Is Your Trainer Asking You These Questions?

characterizes them with the
following: "While some of their tall tales may be true, they are
not unaware that truth that is stranger than fiction will sell
better in a market already jaded by exotic overexposure."

Demaris' book on Hoover can only be called sympathetic. This is
immediately indicated by his choice of interviewees. They include
high level FBI administrators like Robert E. Wick, John P. Mohr,
and Mark Felt; former Attorney General Richard Kleindienst;
Hoover publicity flack Louis Nichols who named one of his sons
after his boss; and actor Efrem Zimbalist who starred in ABC's
glamorized series on the Bureau. In the entire book, there are
eight pages on Hoover's infamous COINTELPRO operations, i.e. the
infiltration, disruption, and occasional destruction of domestic
political movements.

In Hoover's disputes with the Kennedys, there can be no doubt
where Demaris stands. Speaking of Hoover's reputed blackmailing
of presidents, he writes: "It is possible that one or two were
intimidated by their own guilty conscience...." He sums up Hoover
by saying, "He was, whatever his failings, an extraordinary man,
truly one of a kind." The above gives us a hint of why Demaris
hooked up with Exner. But a previous work of his is more valuable
in that regard.

In 1968 Demaris co-authored with Gary Wills a book titled Jack
Ruby. The book is, to say the least, a rather shallow portrait of
Ruby based on a string of conversations with people the nightclub
owner worked with. The profile that emerges is in total
concordance with the Warren Commission view of Ruby as a dim,
emotional, hustler who kil

publishing a Red baiting newsletter, The Herald of Freedom. He
was highly active in attempting to expose leftists in the
entertainment industry. It was this experience that put him in a
good position to pen his McCarthyite, murderous smear of Bobby
Kennedy.

But there is another element that needs to be noted about Capell:
his ties to the FBI. As Lisa Pease noted in her watershed article
on Thomas Dodd (Probe Vol. 3#6), Capell was one of the sources
tapped by the Bureau in the wake of the assassination in order to
find out who Oswald really was. His information proved remarkably
penetrating, considering it came in February of 1964. Capell said
Oswald was a CIA agent. Even more interesting, Capell stated in
his FBI interview that this information came from "a friend of
his...with sources close to the presidential commission" i. e.,
the Warren Commission. To have this kind of acute information and
to have access to people around the Commission (which was sealed
off at the time) strongly indicates Capell was tied into the
intelligence community, which of course, is probably why the
Bureau was consulting him in the first place.

This is revelatory of not just the past, i.e. the origins of thi

publishing a Red baiting newsletter, The Herald of Freedom. He
was highly active in attempting to expose leftists in the
entertainment industry. It was this experience that put him in a
good position to pen his McCarthyite, murderous smear of Bobby
Kennedy.

But there is another element that needs to be noted about Capell:
his ties to the FBI. As Lisa Pease noted in her watershed article
on Thomas Dodd (Probe Vol. 3#6), Capell was one of the sources
tapped by the Bureau in the wake of the assassination in order to
find out who Oswald really was. His information proved remarkably
penetrating, considering it came in February of 1964. Capell said
Oswald was a CIA agent. Even more interesting, Capell stated in
his FBI interview that this information came from "a friend of
his...with sources close to the presidential commission" i. e.,
the Warren Commission. To have this kind of acute information and
to have access to people around the Commission (which was sealed
off at the time) strongly indicates Capell was tied into the
intelligence community, which of course, is probably why the
Bureau was consulting him in the first place.

This is revelatory of not just the past, i.e. the origins of thi

back in 1977? Why did she
wait eleven years to bare her soul? Exner says she was afraid and
needed to protect herself. Unfortunately, this rings a bit hollow
since 1) Giancana and Roselli were both dead when she wrote her
book, 2) the Church Committee spilled all the beans on the plots
to kill Castro in 1975, which 3) leaves only the Kennedys to
fear, and its clear she doesn't give a damn about them.

But for those still skeptical, she adds the other (clinching)
reason for breaking the silence: her doctor told her she had
terminal cancer and she had only 36 months to live. The article
ends in a crescendo that would move even the world weary Claude
Rains:
Now that I know I'm dying and nothing more can happen to me,
I want to be completely honest. I don't think I should have
to die with the secret of what I did for Jack Kennedy, or
what he did with the power of his presidency. I feel that I
am finally free of the past.

Exner's 1997 Version

I hope Exner sued her doctor, because ten years later she's still
with us. She now turns up in the pages of the January 1997 Vanity
Fair which, unembarrassed, again bills her as "facing her death."

This time she was teamed with another questionable expert on
Kennedy's Cuba policy - Hollywood gossip columnist Liz Smith. And
evidently, the previous fear of death wasn't enough to squeeze
the whole story out of her. She still has a few goodies to add.

The choice of Smith in 1997 is as revealing as Demaris in 1977
and Kelley in 1988. Smith writes for the New York Post, which is
literally a tabloid in both format and approach. Like Kelley,
Smith is a big fan of Sy Hersh. In fact, her column has released
several "teaser" items about his upcoming book. In the past she
has also flacked for Tony Summers. What do those two writers have
that other Kennedy researchers, say John Newman, do not? They
have both pushed the angle that the

back in 1977? Why did she
wait eleven years to bare her soul? Exner says she was afraid and
needed to protect herself. Unfortunately, this rings a bit hollow
since 1) Giancana and Roselli were both dead when she wrote her
book, 2) the Church Committee spilled all the beans on the plots
to kill Castro in 1975, which 3) leaves only the Kennedys to
fear, and its clear she doesn't give a damn about them.

But for those still skeptical, she adds the other (clinching)
reason for breaking the silence: her doctor told her she had
terminal cancer and she had only 36 months to live. The article
ends in a crescendo that would move even the world weary Claude
Rains:
Now that I know I'm dying and nothing more can happen to me,
I want to be completely honest. I don't think I should have
to die with the secret of what I did for Jack Kennedy, or
what he did with the power of his presidency. I feel that I
am finally free of the past.

Exner's 1997 Version

I hope Exner sued her doctor, because ten years later she's still
with us. She now turns up in the pages of the January 1997 Vanity
Fair which, unembarrassed, again bills her as "facing her death."

This time she was teamed with another questionable expert on
Kennedy's Cuba policy - Hollywood gossip columnist Liz Smith. And
evidently, the previous fear of death wasn't enough to squeeze
the whole story out of her. She still has a few goodies to add.

The choice of Smith in 1997 is as revealing as Demaris in 1977
and Kelley in 1988. Smith writes for the New York Post, which is
literally a tabloid in both format and approach. Like Kelley,
Smith is a big fan of Sy Hersh. In fact, her column has released
several "teaser" items about his upcoming book. In the past she
has also flacked for Tony Summers. What do those two writers have
that other Kennedy researchers, say John Newman, do not? They
have both pushed the angle that the