Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 2, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

01:57:03

The Raw Deal (2 May 2025) with co-host Brian Davidson and special guest, Ralph Cinque

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Not just anybody.
	You know, I need someone I need
	Thank you for your time.
	Jen? Thank you.
	Thank you.
	This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Rob Deal, right here on Revolution Radio Studio B. The second day of May, 2025, with co-host Brian Davidson and special guest Ralph Sin Kaye, who is the founder of the moving force behind the Oswald Innocence Campaign,
	which is rooted in the realization that Lee Oswald was in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository Building when the JFK Motorcade passed by and therefore not only could not have been the lone demanded gunman, But cannot have been one of the multiple shooters.
	We begin today, however, with the latest news reports, and there is so much going on that it's going to be difficult to even cover a smattering.
	We have Vladimir Putin declaring that Russia has to do everything it can do to deal with anti-Semitism.
	Listen to the man.
	To combat the proliferation of Nazism, to combat the ideologies of Russophobia, anti-Semitism and Nazism, any forms of racial or national intolerance, any manifestations of so-called exclusivity,
	disguising attempts at world domination or intervention in domestic affairs of independent countries.
	The most important of them being that we have to do everything to combat the proliferation of Nazism, to combat the ideologies of Russophobia, anti-Semitism and Nazism, any forms of racial or national intolerance,
	any manifestations of so-called exclusivity, disguising attempts at world domination or intervention in domestic affairs of independent countries.
	Most important of them being that we have to do everything to combat the proliferation of Nazism.
	Let me just say, Vladimir Putin is there talking about real anti-Semitism, which is to say discrimination against individuals because of their religion or their ethnic heritage.
	He, I think, hasn't caught up to the redefinition of anti-Semitism.
	Trump has been advocating.
	And maybe, you know, I'm hopeful, is not in fact going to become law, but which has now been expanded to any criticism of Israel on any grounds whatsoever, which is being used to attack students at American universities who are rightfully and courageously protesting against genocide in Gaza.
	Brian, this is, in my opinion, the most grievous events Trump has yet committed, given his oath of office.
	To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, because the First Amendment is so vital to the integrity of this nation.
	I have been repulsed by his taking these measures, notwithstanding how strongly I've supported him in the past, and I'll give him credit and praise everything he's doing right.
	But I will be damned if I'm going to tolerate or be silent about the things he's doing wrong.
	Your thoughts?
	Yeah, for all the credit that Trump gets for being an anti-globalist, it sure seems that he's an anti-globalist that's steering us back into a new sort of semi-Jewish state.
	So I'm not exactly sure what he's doing.
	He doesn't seem to have any idea what these people believe in terms of their religion, who these people really are.
	And it appears that he's just acting as a capitalist where money...
	Is the most powerful thing that's important to him.
	That's not what's the most important thing to most Americans.
	We have a very westernized ideology that wants to have a very fair sense of how we treat everybody from blacks to Asians to Nazis to Mexicans and Hispanics and Canadians.
	So I'm not exactly sure why he thinks that the Jews need special protections, except I think most of the stronger portions of America recognize that anybody who thinks that they need special protections is a weaker brand of American.
	So in my opinion, you know, it's ugly what he's doing to support these people.
	These war criminals?
	And I don't really understand it except to say that I think that he thinks that there's going to be some sort of collapse to the globalist agenda if we don't play ball with the Zionist initiatives.
	It's very damn strange.
	I mean, Vladimir Putin, whom I admire beyond words, seemed to be taking a principled stance.
	Trump, on the other hand, merely serving as an apologist.
	for Israel in its criminal acts.
	Meanwhile, Zelensky has openly threatened attacking Russia during its celebration of victory over Nazi Germany at the end of World War II.
	This is despicable, but it's just the kind of behavior we expect from this scumbag who has become the pseudo-president of Ukraine.
	Here's RT reporting.
	Ukraine's Vladimir, it's actually Voldemar.
	Zelensky has openly threatened to target the Victory Day parade in Moscow on May 9. According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova, Russia has announced a unilateral three-day ceasefire next week to coincide with his celebration commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II.
	Kievus rebuked the move, instead demanding an immediate, unconditional 30-day truce.
	Tuesday, Zelensky described targeting Russian pressure points to push the country toward diplomacy, as he reiterated the ceasefire call.
	They are now concerned that their parade is in jeopardy, and rightly so, he remarked, referring to the events scattered over May 9th in Red Square.
	What they should worry about, Is that this war continues?
	I don't think there's any doubt that he's implying he might attack Russia in Moscow on that sacred day.
	Brian, he's going to have a huge target there with all these Russian forces in formation.
	They'd be highly vulnerable.
	I find this scurrilous, but completely consistent with his character and mass behavior.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, one of the rules in war is never, ever, ever attack Russia.
	Now, what Russia sees Western promotion is sort of, they see us as a Russia-phobic Nazi regime that is trying to desperately grasp onto power in Ukraine.
	And remember that one of the most important things about Ukraine is that they are...
	Currently in a position to threaten Russia militarily, being that they're contiguous to Russia.
	Now, why is that important?
	Well, the Russians fought the Nazis.
	They think of the Nazis as trying to weaken them.
	And in my opinion, the globalists can never achieve their
	and purposes if Russia remains one of the premier powers in the world.
	They are the last piece on the chessboard that needs to go down.
	China has fallen and it will continue to fall.
	North Korea is weak.
	India and Pakistan are now fighting, changing their front.
	And the general rules of war is you can't fight two wars at once.
	So there's a lot going on in the world in terms of destabilization right now.
	And Russia is trying to remain safe.
	And they find this Nazi regime in Ukraine to be a burden to them.
	And they think it's going to continue to destabilize them.
	Of course, that's the globalist plan all along, is to destabilize Russia and allow a coup to take place.
	Replace the current regime with another globalist superpower.
	But what's interesting is Russia seems to be sort of playing along with the Israeli mindset just as much.
	I'm not exactly sure how bad the problem is in Russia, but if Putin's feeling safe in his political position, I think he's going to continue with the path that he's taken, which is a peaceful approach.
	Where power will only be displayed when it's absolutely necessary.
	He doesn't want to be labeled as another one of the Nazis, as the Western media would like to do.
	Yeah, and look how Zelensky is complaining about the Nazis.
	I mean, these guys are absolutely cruel.
	And what astonishes me, Brian, is that the vicious behavior of the Israelis toward the Palestinians is even more severe.
	And the Germans displayed toward the Jews.
	I mean, that's remarkable.
	But then most of what we've been told about the Holocaust was myth, not fact.
	But what's going on here with genocide in Gaza is all fact, not myth.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, just remember some of your history regarding the Nazis.
	Coming out of World War I post-Treaty Versailles, the Nazi Socialist Party.
	Was seen very much as a hero for restoring Germany to a globalist power because they were able to reissue the new Marx and come back strong.
	They did book burnings to get rid of it.
	They got rid of the porn.
	They saw a certain element of their society as a plight.
	But I think their downfall was the sliding into the deeper and deeper into the occultism.
	And the superiority mindset of the Aryans.
	That's where they broke.
	I think originally a lot of their ideas were good ideas and they were doing the right thing to try to restore Germany to a position of national pride.
	Certainly their internal structural projects were great.
	But, again, it's the mindset.
	People say ideology doesn't matter, and it absolutely does, and that's what took the Nazis down, was the ideology, the toxic ideology that came along with it.
	Western values, in my opinion, are superior, and unfortunately, America is not illustrating Western values anymore, and neither is Ukraine, our proxy fighter on that side, nor is Israel, which has always sort of had that.
	I'll take everything I can possibly get mindset.
	So I think Western values are dying with the exception of our culture.
	Of course, I live in Texas, so I see it and feel it every day.
	And we're very, very proud of that.
	But our academic institutions are pushing a hate agenda in terms of the way our children ought to see the nation as some sort of rotten machine.
	And there's an argument for it.
	Based on sort of the belly of the beast mindset, but I still think that our Christian Western roots are a bigger portion of our society than the secret occultists that seem to be ruling the world and ruling the high levels of our government called the Deep State.
	And here's another report now of the late development.
	U.S. and Ukraine signed Mineral Deal.
	On Wednesday, the U.S. and Ukraine signed a deal that will establish a new investment and reconstruction fund to give the U.S. access to Ukrainian rare earth minerals and other natural resources.
	I am glad to announce the signing of today's historic economic partnership agreement between the United States and Ukraine, establishing the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund.
	Said U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant.
	Besant said the deal allows the U.S. to invest alongside Ukraine to unlock Ukraine's growth assets, mobilize American talent, capital, and government standards that will improve Ukraine's investment climate and accelerate Ukraine's economic recovery.
	Now, Brian, something I understand is most of that is actually in land controlled by Russia.
	And Russia is not signing that agreement.
	Putin, I think, has taken a dim view of this development.
	What are your thoughts?
	Well, it's my understanding that the quote-unquote mineral deal includes a number of secret documents that need to be ratified by the Ukrainian parliament.
	In order to be executed, this mineral deal is supposedly worth $350 billion, but the problem is what's inside these secret documents and what restrictions are going to be put on Ukraine that's going to make Russia feel safe continually,
	which has been their primary concern all along.
	Remember, this whole thing started over Ukraine wanting to...
	Wanting to join NATO and continue to expand the Western Front of NATO toward Russia.
	And so what is in there to prevent them from continuing to pursue that goal, which is what Russia really wants to see?
	And of course, without knowing what's inside those secret documents, you can be sure that the mineral deal is going to give the West exclusive or preferential rights toward the $350 billion contracts
	that are worth those minerals.
	Now, that's money that I guess Trump is thinking you're going to repay for the war.
	Russia is probably thinking we cannot let the West continue to get these assets.
	And, you know, we still haven't even revoked the sanctions that we've had on Russia and the giving them back all the money that we stole from them when we froze their accounts.
	So I don't see why.
	And I don't see how this is possibly going to help Russia feel safe and achieve their goals.
	So how is it peaceful?
	Yeah, I do agree.
	I do agree.
	I do agree.
	And there's, of course, so much about the continued slaughter of the Palestinians.
	But get this.
	wildfires that were set by Israeli settlers have spun out of control.
	Israel declared state of emergency with largest ever wildfires raging out of control toward Jerusalem, among fury over posts, celebrating the devastating fires.
	Israel declared a national emergency as its largest wildfires in the country's history continue to rage out of control.
	The Fire and Rescue Service Jerusalem district commander said firefighters had a long way to go before they could contain the blaze, which started near Meslat Zion, west of Jerusalem, yesterday morning.
	Shumak Friedman said conditions could get even worse to the strong winds that reached speeds of up to 100 kilometers an hour.
	We are amidst a very large wildfire, maybe the largest there's ever been in this country, said last night.
	Regarding our activity, it will continue for a very long time.
	We are far from having control.
	Footage shows sick smoke blowing above the highways as motorists abandon their vehicles, while the military has also deployed troops to help Israel.
	Megan David Adom, MDA Rescue Agency, reported hundreds of civilians were at risk from the wildfires and that it had already treated 23. Friedman said the cause was still unknown and emergency services were not yet dealing with this.
	As I said, it appears to be that settlers who are deliberately setting fire to Palestinian lands were responsible for what happened here.
	I find that a rather fascinating, ironic turn of events.
	Your thoughts, Ryan?
	Well, as a semi-religious guy, I do tend to think of the winds being in control of God, and you don't know where it's going to come from or where it's going to go.
	But I see this new version of rabbinical Judaism that they've built out over the last three centuries as more of a syncretism with Kabbalah, Zohar.
	The Talbot and the rest of the mysticism.
	It's nothing like the original Hebrew religion was supposed to be.
	They have a lot of practices involved in it, including gematria, magical alphabet systems, and other occult practices that originated in Babylon and don't have anything to do with the original Moses' faith.
	Hey, if God's judgment is beyond them, it's because they've continued to do things that are antithetical to their own scriptures that they claim.
	And that's because they're just simply synchronizing all the cult religion practices with what they call Judaism today.
	I'm so pleased to have you here today.
	If you'd like to comment on this story, you are most welcome.
	Ralph, your thoughts?
	Okay.
	I'm trying to get back to you, Jim.
	Hold on.
	Oh, there you are.
	Well, I'm very dismayed and just very...
	I don't know, Ralph.
	Our connection is somehow not very good.
	We can't hear you and your image has frozen.
	You may have to go out and return, Ralph, because we cannot hear you, I'm sorry to say.
	Meanwhile, we have additional developments.
	The fire, we know, may be the largest ever spreading.
	Even there are fires in Greece, too, which is declared it's unable to help because it's so tied up.
	The International Court of Justice, by the way, is receiving new reports about the commission of genocide.
	If you're someone who cares about healthy eating and increasing the protein in your diet...
	...on the Palestinian people.
	Gaza.
	The message accompanying the photo read, I have now signed an order to cut off electricity to the Gaza Strip immediately.
	Enough with the talk.
	It's time for action.
	The impact of this action was to shut down the lone desalination plant in Gaza, depriving more than 600,000 Palestinians of their only access to water.
	Overall, the consequences for the Palestinian civilian population, especially the deprivation of urgently needed humanitarian assistance, have been as promised.
	By Defense Minister Katz.
	Utter destruction and devastation.
	According to the United Nations Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, who briefed the Security Council on 18 March, today I am distressed to report that in addition to the intense airstrikes that have resumed since 2 March,
	Israeli authorities have cut off the entry of all life-saving supplies, food, medicines, fuel, cooking gas, for 2.1 million people.
	This total blockade of life-saving aid and basic commodities and commercial goods will have a disastrous impact on the people of Gaza, who remain dependent on a steady flow of assistance into the Strip.
	Blocking food, water and medicine for people who need them is unconscionable.
	It also goes against international humanitarian law and the provisional orders of the International Court of Justice.
	Yes, of course it does.
	And it's absolutely stunning, Brian, that the United States is there arguing before the International Court of Justice.
	That Israel's entitled to cut off water and food to the Palestinian people.
	I, in my lifetime, would never have imagined that the United States could take such a decadent, corrupt, grossly immoral, really truly evil stance before an international judicial body.
	I am appalled.
	Your thoughts?
	Well, if the Nobel Peace Prize organization wasn't so corrupt, I would say Trump's...
	Chances of getting that Nobel Peace Prize have gone way down ever since the inauguration in 2025 here.
	You know, I remember when Trump first ran for president in 2016, defeating Hillary Clinton.
	What was he promising?
	Add the candidate of peace.
	I'm not going to start any more wars.
	We're going to end all this.
	We've made all our commitments.
	But then, of course, second time around, obviously, he gets the support of the Jews somewhere in the middle while Biden's in control.
	He aligns himself with the globalists.
	And then he just seems to ignore the International Criminal Court and their arrest warrant for his best buddy.
	Benjamin Netanyahu, who obviously wears a red MAGA cap just like the rest of us.
	Fast forward to March 2025, and perhaps one of the poorest countries in the world, Yemen, is an object of a series of air attacks using the massive American power.
	So I think that the Zionist-controlled American military apparatus is out of control at this point in time.
	And Congress ought to rein them in.
	But most importantly, I think Trump's stock has gone down tremendously in the last four months.
	I don't know.
	We'll get to Ralph.
	Complete your thought, Brian.
	I mean, this is absolutely stunning.
	Ralph, I don't know if you've heard the last story about testimony before the International Court of Justice about Israel cutting off food and even water to the Palestinian people, in other words, a policy of starvation on over a million people,
	where the United States is defending Israel's right to do this.
	This is a catastrophe in my opinion.
	The way I feel about it is that I look at it as collateral damage in the sense that they have a military objective of wanting to crush the Hamas.
	And to further that, they're entirely willing to let Palestinians suffer and die because...
	Nothing supersedes their purpose in wanting to prevail in the military conflict.
	But this very same thing happened and done by the United States.
	For example, in the war in Afghanistan, if there was a wedding party at which Taliban fighters were suspected to be there...
	They would bomb the whole party and kill the bride, the groom, the old people, just anybody who was there, and then afterwards apologize for the loss of innocent lives, but willing to do anything.
	We'll be right back.
	back.
	This is the quickest way to clear out...
	Management would like to take a moment
	to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support which has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech.
	We need the support of the people.
	Yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support...
	We will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio, Radio, Radio, Radio.
	oh. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh,
	oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSix.com, The People Station.
	FreedomSix.com Thank you.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com.
	100% listener-supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Shall I continue?
	Yeah, yeah, Ralph.
	I'm kind of curious.
	I mean, surely we're not endorsing genocide.
	I mean, go right ahead.
	Give us your opinion.
	All right.
	Well, anyway, I want to make a general point that I think for the longest time that wars are fought with really complete The dismissal of the preservation of civilians.
	It's been that way.
	I mentioned, I don't know if you caught it or not, but during the Afghanistan war, the United States bombed the Taliban, knowing in advance that they were going to kill innocent civilians at wedding parties and whatnot, and then apologizing afterwards and having a general deliver a goat or a sheep to a family who had lost.
	One or more loved ones as a consolation.
	And yet doing it again a month later at another wedding party.
	And then to cite the most egregious example of all is just the way the U.S. and the U.K. fought World War II, bombing civilian centers in Germany, most notoriously Hamburg,
	Dresden, you know, killing, you know, Tens of thousands of men, women, children, not only with disregard, but in that case, with the absolute primary intention of killing such people as a way of fighting the war.
	So this is the legacy that has preceded what Israel is doing now.
	And so it's really par for the course, you know, as far as I'm concerned.
	I don't quite get it, Ralph.
	You're citing war crimes by the United States as though that exonerated Israel for war crimes.
	I'm not saying it exonerates it, but I'm just trying to say that the reason why there's a tolerance for it and the reason why Israel can get away with it is because the United States has done it.
	Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher, wrote a book called Leviathan.
	Basically argued that a strong sovereign is absolutely necessary to maintain orders and protect individuals from the horrors of the state of mankind.
	Made the quote that life of men is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, basically saying that without social controls, it would turn into Lord of the Flies out there, without the types of controls that would come from a single sovereign nation that's able to enforce its will over the rest of the world,
	that everything would decay into absolute chaos.
	Now, that's...
	Yeah, and so, you know, there was something to Henry Kissinger and Brzezinski's plan to sort of control the world, but you can see right now with the, what is becoming clear to me is that as society continues to disintegrate,
	I mean, look, we're using cluster bombs.
	That's a war crime.
	You've got phosphate or phosphorus.
	You've got bombs that are taking place.
	You've got landmines.
	All war crimes.
	If the International Criminal Court is neutered, what's the point?
	The whole world could descend into an absolute nuclear apocalyptic state.
	I gave the example of the horrific war crimes of the Allies in World War II, but at the time, the United States It was not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.
	A lot of people don't know that.
	Germany was, but the United States was not.
	However, the United States did become a signatory to the Geneva Conventions in 1949.
	And one of the provisions, of course, is that you do not harm civilians, that you take great effort to avoid any harm to civilians.
	But despite having signed that in 1949, If you actually look at the history of, say, the Korean War, in which we were bombing nursing homes and really killing millions of Korean civilians in the Korean War,
	and then likewise in the Vietnam War, you know, poisoning reservoirs and just, you know, doing the whole Agent Orange bit shows that there has never been any...
	It's a real serious intent to observe the Geneva Conventions and that when it comes down to war that the military objectives just become totally, completely paramount and that's why war is really such a grotesque thing that really needs to be avoided at all costs.
	It's going to descend into total inhumanity no matter No matter what.
	Well, this is trivial.
	Could you sort of sit back and center yourself?
	Visually, it's disconcerting when you're leaning forward as you are.
	Would you mind doing that just?
	Yeah.
	Good.
	Good.
	Now, talking about his relationship between how human beings ought to conduct themselves in relation to other human beings, as codified by the Geneva Convention, the UN Charter, international law.
	We have committed horrific acts, war crimes in the past.
	You're making some very good points historically.
	But none of them excuse this kind of conduct, either by the United States or by Israel.
	And I find it an atrocity that the United States is there and the International Court of Justice said, excuse or justify Israel committing these atrocities against the Palestinian people.
	I'd like to get a sense from you.
	That you agree with that.
	I entirely agree with that.
	That it's an outrage.
	It is inexcusable.
	It cannot possibly be rationalized.
	And that it should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
	It is genocide.
	And it really represents just the complete disregard for human life.
	But you're completely correct about war crimes committed by the U.S. in the mass of Massey, bombing, Cologne, Heidelberg, Berlin, outrageous.
	And yeah, we claim those were mistakes when we bombed the wedding parties in Afghanistan, allegedly mistakenly thinking they were Taliban, but it was grotesque.
	Brian, a final thought before we turn to Ralph's discussion about JFK.
	Well, that's why...
	That's why Julian Assange is public enemy number one and has been for a long time.
	He's the guy that came up with the files that proved that we were doing it, along with all Snowden and the rest of the whistleblowers.
	Those men ought to be leading the country right now.
	Men of moral turpitude and men that can stand strong and do what's right, regardless of what's popular.
	Yeah.
	Ralph, you can't lean over.
	Don't.
	Just stay centered.
	Yeah, thank you.
	Now, I've made you host, so we can have screen sharing.
	And I want you to tell us about your latest work.
	You've done so much brilliant stuff in the past.
	I'm very interested in your latest work.
	I've become very interested, involved in the Mary Pinchel Meyer case.
	Now, you and I, Jim, of course, are friends with Peter Janey.
	And I'm sure you agree with me that his book, Mary's Mosaic, is a masterpiece.
	It's okay.
	Well, I got the idea to make a movie about it, but centering on the trial, on the actual court case that followed in which the great civil rights lawyer, Debbie Roundtree, defended Raymond Crump.
	She offered to defend him for $1 because she was so convinced of his innocence and that he was being framed.
	Now, what I'd like to focus on today, and by the way, Shall I introduce that PowerPoint presentation that I have?
	You're welcome to do that.
	And by the way, it's to me rather obvious this was a CIA opt.
	They got married.
	She had this close personal relationship with JFK.
	She had a diary.
	The body was still warm when James Jesus Angleton was already in her home going after the diary, Ralph.
	Right, of course.
	Absolutely.
	How do I do the sharing?
	Do I do...
	You need to open your PowerPoint on your screen and then go down to the bottom where it says share and then open that and put it on the PowerPoint and then click it and then go up to the top and do slideshow.
	That will get you there.
	All right.
	So I have it open on my screen.
	Okay.
	Then do a share.
	Do a share.
	With your screen, that green box at the bottom, and then open the PowerPoint, and it'll be only partially covering the screen.
	Go up to the left where it says...
	Hold on a second.
	Slideshow.
	You want to hit slideshow in terms of view once you open it.
	Thank you.
	Well, I have it open, and now I...
	Should I scroll down within the PowerPoint?
	No, you just want to open a PowerPoint, and if you go to slideshow in the upper left, view, under view, Ralph, it'll say...
	Under view, all right.
	It'll say...
	Under view.
	And it'll go to the first slide.
	It'll go to the first slide.
	Yeah, it'll probably be at the bottom of the list of ways to view.
	All right, so I'm in view.
	And I'm looking for slideshow?
	Right.
	Go down the list.
	It'll say slideshow.
	Slideshow.
	You need to have clicked on the PowerPoint.
	Yeah, I clicked on it.
	It's open.
	Okay.
	Then go to slideshow in the view.
	Oh, slideshow.
	Yeah.
	Just click on that.
	Yeah.
	It'll open.
	It'll go full screen.
	And you just want to share with us.
	That's all.
	All right, so I have slideshow now, and so how do I get it on your screen?
	You just hit the slideshow.
	You should be able to do it just by hitting share screen.
	All right, so I do square scene with you then.
	Yeah, you got to open up the full Zoom thing, Ralph, and then at the bottom of the screen, there's a button right in the middle that says share.
	Screen share.
	Okay.
	Microsoft is entire screen.
	This site will be able to see.
	Choose what to share.
	Yep.
	Click on that PowerPoint.
	Click on the screen where the PowerPoint's at.
	Okay.
	Second.
	Take us off the window.
	Jim, I don't know who Kronk is.
	Go ahead.
	Ray Kronk?
	Who's Ray Kronk?
	He was a black guy who just happened to be in the vicinity.
	But I think Graf's going to make a different argument.
	He might actually have committed the crime.
	No, no, I'm not going to make a different argument.
	Cher.
	He was a...
	Mindy was a patsy.
	Crump was a patsy for the death of Mary Pinchin Meyer, whose husband, Court Meyer, by the way.
	Very good, Ralph.
	Now you got it.
	Okay, now you go up to...
	Well, you're not on your specific PowerPoint, Ralph.
	Go to the one you want to show.
	Click an open.
	It's open on my screen in PowerPoint.
	No, we're seeing your whole screen.
	We're seeing your whole desk with a whole bunch of files.
	Oh, fuck.
	Kylie seems to be a lovely lady, Ralph.
	Yeah.
	All right, so how do I get this program to go to that PowerPoint?
	You just opened it.
	You just opened it right on your screen, your PowerPoint.
	I thought you'd already done that.
	I've got it open on my screen, but how do I get it to your screen?
	All you've got to do is hit the share button and show us.
	Hit the share button in your phone.
	In the Zoom, right?
	Yes.
	The bottom there, Ralph.
	The green button.
	All right.
	The green button.
	I hit the screen.
	I hit the green button, but now I hit the green button, but I don't see my program anymore.
	I hit the green button and it's showing me...
	No, you didn't because we'd be seeing your screen, Ralph.
	You got to hit that share button again because we'd be seeing your screen.
	All right.
	There's a green share button here.
	Yep.
	Do I want one participant can share at a time?
	Jim, have you somehow disabled his screen sharing?
	No.
	I gave him, you know, I made him host, Brian.
	Okay.
	Why don't you just describe to us what's on the PowerPoint slide and just tell us what's going on.
	Email it to me, Ralph, and I'll see you during the break.
	I'll get it up, okay?
	Email it to me.
	All right.
	But just go ahead and tell us about it.
	Tell us what's going to happen.
	Let me email it to you, and then I'll continue.
	right
	Well, Jim, is it warming up there in Wisconsin yet?
	We're starting to get signs in the spring, but, you know, there's some leaves.
	Showing up on the trees, but we're all good ways away from it actually being full blown.
	All right, I sent it to you.
	Check your email.
	Okay, go ahead.
	All right, let me start talking about the case.
	I mean, the reason why I think this is so important is because I consider it an open, bleeding wound in the JFK assassination saga.
	Because when you think about it, JFK...
	He gets brutally murdered, supposedly by a lone nut.
	And then 11 months later, his lover, his mistress, Mary Pinchel Meyer, she gets murdered by another lone mutt.
	And in her case, supposedly, it was just a random crime of her being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
	And the coincidence of that is just really too much to bear.
	It just simply stinks too much to think that such a planetary alignment of them both being killed that way just happened spontaneously.
	Now, this case is very much suppressed history in the United States.
	There's discussion of it on the Internet.
	If you did a search about the case, you'll find quite a few blogs about it and discussions about it and forums about it.
	But that's the only place that it exists.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Thank you, Jim.
	All right.
	So this first slide is the poster that was made for the film that I made.
	And you notice it says W. Roundtree versus the United States Department of Justice.
	That's the actress Joy White who played Debbie Roundtree.
	She actually looks quite a lot like Debbie Roundtree.
	They at least could be passed for cousins, if not sisters.
	Now, the decision that I made in making the movie was to just focus on the trial itself.
	And there were two reasons for doing that.
	One was that...
	I've always been a fan of courtroom dramas, and I knew that this was a very interesting courtroom drama.
	I had the transcripts of the trial.
	Now, I knew that the transcripts were public domain.
	I should have been able to find them myself online.
	I was unable to, and I'm pretty good at finding things online.
	But I went to Michael Pinchot.
	And you should think about doing a show with him sometime, Jim, because he's a very interesting guy.
	But he is the cousin of Mary Pinchelmeyer, who wrote a book about this.
	And he had the transcripts of the trial, which he sent to me.
	And so I wrote the case based on the transcript of the trial.
	And the reason I did that, again, is because I like courtroom dramas and I knew this was a good one.
	But the second reason was that this was an indie movie made with an indie budget.
	Of less than $100,000.
	And if one was going to, say, make a movie about the entire saga, the epic saga of the intersection of the lives of John F. Kennedy and Mary Pinchel Meyer, it would cost millions of dollars to do that because it would be a period piece and you would have to have all the locations to represent that era.
	And it would be extremely expensive to do it.
	But if you're going to make a courtroom drama where most of the movie is taking place in one courtroom, well, it's a very manageable production, a much smaller production, and one that you can't handle on an indie budget.
	And that was the reason for doing it.
	Now, our musical friend, Peter Janey, who I know you've interviewed quite a few times, Jim, he's been trying for years to get Hollywood to want to make a movie of Basically, his whole book and the whole saga that it is,
	he hasn't done it yet.
	And I'll be very surprised if he does do it.
	And even if he does, I don't think they'll ever do it the way he wrote it.
	Meaning that if you consider the subtitle of his book, which is How the CIA Murdered John F. Kennedy and Mary Pinchel Meyer and their vision for world peace.
	Well, Hollywood isn't going to do that because Hollywood is basically serving of government and officialdom.
	There was a time in the 1960s and 70s that Hollywood did make anti-war movies.
	The Deer Hunter, Coming Home, even Little Big Man starring Dustin Hoffman was essentially an anti-war movie.
	But in the 21st century, Hollywood has not made any anti-war movies.
	All of the movies is...
	That it's made has been pro-war movies, The Hurt Locker, American Sniper.
	They haven't made any movies except ones that have glorified U.S. wars.
	And so I don't think there's any chance Hollywood's going to make a movie that's true to Peter Janney's book.
	So anyway, I made this movie because I felt it's something that Hollywood would never do.
	Go to the next slide, Jim.
	Sure.
	Okay, I included this slide because these are the actors who played John F. Kennedy and Mary Pinchel Meyer.
	I thought they both had a great resemblance to the figures.
	Now, Chris Phipps on the end has played John F. Kennedy multiple times.
	I think...
	And he's kind of older now.
	We had to dye his hair to get it that reddish color like JFK had.
	But I think he, of all the actors who's ever played John F. Kennedy, I think he has looked more like him than any other actor.
	He played John F. Kennedy in the Stephen King movie, 1963.
	And he has played John F. Kennedy in other movies as well.
	The only thing that he lacks for the role is height.
	I'm a short man and he's only a little taller than I am.
	So what we did in the film was we placed a raised platform underneath him so that he appeared to be taller than he was.
	And we also had him sitting on a platform when he was in bed with her to get him propped up so it looked like he was six feet tall.
	As JFK was.
	Okay, go to the next slide.
	All right, this is a famous photo of JFK and Mary Pinchel Meyer.
	It was taken at Gray Towers.
	The date is stated there, September 23, 1963.
	I actually contacted the JFK Presidential Library to get permission to use this photo, and I talked to one of their archivists, and he informed me that this is a public domain photo, so I don't...
	I didn't need his permission.
	But he asked, he politely asked me to go ahead and credit the JFK Presidential Library if I use it in the film.
	And I very gladly did.
	And he said, be sure you mention the presidential photographer who took the photo, whose name was Cecil Stoughton.
	So as you can see, this is from a frame in the film.
	We have kind of like a news...
	In the opening credits, yeah, we had a photo log, and we included this photo, and you can see that it cites the photographer Cecil Stoughton and credits the JFK Presidential Library.
	So this was just two months before JFK was killed.
	Okay, go to the next.
	This is a picture of Mary Pinchot Meyer and John F. Kennedy.
	And it was taken in October 1963.
	So this was taken just one month before he was killed.
	I think it's a fabulous image because they really seem quite starstruck with each other.
	Now what you don't see here is that Jackie Kennedy was sitting right on the other side.
	I don't know if this was port side or starboard, but...
	Whatever the other side of the boat was is where JFK was sitting.
	I mean, Jackie was sitting, and she was talking to another man.
	I don't really know who he was.
	But this was basically a vacation that they were taking.
	And on this vacation, not only was Mary there, but her sister, Antoinette, was there, and her husband, Ben Bradley.
	And you're going to see them in a second.
	Go to the next...
	Okay, this is a broader view of this scene on the boat.
	They're at sea.
	And Ben Bradley is on the far left and sitting next to him is his wife.
	Whoever created this spelled Tony wrong.
	When you're referring to a female, you spell it T-O-N-I.
	But that was the sister of Mary, and they looked very much alike.
	In some images, it's hard to tell them apart.
	And then there's Mary, and then JFK is sitting there like the king on the throne, and then Jackie is on the other side talking to some man.
	I don't know who he was.
	All right, go to the next slide.
	All right, this was another vacation that was taken by all of them.
	So, on the far left is Antoinette, the sister of Mary.
	This was at a horse farm in Virginia, and the date was November 12, 1963.
	So, this was less than two weeks before JFK took his last breath.
	They were all at a horse farm.
	I watched the video of this and actually you get to see some spectacular equestrian riding by Jackie Kennedy.
	She even does the staple jumping.
	You know, that was the thing that Christopher Reeves was doing in the competition, in which he fell off the horse and he broke his neck.
	I'm hearing none.
	I listen to Revolution Radio,
	Freedom Slips.
	dot com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	We'll be right back.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting this is a drill, this is a drill on bull hoards during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	You can torture us and bomb us.
	Fire is catching.
	And if we burn, you burn with us!
	Are you awake yet?
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	That time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal than to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
	The war is coming, and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior, Or a victim.
	Denial is not a choice anymore.
	RevolutionRadioFreedomSlips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	Revolution Radio.
	It is no secret that the so-called mainstream media is best described as controlled propaganda.
	Countless news stories are either totally ignored or spun with half-truths.
	And because of this, essential facts and vital information are often compromised.
	Join Dr. Ott every Friday night on Studio B at 10pm Eastern and learn why.
	The Story Behind the Story was nominated for a Peabody Award in its second year of producing Unparalleled Broadcasting Excellence in 1997.
	That is, if you really care about learning the truth.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Thank you.
	Well, pick it up here.
	We got the next photograph, Jackie, in a golf course.
	All right, okay.
	So this is Jackie, and sitting next to her is Mary Pinchel Meyer, and I want to establish that...
	Off your breaking up.
	I'm interested in whether Jackie knew that...
	Mary, we're having this intimate relationship.
	I'm presuming she did know.
	Thank you.
	Ralph, I'm worried.
	We've lost her.
	I'll tell you this, and I think it's kind of a cute thing.
	Well, actually, I'm not even sure if she was still went by the name Bradley because...
	When Antoinette learned that her sister had been having...
	An affair with JFK.
	She was shocked because she thought that JFK had the hots for her.
	She said he was constantly flirting with me.
	I thought he was hitting on me.
	I didn't know that he was interested in my sister.
	But someone suggested that he may have been doing that for public consumption just to basically...
	Shut down any suspicions that maybe there was anything special going on between him and Mary.
	Anyway, go to the next slide.
	Did Jackie know?
	Ralph, I'm going to infer she did know.
	About him and Mary?
	I simply don't know.
	I don't know if she knew.
	She may have.
	She may not have.
	I would say this.
	At the very least, I think she suspected it, but I don't know if she outright knew.
	I really don't.
	Anyway, go to the next.
	All right.
	This is the crime scene.
	And the reason why I put this here is because I want to start talking about the case because it's important that people realize that this case is an open wound.
	It poses a great danger to the official story of the JFK assassination.
	And even though...
	Raymond Trump was acquitted in 1965 that the spin over the years that persists to this day is that Trump did it, that he was acquitted because they didn't have any, you know,
	forensic evidence, so to speak.
	But, yeah, he must have done it.
	There's nobody else who could have done it.
	And the apologists will...
	We'll keep saying this.
	But what I want your listeners to know that, and I wanted you to give me a chance to elaborate about this, is that it's impossible for Raymond Crump to have done it.
	He absolutely did not do it.
	And it all comes down to the complete lack of any motive for him to have done it.
	Now, when the crime occurred, there were articles in the Washington Post about it almost daily.
	And all of them, of course, being very hostile to Trump and why it's open and shut that he must have done it.
	But in the beginning, they implied that robbery was the motive.
	But then later, I think they probably realized that that wasn't going to sell.
	So they started turning to rape as being the motive.
	What I want to explain is that neither one of those motives work at all.
	The reason why robbery doesn't work is, first of all, this was a workout that she was doing.
	She was in workout clothes and she was just on a fitness walk.
	And she was wearing no jewelry at all.
	And there was no jewelry, no rings, no necklaces, no bracelets.
	Nothing was showing.
	And she had no jewelry, so nobody would have robbed her for jewelry.
	And as far as cash went, she had $10 on her.
	Now, $10 was worth a lot more in 1964 than it's worth today, but still, it's not enough money.
	And there was no reason for Crump or anyone else to think she was plied with cash because nobody goes for a fitness walk.
	You're in the park.
	There's no place to spend money.
	You don't need money.
	You're not going to have a lot of money on you.
	But there's another reason why robbery is out of the question.
	And that is that the attacker, even though he had a gun, he didn't use it to rob her.
	Instead, he attacked her physically.
	He attacked her with his hands and started battering her.
	And there's no reason why a robber would have done that, because it's not like the robber wants to reach into her pockets and take the money.
	He wants to use his gun and point it at her to get her to hand it over, because anyone would.
	And nobody wants to die over pocket money.
	So surely if...
	The quick and fast way to actually get the money is to just use your gun to threaten the person so that they turn it over.
	So the very fact that the attacker resorted to physical violence against her straight out tells you that he must have had a motive other than robbery.
	All right, so the only other motive that they proffered at the trial was rape.
	But rape doesn't work either for multiple reasons.
	First of all, this is the crime scene.
	This was a hiking trail and there were any number of people that could have come by at any minute.
	So if Raymond Crump had attacked her to basically knock her down and rape her on the towpath, it was a spot in which any number of people could have come by and Come upon it right there in their presence.
	But in addition to that, what we're seeing here is the view from Canal Road in Georgetown.
	There's a little sidewalk there.
	There's a retaining wall.
	Because the sidewalk, the street was high above The park there below.
	And there was a stone wall that was built up there.
	But that's how open the view was that somebody could...
	So the point is that the solitude, the isolation, the privacy that is requisite for conducting a rape because...
	How often are rapes done right out in broad daylight in public?
	Not very often.
	They're almost always done in seclusion.
	And there was no seclusion here.
	But that's not the only reason why rape isn't feasible.
	It isn't plausible.
	The second reason is that there's almost always a disparity of force involved.
	Now, that's a term that I found that is used in law enforcement and talking about rape.
	It refers to the fact that almost always there's a huge disparity of force between the rapist and the victim because it's essentially a fight and there has to be overwhelming superiority and domination by the rapist in order for him to Be able to completely subdue the victim and also be able to rape her,
	penetrate her sexually if she's fighting and resisting and screaming and hollering.
	He's got to have just an overwhelming amount of force and that did not exist in this case.
	Go to the next slide.
	All right, this is Raymond Crump, three images of him.
	Now, he was a small man, and that is absolutely undeniable.
	At the trial, the prosecution claimed that he was 5 '5 1⁄2".
	But on his driver's license, it said that he was 5 '3 1⁄2".
	But the prosecution pointed out that he was wearing platform shoes.
	That elevated him two inches.
	So they made the claim at the trial that his walking height was five foot seven and a half and that his true height was five foot five and a half.
	In his book, Peter Janey maintains that that was a lie, that his real height was five foot three and a half and that his...
	Walking height was five foot five and a half because of the platform shoes.
	And so that was on his driver's license.
	And what the naysayers say that, oh, no, you see, he grew, that he continued growing after he got his driver's license.
	Well, the fact is he was 25 years old.
	The average male stops growing between the ages of 16 and 18. So, I don't know when he got his driver's license, but typically, here in Texas, you have to renew your license every three years,
	but you only have to renew the picture every six years.
	I don't know how it is in D.C. But if he was 25 years old, well, I would think that they would have taken his picture again if it was six years old.
	Now, according to W. Roundtree, She believed he was 5 '3 1⁄2", because her height was 5 '4", and she visited him every day at the city jail, and she did that for months on end because she wanted to protect him.
	She felt that if she showed up at the jail and was spending time with him, that the jailers would know that they needed to keep their hands off him and not beat him up, because every day she would...
	See him in the condition that he was in.
	But from the time she spent with him, from him being brought to see him in the visitation room, she said that he was no taller than he was.
	So I can't say for certain what his height was, but if he was five foot three and a half, Mary was five foot six.
	So how could he possibly physically dominate Mary enough to rape her if he was only this 5 '3 1⁄2 inch guy who weighed 130 pounds?
	Mary was 5 '6 and weighed 128 pounds.
	So his physical ability to rape Mary Pinchelmeyer was absent.
	But then in addition to that, there's, oh, no, wait a second.
	All right, I'll get to that in a second, Bob.
	But the other thing I wanted to point out is that what we know for sure is that the attacker shot Mary in the head.
	And then, I mean, he was grappling with her, struggling with her, and then he took his gut out.
	And he shot her on the...
	Left side of her head.
	And then he let her go, presumably because he expected her to collapse to the ground.
	But lo and behold, she stayed on her feet and she took off.
	She started running.
	And it's very amazing that she was able to do that because it was a fatal wound.
	The coroner testified at the trial that even if she hadn't been shot again, that she was certain to die.
	From that first shot.
	But she took off and ran and he followed her.
	And then she collapsed onto a tree.
	Apparently she was falling and she just basically grabbed at the tree for support.
	And then when he got to her, the attacker, he grabbed her by the arms and he dragged her 24 feet back to where she started because He had a reason to do that.
	And what I think the reason was, was simply her visibility.
	He knew that a witness had been lured, Henry Wiggins, and he wanted Henry...
	Not Raymond Crump, but Henry Wiggins to get a good look at her.
	But the point is that this guy, Raymond Crump, never would have had any reason to drag her body anywhere.
	If he was determined now that he needed to just make sure she was dead and then flee, he would have shot her where she was and then run away.
	He would have had no reason.
	To drag her back anywhere else before shooting her a second time.
	So the fact that the killer did that is proof that it could not have been Trump because there's no way to rationalize him doing it.
	But then the other thing that I think is very compelling is that if...
	If Raymond Crump had really done this in order to rape her and that he was armed with a gun, then what was he doing there with a gun?
	Why did he go there?
	You can't argue that he went there hoping that there was a pretty woman on the towpath that he might be able to rape because...
	I mean, that is just too preposterous to think that anybody would have a thought like that.
	I'm going to go to the towpath to rape a woman because there might be a single woman walking alone that I might want to rape.
	You just can't go there mentally.
	So what was he doing there at all with a gun?
	I mean, this is a guy that never owned a gun in his life, never known to have fired a gun.
	There's no record of him ever having secured one.
	Of course, they never found a gun in the park, even though supposedly he had one there.
	They dredged the canal.
	They drained the canal.
	They dredged the river.
	They also explored the land.
	They never found any gun.
	Now, you probably know, Jim, that there was a witness that W. Roundtree found a black woman named Vivian.
	Who confirmed Raymond's story that he went to the towpath to have a consensual sexual rendezvous with her.
	She confirmed, yeah, that's what we did.
	But she refused to testify in court.
	She would not be a witness.
	She was afraid that if her husband found out what she had done, that he would literally kill her.
	But she did give an affidavit to...
	To Dovey.
	And Dovey filed the affidavit in the case.
	So an affidavit was a statement of interest in the case.
	Dovey did not introduce it at the trial.
	The jury never found out about the affidavit.
	And it's because she didn't have any witness that she could put on the stand.
	It's not as though Dovey could start talking about the affidavit herself.
	But here's where the real larceny comes.
	The real chicanery comes in, is that the prosecution was informed about the affidavit.
	They knew that there was this woman claiming that she had an affair with Raymond Crump at the park that day.
	And the way it works is that the prosecutor could easily have gone to Vivian themselves, talked to her, tested her credibility.
	Just tried to decide whether or not she was telling the truth.
	And if she was, and if she obviously was credible, well then that would have been a reason to dismiss the case if he had that rock-solid alibi.
	But they never even went to talk to her.
	So that just tells you how biased they were and how determined they were to convict Raymond Crump despite...
	The exonerating evidence.
	And there's another piece of information that also never got introduced at the trial.
	And that is that the FBI did a forensic analysis of Raymond Crump's jacket.
	And they didn't find any blood on it from her.
	But they didn't find any hairs on it of hers or any fibers from her clothes.
	But also, they determined that his jacket never contained a handgun.
	That it contained none of the filthy residue, the oily, charred residue of a handgun.
	You know, a handgun is a dirty thing.
	If it was in the pocket of the jacket, it would have left some residue, and there was no residue.
	And they also said that...
	A gun being a hard, jagged metal object would deform the pocket.
	It would leave a lasting impression on the pocket, stretching it and leaving the evidence that the pocket had been affected by having had a gun in it.
	And they said that wasn't the case either, that there was no reason to believe that either of his pockets...
	Ever contained a handgun.
	So this was another piece of evidence that the case should have been dismissed.
	And yet it wasn't.
	So what I'd like to suggest is that this case went all the way to the top, meaning to President Lyndon Johnson.
	You know, the lawyer who was the actual mastermind of the prosecution...
	He was almost like a puppet.
	The puppet master was David Ackeson, who was the son of Dean Ackeson, who was the Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower.
	So for eight years, he was the Secretary of State, and his son became the real head of the prosecution.
	In this case, even though he didn't actually appear as a prosecutor.
	But I'm telling you this just because it demonstrates just how high a priority this case was at the Department of Justice, that they would assign Akerson to it.
	And I strongly suspect that...
	Lyndon Johnson was following this case closely and that, you know, it was something that he was very, very, very intentionally involved in.
	So after Raymond Crump was acquitted, there never was an attempt to find, quote, the real killer.
	And I laugh at that because the same thing happened after the HSCA.
	You know, the ridiculous HSCA, after announcing in 1979 that most likely the killing of JFK was a mafia hit, and that the mafia was the real culprit in the case.
	Well, you would think that if there was any credibility to that, that law enforcement would have...
	Opened up an investigation trying to find out then what happened.
	But absolutely nothing was ever done to lift a finger to pursue the theory that the HSCA had.
	And let me state that the mafia had practically nothing to do with the assassination of JFK.
	They may have provided shooters.
	I don't actually...
	Make any claims to know who the real shooters was.
	This is something that, Jim, you have pursued, haven't you?
	You have pursued the actual shooters.
	I haven't.
	You have.
	Do you maintain that any of them were mafia hitmen?
	There were eight sponsors, each of whom had their own shooter.
	The mafia was one, Frank Sturgis, from the intersection of a triple underpass in a picket fence, fired the shot that entered the right temple.
	All right, so you maintain that Sturgis was the only mafia shooter?
	Yes.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	Okay, so I take it you reject the idea that James Files was a shooter?
	James Files was not a shooter.
	Okay, all right.
	Well, I agree with you about that.
	I am not inclined to believe his story, even though a lot of people do believe it.
	But let me just say then that I take it that you also reject the idea that they brought this French shooter.
	There was supposed to be this French guy who was a shooter that was a mafia shooter.
	I do not believe that.
	Okay, fine.
	And I don't dispute it, but I'm just trying to find out what you think.
	But I just want to say that...
	I'm sure that they could have accomplished the assassination without any mafia shooter.
	If they had one, they may have done it precisely to basically point a finger at the mafia just in case anybody started looking that way.
	They certainly could have gotten JFK shot without using any mafia shooters at all.
	I just think it's absolutely ridiculous to think that the mafia could have changed the motorcade route, or the mafia could have controlled the press and did the bidding of the mafia.
	That's the Naval Hospital to alter x-rays under control of medical officers.
	Right, obviously.
	No, no.
	This is ridiculous.
	I mean, the killing of JFK was an inside job.
	It was done by...
	Well, the term that...
	Vincent Salandria used was that it was done by the National Security State.
	And what he meant by that was that it was done by a network that included the CIA, included Vice President Lyndon Johnson, it included the FBI with James Hoover,
	and it also included elements of the Of the military, perhaps even members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
	What do you say?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	All right.
	Each of them put up their own shooter, Ralph.
	Oh, okay.
	All right.
	And another guy that Vincent Salandria would cite was JFK's own national security advisor.
	What was his name again?
	McGeorge Bundy.
	Yeah.
	He was involved in it, but he was not a shooter.
	No, no, of course not.
	He wasn't a shooter.
	Right back.
	Consolids.com. We'll be right back after this message.
	like to take a moment to thank the listeners and hosts for all their support.
	This has made Revolution Radio one of the biggest platforms for free speech.
	in an ever-growing dark world of censorship.
	Unfortunately,
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in the dark world.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution. Radio, radio, radio, radio.
	Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh
	Oh Oh Oh
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomStitch.com, The People Station.
	I'm out.
	Thank you.
	Even the government admits that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
	But did you know that it was an inside job?
	That Osama had nothing to do with it.
	That the Twin Towers were blown apart by a sophisticated arrangement of mini or micro nukes.
	That Building 7 collapsed seven hours later because of explosives planted in the building.
	Barry Jennings was there.
	He heard them go off and felt himself stepping over dead people.
	The U.S. Geological Survey conducted studies of dust gathered from 35 locations in Lower Manhattan and found elements that would not have been there had this not been a nuclear event.
	Ironically, that means the government's own evidence contradicts the government's official position.
	9 /11 was brought to us compliments of the CIA, the neocons in the Department of Defense, and the Mossad.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Read "American Nuked" on 9 /11.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com.
	100% listener-supported radio.
	And now we return you to your host.
	Thank you.
	Well, I'm sure there are many who'd love to call in.
	We've got too much to come.
	Can I just finish one last point?
	Rolf, I'm going to give you time.
	I want to bring Brian in to give his assessment of the crime as a private investigator.
	Brian, give us your thoughts about Rolf's critique of what happened here.
	I can't make an assessment of it.
	I'm unfamiliar with the material I've never heard from.
	I didn't know that this murder took place.
	I was ignorant about the entire context of everything that took place.
	I don't have much to say about it.
	Ralph, go right ahead.
	All right, thank you.
	All right, well, as I was saying before the break, that
	as with the HSCA, that when they announced, yeah, the mafia did it, nobody began investigating that because it wasn't credible.
	Well, likewise, when Trump got exhumed
	Exonerated.
	Nobody went looking for, you might say, the real killer or some other murderer, because basically, if Trump didn't do it, then it defaulted to the fact that it was a professional hit and that this was basically an assassination by the CIA.
	But here's what happened over the years that followed, because obviously...
	A lot of time has passed, but the spin that has evolved and that is still going today is that even though he was exonerated, that Trump did it.
	There's nobody else who could have done it.
	And the sad fact is he did have a criminal legacy that followed this, that involved prison time.
	He didn't kill anybody, but he did bad things.
	That certainly is daunting.
	But nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that there's no way he could have done this for the reasons that I gave pertaining to the complete lack of any motive.
	But the point is that the spin, the spin, the spin, the spin is that...
	You know, Crump did it, and it's appalling the way that they've spun it.
	For example, do you know who Lance Morrow is, Jim?
	He was.
	He died recently, but does that name ring any bells to you?
	It does.
	Remind me.
	Well, he was a kind of a folksy kind of an essayist, kind of like almost a modern-day Mark Twain, and he wrote for the Saturday Evening Post.
	And he wrote an article about this case.
	That was published in the Smithsonian Magazine.
	Now, you know, the Smithsonian Institution is basically a propaganda organ of the government because they deal with history and making sure that politically correct history gets disseminated.
	So he writes this article, and in the article he says right from the beginning that he thinks the jury got it wrong about Trump, and then he's waxed on and on about things that had nothing to do with it.
	But then at the end of the article, he said that he's reminded of the death of his mother, who was also, I think, a writer.
	After she died, that he and his siblings had a ceremony where they tossed her ashes into the Potomac River.
	And he said he can remember doing it and watching the ashes as they sunk and floated away.
	And his very last word in the article was that, and he imagined them passing over a gun that was...
	Buried in the sand at the bottom of the river, implying that it was Raymond Crump's gun.
	So basically, this kind of propaganda is still rife because the story is still very dangerous.
	And I'm asking everyone to please watch and support Dovey's Promise.
	It's streaming right now.
	On major platforms, on Apple TV, on Amazon, on Google Play, and on Fandango, you can rent it for $3.99.
	It really is a great courtroom drama.
	You'll enjoy it just as a courtroom drama, the way A Few Good Men is a great courtroom drama.
	You'll enjoy it that way, but also it doesn't mince words about the fact that...
	The CIA killed Mary Pinchel Meyer.
	And this is something that everyone should know about for itself and for the relationship that it has to the assassination of JFK.
	So I'm asking all your viewers to please watch Debbie's Promise.
	Thank you, Jim.
	I did not know we were so far close to the end.
	I may have been premature in cutting off collars.
	Shall I take collars, Rolf?
	Yes, absolutely.
	I've got time.
	Okay, I'm going to do it.
	Everyone out there, if you want to call, the number is 608-957-8727.
	608-957-8727.
	You're welcome to call.
	I'm going to clear the deck here.
	Ralph, what did she know?
	I mean...
	Well, that's a very good question.
	Mary Pinchel Meyer spent her whole married life being married to a very high-level official at the CIA.
	His name was Cord Meyer.
	And she ended up getting divorced from him.
	And one of the main reasons in the divorce was because she was so...
	She was appalled by what the CIA was doing and what her husband was involved in.
	And she just didn't want to have any more to do with it.
	She was inside.
	I mean, you realize that the whole era, the CIA was involved with assassinations.
	I mean, before Kennedy, you know, foreign leaders, the guy in Guatemala and the guy in the Congo and also...
	You know, I just read, Jim, do you know about the death of Frank, what's his name, the CIA biologist who was murdered, thrown out of a building?
	Olson, Frank Olson, you know anything about the death of Frank Olson?
	Oh my God, that'd be worth doing a show about too.
	But anyway, she kept a diary.
	She was...
	Very, very close with JFK.
	It was much more than a sexual relationship.
	She influenced him about policy.
	She was telling him that she needed to make peace and end the Cold War.
	And of course, she was also devastated by his murder.
	And she was telling people that it had all the earmarks of a CIA hit.
	And she was also telling them that she was going to expose that, get to the bottom of it, who did it.
	And obviously, they felt threatened by that.
	And I think that's the reason why they killed her.
	As I mentioned at Passing, James Jesus Angleton was at Mary's house looking for a diary when the body was still warm, Brian.
	And Jim, let me add a point about that that nobody else has made that I think is very important.
	And that is that, you know, there was no legal right for Ben Bradley or James Jesus Angleton to go into her house and rifle through her belongings and take any of her belongings.
	The moment she died, the loss of probate took over.
	And it meant that only her executor had any right to dispose of any of her possessions.
	So they had no legal right to do it.
	So how did they rationalize it?
	They claimed that her friend from Japan, Ann Truitt, called and...
	Gave them permission to go into her place and to do it.
	Well, that is ridiculous!
	Ann Truett was not her executor.
	She had no right to give them permission to go into her home and take anything.
	And how did Ann Truitt even know about this?
	I mean, this was the very night of the murder.
	It wasn't until Ben Bradley identified her body in the morgue that police even knew who the victim was.
	So how could Ann Truitt have known about it that night in Japan?
	I think that if anything, they called Ann Truitt and said, look, Ann, we need to take Mary's diary.
	We want to say that you told us that we could do it, that you called us and told us.
	I think that if anything, if Ann was involved in any way, it was because they called her.
	She didn't call them.
	She couldn't have even known about it.
	Ralph, I agree.
	I think you make a great case.
	Now, I believe Ben Bradley was deeply involved in this.
	And let me say that I hate that guy's guts because here he was, a friend of the Kennedy family, and, you know, After taking that vacation on the boat with them in October, they took another vacation with the Kennedy family in November,
	in the very month that JFK was killed.
	They went to a horse farm in Virginia.
	I have a picture of that, too, in which Ben Bradley, his wife Antoinette, Tony, and Mary Mitchell Meyer were at a horse farm.
	On November 12th, 1963.
	So just two weeks before he's vacationing.
	Not to make the obvious point.
	Ben Bradley was almost certainly CIA.
	Yes, he was.
	But my question is this.
	You look at Jim, you've got a lot of close friends.
	But how many of them have you gone on vacations with?
	Sure.
	How many of you take a vacation?
	Ralph, your arguments are impeccable.
	Okay, right.
	Okay.
	So anyway, the point is, I don't understand.
	I love your arguments.
	All right, good.
	Okay, thank you.
	We do have a caller.
	We have a caller.
	Okay, go ahead.
	501 Area Code, the caller, just give us your first name and state and join the conversation, 501.
	Gabriel from Arkansas.
	Go ahead, Gabriel.
	Hi, Professor.
	I don't know if this is a good time to ask this question, but I wanted to ask your private investigator, Brian, a question.
	I could wait until next week if you think it's better, but it was regarding the fact to the Long Island serial killer, because I believe that private investigator is from Connecticut.
	No, Brian's not from Connecticut.
	I'm from Texas.
	Texas, Texas.
	Oh, okay.
	But he did the investigating for Sandy Hook, right?
	He did investigation, yes, in relation to Sandy Hook, yes.
	Okay.
	But I don't know which theft you're referring to.
	I mean, I read a lot of the 8,600 documents.
	That were put out there, but I'm not sure exactly, you know, it's still unfamiliar.
	So what is it that was stolen?
	I wanted to ask you about the Long Island serial killer case.
	I don't know anything about it.
	I would defer that to another time, okay?
	I want to stay with Ralph on Mary Pinch and Meyer.
	But thank you for calling, nevertheless.
	Do you have a question about what we've been discussing you'd like to add?
	Oh, no, thank you.
	I can just listen.
	Okay.
	Thank you, Gabriel.
	Not a problem.
	Not a problem.
	Yeah, I think Ben Bradley was instrumental in saying the whole thing up.
	I think Ben Bradley, probably because of his proximity to Jack, learned a lot about his intimate relationship with Mary.
	He realized it was a threat to CIA.
	Even William Buckley, you know, was CIA.
	I mean, it was the same time that all the prominent journalists and certainly publisher of the Washington Post is going to be a prime candidate for CIA.
	Well, it's just appalling to me that his loyalty to the CIA...
	To JFK, with whom he went on family vacations with.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I agree.
	Ralph, I think you've done a dazzling job.
	Now, on the opening, you had the symbols of three different film festivals.
	Is that where you're having it displayed?
	No, those are film festivals at which the film won awards.
	You've already won awards with them?
	Oh yeah, the film has already won multiple awards.
	Tell us about it.
	There was one festival in Chicago called the Chi-Town Multicultural Film Festival that is sponsored by Northwestern University in Chicago and they had a film festival that consisted of Mostly short films,
	but they were going to include just one feature film, and the feature film that they chose was Dovey's Promise.
	So that was the only feature film they screened, and we had people in Chicago who attended, and they said it was grand, that there was a very receptive audience, that they loved the film, and I was just very, very...
	Appreciative of that.
	There it is.
	And then there was a film festival that called the World Independent Cinema Awards in which W's Promise won two awards.
	It won the judges award and then it also won what they called the jury award which meant that the people At home who were watching the screening.
	They had 20,000 viewers watching from home and they got to vote too on what the best film was.
	And they also voted for Dovey's Promise as the best film.
	In the festival.
	So, yeah, it had a very great film on.
	Our star, Joy White, won five Best Actress Awards.
	Five.
	You're doing fantastic, Rob.
	I just damn love it.
	That's fantastic.
	Well, thank you, Jim.
	What do you conjecture were the most important contents of the diary the CIA was most eager to suppress or keep out of the public record?
	Well, you know, what's interesting about that is that over the years, there have occasionally been claims that the diary surfaced, that somebody found it, but I don't know of any solid evidence of that, and I strongly doubt that that's true.
	I'm very, very confident that they did destroy it.
	But I think that as far as what was in it, We know from...
	There were people that did get a look at it who said that she never directly referred to JFK in the diary.
	She referred to him as a man of high political power and he has a very important job.
	But she never actually named John F. Kennedy in the thing.
	Better than that.
	But she'd have a nickname for him, you know, whatever.
	But I think that the most likely thing is that they were afraid that she may have said things in the diary about the likelihood that the CIA killed him and also things that he might have told her that,
	you know, the CIA might try to kill me.
	Yeah.
	Things like that.
	Did they have wiretaps in her house?
	Oh, I expect they did.
	I think that they did.
	I really do think that they did.
	I'm sure Ben Bradley wouldn't have prevented it.
	They facilitated it, for crying out loud.
	Exactly.
	I think that over the years...
	Really, I mean, the truth of the matter is that Peter Janey's book caused a great commotion.
	I mean, as I said, the only place where this subject is really discussed at great length is online.
	I've never seen it mentioned on television.
	I've never seen it.
	I'm sure it's never been taught in school.
	And I have...
	Even checked history books of the 1960s and I've never seen a reference to her or to her murder trial as an important event of the 1960s.
	So there has basically been a blackout on this case and Peter's book is the thing that you might say brought it back to life.
	Peter's book is what turned it into a A point of interest.
	And here you are.
	You made the movie and you're getting all the awards.
	And my whole purpose is hopefully to get the public aware of this.
	Because despite the interest that exists on the internet, I mean, let's say, look at your friend Brian here.
	I mean, he's obviously a very well-read guy.
	And yet he didn't have any prior knowledge of this case.
	My guess is that if you were to actually poll Americans and ask them, what does the name Mary Pinchel Meyer mean to you, that probably more than 99% would say they've never heard of her.
	Basically, despite the fact that if you Google it, you're going to get pages and pages of discussion about it, still...
	In the public at large, it is practically non-existent.
	Yes.
	And that's why I say that if people will, you know, watch the movie and you might say support the movie by watching it and recommending it, that it will help advance it because, you know, these...
	These platforms have algorithms that pay attention to how many people are watching the film, how many people are commenting about the film.
	For instance, if you watch it on Amazon, you can write a comment on Amazon.
	And that would help me a lot.
	If you want to do something to help me and get this movie out there, please watch it on Amazon and write a comment on Amazon.
	Because that will tell the Amazon algorithm to expose the film to other...
	I might even feature you on my show!
	You helped me a lot by having me on the show, Jim.
	I thank you very much for doing it.
	This is such an appalling thing and it is such a savage thing that was done to a female.
	And it goes to show that there's no limits.
	We started this program today talking about the starvation of Palestinians in Gaza and the complete willingness to kill them in order to prevail in a military conflict.
	And that's a monstrous thing to do.
	That's not too strong a word.
	It's monstrous.
	What they did to Mary Pinchel Meyer is monstrous.
	We live in a monstrous, savage world, and there's just no denying that.
	Ralph, I got one question for you on the final.
	How much did it cost to make, and how much money did it make?
	Well, the film just came out, so it hasn't made anything yet.
	I will tell you that the total amount of money spent on this film was, I'm not going to give you an exact figure, but let's just say it was a little less than $100,000.
	If I was going to round it off, I would say $100,000.
	Now, in this day and age, that is considered not just low budget, but micro budget.
	I mean, anything less than $250,000 is considered micro-budget, and this was less than half of micro-budget.
	But the way I was able to make it for so little was partly because I had such devoted actors who were willing to work for very low pay because they, you know, supported the cause.
	They wanted to advance the message of the film, that Mary Pinchot Meyer was brutally murdered, you know, by the state.
	Have they all read Peter's book or just your script?
	Some of them have.
	Some of them haven't.
	But some of them, like my star Joy White, is somebody who has been just very active in just the opposing just the horrific oppression of black people.
	You know, occurred in this country and looking at Raymond Crump as a black victim, someone who was framed partly just because he was black and that it would be easy to blame, you know, the rape of a white woman on a black man.
	So she had, you know, a motivation that way as well.
	Ralph, how could Vivian's husband have not found out about it?
	And did she survive?
	Well, I really...
	Don't really know what happened to her after all of this.
	But yeah, you would have to worry about her that way.
	Did she know the movie was coming?
	Is she still married to the same guy?
	Well, don't forget, we're talking about 1965, Jim, that this happened.
	This is 2025, so I have to assume that Vivian is long dead.
	People don't live forever.
	Now, you are aware that W. Roundtree, however, lived to the age of 104, and she...
	I think she died in 2018.
	So she lived a very, very, very long life.
	And to her dying breath, she maintained that she was certain that Raymond Crump was innocent.
	Well, it's obvious.
	Give me a minute.
	It's obvious.
	Brian, would you give us a final thought from today's show?
	Well, I think it's very interesting.
	There's all sorts of...
	Dirty, dark secrets related to this, and hopefully it all comes out so much.
	What do you think of Trump's releases so far?
	Anything spectacular?
	Well, I'll tell you something about that, is that I have been trying to influence the direction of that committee because he assigned a young Congresswoman Luna, Congresswoman Luna from Florida,
	to head the...
	Inquiry, basically, to do their own investigation into these assassinations.
	Well, Ralph, I've got to have you back.
	We'll do it again.
	Everyone, spend as much time as you can.
	Thanks so much for the invite.
	I appreciate it.
	Because we do not know how much time we have left.
	Have a great weekend.
	Bye-bye now.
	I'll see you soon.
	Bye-bye.

▲