually just with leer, a nod, or a lick of the lips or something. I showed no interest, or disgust, so they moved on. That is how it really works. They may have wished to be with me, but they had no desire to rape me. 

And not all of those who have propositioned me have been older men. When I was in Europe, I got hit on by boys. Children. Just so you don't think I am making it up, I will share a complete story. I visited Denmark in 1999. I was 35. I wanted to see some of the country outside of Copenhagen, so I decided to go to Fejo. Well, the bus in the country in Denmark doubles as the school bus, so you sometimes have to ride with kids. At the next to the last stop before the ferry, all the schoolkids got off except one. A boy, about 10-12. He moved his seat to the one in front of me, and then turned around to talk to me. He was speaking Danish, so I told him in English I didn't understand him. In answer, he reached between the seats and put his hand on my knee. He then looked at me knowingly and licked his lips. I removed his hand from knee and said “no.” He understood that and moved off. If you think I was shocked, you are right. 

But that isn't the only time I was hit on by a child. I was traveling through Italy several years earlier on my bicycle, staying in hostels. At one small town, I was in the john at the hostel when a boy, again about 12, poked his head over the stall and offered to give me a BJ. Didn't ask for money, just offered with a big smile. I threw a roll of TP at him and yelled at him to go away and leave me alone. 

So from personal experience—experience I wish I didn't have—I know that some boys are quite willing. They don't have to be convinced of anything. Supposing one of these boys meets a gay priest, or any other gay man, I suppose anything can and does happen. I am not really interested in knowing more than that, but I would say there isn't much anyone can do about it. I see it as neither a tragedy nor a comedy: it is just the way things are. It is one of those things in the world that happens without my participation, like ice hockey or bug collecting or nude bingo. 

If we include that fact in our math, it skews the numbers down again. Why? Because, again assuming most of these reports of molestation were real and not planted (which I don't assume), some percentage of them are going to include boys like this, who were quite willing. We can then assume the report of molestation was filed by his parents, who hadn't come to terms with the fact their son was gay. I think we can understand that, and understand why the parents are unhappy, but it does change the story a bit. You will say the priest should have begged off regardless, and I agree, but I have to admit it is an extenuating circumstance. It means the priest is weak, but not that he is a predator. Yes, he should be removed from his position regardless, but is he a monster? I wouldn't say so. 

But again, that is mostly tangential, because whether or not we include it in the math or morality, we have seen the numbers are skewed by huge amounts. The numbers have been inflated by many orders of magnitude, so much so that we can call this one more big project. One more gigantic lie. 

So why are these fake statistics being pushed on us? Several reasons. One we just saw with the ephebophile statistics: they want you to think that there is something wrong with normal biology. They want you beating yourself up for being a human creature. Because if you are doing that, you are going to need lots of serious drugging. You are going to need multiple trips to the pharmacy each week to buy all their new pharmaceuticals, which have been designed to de-humanize you. You are also going to need to compensate for your loss of humanity and loss of belief in yourself and loss of human contacts. So you are going to need multiple trips to the mall each week to stock up on the various products they have available for you to do that. Two, with the pedophile statistics they wish to scare you senseless. They want you looking sideways at everyone you meet, asking yourself if they are the 1 in 16 who are molesting children when they get home. That again breaks your ties to other people and forces you to compensate, buying exponentially more useless stuff. 

If you don't think the film Spotlight is about that, I refer you to minute 1:04:30. One of the researchers says “Oh, shit!” and runs out of his house. He runs down the block and around the corner, where he stands looking at a dark and dilapidated house. It is the house of one of the pedophile priests he has been reading about. He then tapes a note to his frig, warning his children not to go near that house. The message to those watching the film: the monsters are living in your neighborhood. Fear everyone! 

Now, let's look at the “monster” priest Father Geoghan and analyze his story for sense. As usual, we find none. To start with, in the picture above Geoghan is in court in 2002, so he should be 67. Does he look 67? No, he looks about 85, doesn't he? He has a nice head of hair for an old man, but his skin is awful. The only person of 67 years who would have skin that bad would be someone who worked outside every day of his life. Geoghan didn't. They needed someone who looked like a lizard, so they hired this 85-year-old to play a 67-year-old. It is also very convenient that his name is Geoghan, and that it is pronounced Gay-gun. Why is it pronounced like that? Does it make any sense that “eo” is pronounced like a long “a”? How do they get there? It is a variant of Georghan, which should be pronounced like George: Jor-gan. So Geoghan should be pronounced like Joe-gan. Normally, when a “g” is followed by an “e”, it is soft, you know, and is pronounced like a “j”. Also convenient he is not a cute old man like Pete Seeger, right? That would have ruined the whole story. So he had to look like someone Hollywood hired for his looks, to fit the part. He does that pretty well, doesn't he? 

If we do a people search on John Geoghan of Massachusetts, we find two guys on Instant Checkmate. One is 81 and the other 66. Since our Geoghan was allegedly born in 1935, the first must be him. However, since Geoghan died at age 68 in 2003, it is strange to find him listed as being 81. Do corpses continue to age after death? Not where I come from. You will say the computers don't track deaths and stop the aging, but they do. That is if they have a death record. So the computers must not know of any death records for this Geoghan. Another problem is the locations listed for him. There are only three: West Roxbury, Milton, and Scituate. Unfortunately, that doesn't match his bio at Wiki, which gives us many locations, including Boston, Saugus, Concord, Hingham, Jamaica Plain, Dorchester, Weston, Silver Spring, Hartford, and Ontario. As you see, not one match. Another problem is his middle initial. This John J. Geoghan, 81, has an alias of John C. Geoghan. What? He didn't know his own middle name? Who aliases only their middle name? Is that going to fool anyone? So already we have a big problem. 

Let's try Intelius. Safari won't open the page, so I switch to Firefox. There, Intelius tells us there is one John J. Geoghan in MA, and that the J. stands for John. So his name was John John? He has the same locations as the other search, plus Boston. His only relative is Katherine Geoghan, same as the other search. 

Wikipedia doesn't mention a Katherine Geoghan, but I suppose that is his sister. It also doesn't mention any parents for Geoghan. I guess he was born from a test tube. The first complaint against Geoghan was in 1968 in Hingham, when “a man” complained to church authorities he caught Geoghan molesting his son. Really? He didn't beat the shit out of Geoghan or file a police report? Instead, Geoghan was sent for treatment to Seton Institute. He later returned to the same church, where it happened again. Joanne Mueller accused Geoghan of molesting her four sons. Mueller said she reported it to Rev. Miceli, but he told her to keep it quiet. And she agreed? What kind of parents are these people supposed to be? Who are the monsters in this stupid story? The first father—after seeing his son molested—watched Geoghan return to his church and did nothing? And this mother also did nothing but ask for money after finding out her four sons were molested? We are told she later got a settlement. Is that what you would do? 

Six years later Geoghan was re-assigned. So we are supposed to believe the parents allowed him to remain in Hingham after molesting their sons? Over the next six years in Jamaica Plain, he molested seven more boys, and talked about it to another priest. This priest reported it to the bishop, who reported it the cardinal, but again Geoghan got off with counseling. 

Within the year he was reassigned to Dorchester. I'm sorry, once again that simply isn't believable. He wouldn't be reassigned to someplace so near. Supposing they were all evil and wished to hide his behavior, they would destroy his records and send him to Alaska or Hawaii or something. Or at least California. Also not believable is the next tall tale: after many more complaints of molestations over the next two years, Archbishop Law intervened and moved Geoghan out of Dorchester. Law reassigned him to Weston in 1984, where he was put in charge of three youth groups, including altar boys. 

I am going to stop there, since it can't get any more ridiculous than that. I'm prepared to believe quite a bit when it comes to the stupidity of people, but I'm not buying this. Even if we assume all these priests and bishops and cardinals are fat spiders sitting hugely in their chairs waiting to prey upon lovely boy flesh, the stories still don't fly. Why not? Because it requires us to ignore the boys and their parents. As I showed above, it simply isn't believable that parents would sit idly by while this happened. The boys would rat out the priests, and then all hell would break loose. You wouldn't just have one or two mothers and fathers reporting this to the high priest, you would have lawsuits filed, people going to the newspapers, police reports, high-profile arrests, and maybe a serious beating. There is simply no way this could be kept under wraps for 35 years. Remember, Geoghan didn't get prosecuted until several years after he retired. He was then accused of molesting over 100 boys. That makes no sense. Why would 100 crimes come to light in 2002, but none before that? We also have this problem: in the film, they say that Geoghan was “charged with molesting hundreds of kids” [minute 1:19:00]. As we have seen, that is a lie. He wasn't charged, he was accused, a very big difference. And it was not hundreds, but about 100. Wikipedia now admits only three charges were filed. Geoghan was convicted on one count of fondling over clothes. Although the first complaint was allegedly in 1968, he wasn't convicted until 2002, when he was found guilty of grabbing the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy in a swimming pool. What? After allegedly raping and sexually molesting half the state of Massachusetts, he was convicted of that and only that? You have to be kidding. 

Again, it isn't an accident he was allegedly convicted of such a thing. They want you scared to touch your own kids or nephews in the swimming pool. If you grab your niece and throw her in the water during a pool party, be sure your hands only touch her arms and legs, or you could find yourself in jail for ten years. Or that is what they want you to think. In that way your niece can avoid being touched until she is out of college, at which point she can start expensive therapy for being frigid. 

We are given more clues, when we are told a second case went forward against Geoghan, 

and a judge dismissed conviction of Geoghan in two rapes, after hotly contested arguments, because the statute of limitations had run out .[9] 

A judge would check the statute of limitations before any “hotly contested arguments” occurred. You don't run half a trial and then go, “Oh, sorry, we didn't even need to show up: this happened too long ago. My bad”. As usual, these stories are written for people who don't know anything about the law by people who don't know anything about the law. 

I'm now going back to the film to pad this out even further. At minute 53:00, we find out something astonishing. We are told there is no paper trail for most of the cases against priests. This is spun to make it look like the Church is hiding its crimes. However, it goes both ways. If there is no paper trail, we are just taking the word of the film producers or the scriptwriters of the bigger story that any of this happened at all. The lack of a paper trail is actually very convenient for them, because they can then tell any story they like. Later in the film, we are told the attorney MacLeish (played by Billy Crudup) settled cases against 45 priests in the Boston area [minute 1:10:50]. But since there is no paper trail, we have no possible confirmation of that. It is just his word. Suppose none of this ever happened, as I am showing you. Well, in that case, the fact that there is no evidence of any of these alleged crimes is another huge red flag. It also makes no sense from the point of view of the families, who certainly wouldn't have wished to sweep any of this under the rug. They would never have agreed to private settlements of the sort we are told occurred. They would have wanted to make sure it didn't happen to more children, right? We are told several times that the families just wished for personal recognition and a small settlement. Really? And you believe that? That is why this film is so insidious: it flips the truth on you over and over, but because they are so slick, most people miss it. Hollywood can sell night as day. The film Spotlight sells all these people as heroes for outing the Catholic Church, when they are just the opposite. 

At the one-hour mark in the movie, they tell us,

when I was a kid, a priest moved after seven-eight years: these guys, two to three years tops. 

But even with Geoghan, allegedly the worst of the lot, we didn't see that. Geoghan was in Saugus for 4.5 years, Hingham for six years, Jamaica Plain for seven years, Dorchester for 3.5 years, and Weston for eight years. So their own stories don't match. 

And here's something most people don't know. You won't find it mentioned at Wikipedia. In 2003, the Globe updated the Geoghan saga by admitting that his one conviction had been erased from his record. That's right. Geoghan has no criminal record as of this moment. Criminal defendants who die while their conviction is under appeal have the conviction vacated (wiped) and are considered innocent. That's a curious end to this story, wouldn't you say? The film tells us Geoghan was charged with hundreds of crimes, but he ended up with a clean record after 2003. Wow. So if you study a list of those priests convicted of molesting children, Geoghan isn't on it at all. 

Did you know Geoghan is buried in Holyhood cemetery in Brookline with Boston aristocracy including Joseph and Rose Kennedy, three Massachusetts governors including Edward King and Maurice Tobin, and four Boston mayors? Adjoining St. Joseph cemetery includes Rose's father John “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald, three other Boston mayors, Speaker of the House John McCormack, and conductor Arthur Fiedler. Since space is extremely limited in such cemeteries, you may wish to ask yourself how Geoghan found a plot there. Remember, he was supposed to have died broke, and was not supposed to be from any important family. 

Judge Constance Sweeney is also a ghost. Martindale.com doesn't even know what university she attended. I could find no information on her prior to 2001, although she should have been almost 50 by that time. Finally I found one case from 1996, when she presided in an appeal. But we would expect such a famous judge to have a bio posted, a Wikipedia page, and an extensive trial record. She should also have a record as an attorney before becoming a judge. We find none of that, indicating she may also be a plant here. In the Simpson trial we found Marcia Clark as a planted attorney, so there is nothing to stop us from asking if Sweeney was a real judge. I am also not clear on why these cases were tried in Hampden Superior Court, which is in Western, MA, near Springfield. Since they concerned events in Eastern Massachusetts, they should have been tried there. It would be very inconvenient for everyone except the judge to have to drive almost two hours to get to trial. Also a problem is that although Martindale.com now gives her address as Boston, a people search on her finds no listing for Boston. Instant Checkmate only lists her near Springfield or in Rhode Island. In this case, Intelius confirms that, with no listing for her of Boston. 

And there is another problem. We are told by the Globe that Sweeney signed off on an agreement in 2003, by which 86 plaintiffs were awarded $10 million. That figure was just a third of the original figure of $30 million, agreed to months earlier. After originally agreeing to the higher figure, the Church had changed its mind, saying it couldn't afford it. Once again, things don't work that way in real life. You either have an out-of-court settlement or an in-court settlement. You can't have both. In an out-of-court settlement, the two sides agree on a figure. But if you go to court, the plaintiff sues for an amount, and then the judge or jury decides if it is a fair amount for damages. The defendant has nothing to say about it, once it is decided. This is why defendents prefer to settle out-of-court: then then have some say in the damages, and can also demand secrecy. So when the court originally decided on damages of $30 million, the Church could not have claimed poverty. In the real world, if the defendant had declined to pay for any reason, short of bankruptcy, the court would have assigned officials to seize assets. The Church has plenty of non-cash assets, as we know. And even in a declared bankruptcy, assets would have been seized to pay creditors and plaintiffs, of course. 

Also at the one-hour mark, we hear of a Thomas Doyle, who allegedly authored a report in 1985 warning of the upcoming crisis and the potential “billion dollar liability” of the Church. From my research, this looks like an utter fraud. He may have written such a report, but it was not at the behest of the Church. Although he is alternatively described as a Reverend or a Dominican Friar, and sometimes as a canonist at the office of the papal nuncio, I could find no confirmation of any of those things. What we do know is that he was an Air Force Chaplain, later fired. He was also fired as canon lawyer by the Archdiocese of St. Louis. So he looks to me like another spook hired by the military to infiltate the Church. He is far from being a trustworthy source regardless, and the fact that the film mentions him as story support is very damning on the face of it. 

Then there is the equally ridiculous story of Geoghan's death in jail. He was allegedly stomped to death soon after entering jail by convicted murderer Joseph Druce. Although Geoghan was in protective custody in a maximum-security prison, we are supposed to believe that he was sharing a cell with a violent murderer whose victim had been a man who had hit on him? There is no chance this happened. How do I know? Because, once again, this man Druce is a ghost. Wiki admits that isn't even his real name. His real name is Darrin Smiledge, so why would the Massachusetts Department of Corrections allow him to live under the alias Joseph Druce? Convicted in 1988 [note the date], he was still Darrin Smiledge in his appeal in 1994. Vinelink.com tells he was transferred to an Arizona prison sometime after 2004 under the name Druce, but they don't seem to know his age or race. 

What does Instant Checkmate have to say about it? They have never heard of a Darrin Smiledge. Intelius has, but he lives in Salem with Dana Smiledge. Hmmm. Salem. Dana is supposed to be his dad. But why don't the big computers know Darrin Smiledge is in jail in Arizona? They normally have no problem tracking aliases, and often list several. The computers are very smart: name changes don't fool them, since the record of the change is also in the computers. 

Darrin's mother is given as Donna Lee. With more digging, we find Darrin's stepmother:: Beverly A. Smiledge. I wonder what her maiden name is? It is Lops, and her mother was a Cali. Darrin's paternal grandmother has an obit online.She was Catherine Smiledge, nee Leighton. Even more interesting, we find she was related to the Kosinskis. She appears to have a grandchild and a great-grandchild named Kosinski. This reminds of writer Jerzy Kosinski, who made a brief appearance in my Manson paper. He was a Polish Jew, of course. He was married to Mary Hayward Weir, wealthy heiress and widow of Pittsburgh steel king Ernest Weir. She was also a close friend of the Folgers. 

According to the Globe itself,Darrin Smiledge was supposed to have been in psychiatric treatment since age 5. Really? That would have been 1970. His father is listed as a sheet metal worker who beat him and his mother. Do you think a sheet metal worker in 1970 is going to beat up his family and then put his 5-year-old son in therapy for it? Wouldn't he be afraid the boy might rat him out? The story makes no sense. Neither does the Boston Herald later interviewing Dana Smiledge, and letting him say that his son had been “a longtime victim of sexual abuse by adult men.” Considering that his son had also allegedly been a longtime victim by beating of himself, why would they interview him for something like that? The story has no continuity. 

For more connected weirdness, we can search on other Smiledges. We find a George Wilbur Smiledge b. 1866 Weymouth, MA. And who did he marry? Hold on tight. Nellie D. Manson. Can't be, right? Who was her father? Charles T. Manson, of Essex, MA. No, really. I am not making this up. You will tell me the famous Charles Manson was really a Scott from Ohio, but we don't know that. His whole bio is garbage. 

We know  a Clara Smiledge from this same family in Weymouth married a Louis E. Watts in 1890. That's curious for this reason: guess who actor Liev Schreiber (above) is married to? Famous actress Naomi Watts. She is scrubbed past her mother and grandfather, but Watts is her real name. Her father was Peter Watts, who was road manager for Pink Floyd. 

Here's something else interesting: in Saugus, the first place Geoghan was allegedly assigned as a priest, there is a street named Smiledge Terrace. So the Smiledges must have been prominent there. But that is just a coincidence, right? Is it also a coincidence that in this 2013 report of historic-Boston, we find one of the Boston Landmarks Commissioners is a Smiledge? The movie Spotlight was filming in Boston in 2104, and it was using Boston landmarks as backdrops. So the Smiledges are apparently still very prominent in both Saugus and Boston itself. We could have guessed that, couldn't we? It is why they had to change Darrin Smiledge's name in prison. They didn't want anyone connecting him to this prominent family. 

Here's another good one from the research: at Smiledge's trial for murdering Geoghan, his lawyer was a guy named John LaChance. From actual court testimony, we find this: 

"This is a kid who never had a chance," his lawyer, John LaChance, said in his closing argument. 

OK. They are just toying with us, as usual. From the same story, we find more ridiculous claims. Smiledge claimed he was driven to kill Geoghan after hearing him advise other inmates on how to molest children. Not a chance that is true. From other prison stories, we know child molesters are considered the scum that scum scrapes off their shoes in prison, ranking even below murderers of women. No way Geoghan would be bragging about it in prison. That is why we are told he was in protective custody: you are supposed to know that child molesters have to be protected from fellow inmates. At the end of the same report, we find that in his first trial, there was testimony Smiledge had been prescribed psychoactive pharmaceuticals from the time he was five. Did they even prescribe those drugs to non-institutionalized five year olds in 1970? I doubt it. I don't think you could take a child that young to a psychiatrist in 1970 and get him on drugs of that sort. Certainly you shouldn't have been able to, and I assume you couldn't legally do it. I would guess he would have to be psychotically violent, and that even then you would have to get a court order to do it. 

There he is in about 1980. Does he look like someone drugged up since age 5? Nope. Smiledge went to Lakeside School, and we are led to believe it was in Danvers. It isn't. It is in Peabody, adjacent to Salem. His school psychologist is given as Mary E. Labella. She died in 1996 at age 78 in Middletown, just north of Peabody. In her obit we are told that 

before her retirement, she was active in politics, working in the offces of U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd and Rep. Sam Gedjenson. She was a member of the Democratic town committee and a justice of the peace. 

Hmmm. Nothing about being a school psychologist in Peabody. So let's do some math. If she retired at age 65, that would have been in 1983. She is supposed to have worked with Smiledge in 1974, when she was 56 and he was 9. But they don't mention her career as a school psychologist at all. Strange. 

Do you know what else is strange? I don't remember there being a school psychologist at my school when I was 9. Elementary schools in the early 1970s didn't have school psychologists. PL 94-142 wasn't passed until 1975, and that was for handicapped kids, not for kids with severe psychological problems. 

It is also a big red flag to find Mary Labella working in the office of Senator Dodd. This indicates she wasn't just some low-level school psychologist, attending to drugged-up nine-year-olds. She was connected to the top legislators and families in Massachusetts. 

Now for another numerology alert before we move on. At minute 1:13:00, we are watching the reporters visit homes in search of priests and victims. At one house, Pfeiffer is talking to a person at the door: the number on the house is 170. That adds to eight. At the next house, we see the number is 33. The very next house is 488. This is just before Pfeiffer finds Father Paquin, and he admits to her at his door, right after meeting her, that he molested boys. Do you really think that happened? If so, I have some wetlands I would like to sell you. And do you really think that guy molested anyone? He couldn't molest a wet kitten. Any ten-year-old boy would have kicked his ass. Also notice the name: Paquin. We have seen that these families hire their own for these roles in the projects. I remind you of famous actress Anna Paquin, who I showed you in a previous paper was related to all the top families. 

Finally, I have to say a few words about Aquinas Walter Richard Sipe, the psychologist who is only heard on the phone in the movie, giving tips to the team. Curious that his Wikipedia page has zero biographical information on him. He was supposed to have been a Benedictine Monk for 18 years, but that is all we get. Note the number: aces and eights. So let's check him at InstantCheckmate. They have never heard of him, either with the name Aquinas or the name Richard. No one by that name is listed as ever having lived in Minnesota. Intelius tells us he is 84 and living in La Jolla. So why the different information? Probaby because Intelius is now owned by HIG Capital, a spin-off of the Blackstone Group. This indicates it is a spook front, which tells me false names may be being inserted into the databases there. The lack of biographical info on Sipe indicates another ghost. He probably came out of the military and was inserted into this project as a face to promote the books and so on. 

Regardless, he is an obvious tool. He is also an idiot. In an interview with ABCNews in 2010, he is quoted as saying that several hundred Popes had been murdered in the history of the Church. Since there have been only 266 Popes in history, he must be implying all or nearly all of them were murdered. It would be curious to see what evidence he has of that. He also likes to compare Catholics to Nazis, which fits in well with what we have discovered above. In his 1995 book Sex, Priests, and Power: Anatomy of a Crisis, he says 

I cannot forget that the people and forces that generated Nazism and the Holocaust were all products of one Christian culture and the celibate/sexual power system. 

What? So the celibacy of priests caused the Holocaust? But since we have found that it is Jews who link everything to the Nazis and the Holocaust, we have another big red flag here. Regardless, it has to be strange seeing someone like this used as the unseen expert in the film Spotlight. Someone with zero history, zero credentials, and zero factual reliability. 

For another red flag, we find he has been married to “former nun” Marianne Benkert for 37 years. In that case, he must have been a monk back in the 60's and 70's. And doing some math tells us he was 29 when he went into the monastery. And before that? No one knows. But let's return to the name Marianne Benkert. It is a joke at your expense. Do you know who coined the term “homosexual”? It was a guy named Karl-Maria Benkert. This was in the middle-1800's, and Benkert was gay himself. He changed his name in 1847 [note the date] to Kertbeny to make people think he was a Hungarian aristocrat, but he was probably an Austrian Jew. A Hanns Benkert was also the director of Siemens in Germany after W.W.2. He was accused of being a Nazi collaborator after the war, but he was more likely Jewish himself. These Benkerts were related to the Scherers, Schaedles and Auers, which are all also Jewish names. 

A final red flag on Sipe is his publisher, Brunner-Mazel. The second name there is already a clue, since it is Jewish. I suppose you have heard the expression mazel-tov: “good luck”. So is Brunner: see Israeli filmmaker Benny Brunner. Also see Alois Brunner, allegedly a Nazi and assistant to Eichmann. Like everyone else famous in history, his entire bio is faked. We are told he escaped after the war and went to Syria to deal arms under the name Fischer. The government then hired him as an adviser. He was never caught. That is another joke at your expense. Syria is an Arab country, so they wouldn't take in a guy named Fischer with open arms. It is a Jewish name! See Bobby Fischer, for one, whose mother is admitted to be Jewish (his father was, too). But I will have to hit that later: it is another whole can of worms. 

For now, it is enough to say that Brunner-Mazel publishing is also a problem, since we find absolutely no information on it online. Although it existed until recently, selling out to Taylor&Francis in about 1998, we know nothing about it: not the original owners, not the starting date, nothing. It apparently had a shop at 19 Union Sq., NY, but it shut down without even collecting all monies due it. There is a notice for unclaimed property posted to this day for the company, which is curious. My guess is it was another CIA-front publisher, like others we have seen. 

So we have found loads of easy evidence this was another big fake project, run as usual by the top Jewish families. But we have also found evidence of complicity by the Church itself. If Geoghan and Smiledge were planted in the story and were just actors, many of the other characters were probably actors as well. I suspect Cardinal Law of being an actor. [The name looks made up, for one thing.] So how do we explain that? Well, logically, it indicates one of three things: either the Church was completely in on it from the start, they were infiltrated, or they were blackmailed into silence. What do I mean by blackmailed? Well, if the Church wasn't in on it, and was only a target, we would have expected them to have blown the project completely. They would have gone on TV and told everyone these priests and bishops weren't real Catholics and weren't working for them. It should have been pretty easy to do. Except for one thing: it would require blowing the MATRIX entirely. If you go on TV and tell the world that top state officials and wealthy families are staging major show trials and placing huge fake stories in the top newspapers, you have just blown not only the current project, but all projects—including your own. In other words, you will have just thrown a wrench into the engine that runs the Modern world. As it turns out, the Catholic Church runs on that engine just like every other major institution. So the Church could not afford to blow the cover of this Jewish project. In blowing the cover of their enemies, they would also be blowing their own cover. The Catholic Church may be the enemy of Jewish financiers in some ways, but they both subsist on the same great fiction. They both rely on their ability to con the masses from day to day, and they are both at the mercy of the MATRIX. 

I showed the same thing in my paper on the Salem Witch Trial hoax, in which Increase Mather could not respond to the hoax. He couldn't come out and tell the public that the whole thing was a project by the top families. He was also from the top families, although on another team, so he couldn't attack his own foundations. In bringing down the other team, he would have brought down his own team as well. 

In other words, there are rules in the battles of the top families. You can run projects against one another, but you cannot blow the cover of the whole system. This is why the truth is the most hated thing, and the one thing you never see. 

So it looks to me like the Church was forced to go along with this story to a certain extent. Or, they were forced into a silence that made it look like they were admitting guilt. You will say the Church did admit guilt, but that is just the story. The media told us they admitted guilt, but that doesn't mean they did. It simply means they didn't respond and tell the world all the stories were false and fake. Same thing with the huge amounts of money we are told they paid out to victims. Since the victims were all actors, the Church didn't actually have to pay out anything, you see. They just had to remain silent when the media reported they had paid out $10 million, or whatever. 

The only thing the Church could do is tell its own members the claims were false, but they couldn't tell them the claims were fake. In other words, the Church was allowed to despin, but not to tell the truth. This limited the damage inside the Church, since we may assume most Catholics were loyal to their local people, and were more likely to believe their own officials than the newspapers. And, in fact, this is what we have seen. The Church hasn't been damaged as much as one would have thought. Before I figured this one out, I wondered why the Catholic Church in Ireland and Boston didn't immediately collapse, declaring bankruptcy. If what we were told were true, that is what you would expect. You would expect a sort of run on the banks, where everyone removed their children—and therefore themselves—from the Church. But we haven't seen that, which indicates most people were not fooled by this project. I don't think they realized it was a project, as above, they just realized the story didn't add up. Without discovering any proof it was false, they just decided to ignore it. People have this ability to this day, which is one of the few signs of hope. I existed on this plan for many decades, as I have admitted, not taking the time to research anything, but just moving ahead on intuition. It served me pretty well. Knowing the truth serves me even better, since I can finally toss huge amounts of baggage that was threatening to eventually swamp my ship. 

Of course this begs a very big question, one I cannot really dodge after all I have said above. If I admit the Catholic Church is part of the big historical con, why shouldn't I support this project run against it? Why not cheer as the Church goes down in flames? I don't cheer, and even find myself in the strange position of defending it, because I find the opposing team much worse. I personally don't have much use for Catholic doctrine. But I have even less use for the shallow plastic doctrine of the Plutocrats now running the world. As an artist, I am aware that these people are the least artistic rulers in the history of the world. You can't say that about the Catholics, who have given us some of the greatest art in history. You will say the Plutocrats have given us better science, but that is not true, either. Yes, the Church sat on science for centuries, but science is still being sat on. And I prefer the Church's method of sitting on science to the current method. 

What can I possibly mean by that? I mean that at least the Church was honest. They said, “Science conflicts with our doctrines, therefore we are going to suppress it as best we can”. Therefore, those who disagreed with that knew what they were up against. It was mostly out in the open. But now, the current rulers pretend they are supporting science while they are suppressing it. They have created a huge fake science, selling it as real. This fools almost everyone into thinking science is getting done. It fools most young people who are interested in science, and they are diverted their entire lives by the false patter. Very few people know what they are up against, because the war exists entirely in the shadows. In this way, it would be better to have no mainstream science than to have fake mainstream science. At least intelligent people would then know there was a hole to be filled, and they might make some effort to fill it on their own. To read more about this, you will have to link over to my science site, where there is no shortage of information on this topic. 

*You wouldn't have to prefer women that age to be included in the statistic, just be attracted to them, you understand
http://mileswmathis.com/spot.pdf