It's quite surprising that the Eugene Dinkin story is still being promoted by various conspiracy theorists. I would have thought that his submissions to the HSCA would have been enough to scare people away. Unfortunately, that's not the case.
James DiEugenio has featured three articles written by Ronald Redmon on Eugene Dinkin -- here, here, and here.
So who is Eugene B. Dinkin and what exactly did he do involving the assassination of President Kennedy? Dinkin was a young American soldier who was serving in the United States Army in 1963. If he is a hero, and this author thinks he is, why have we not heard about him?
One reason is this: the Warren Commission hid his name and the information he had gathered in an attempt to warn the President about a plot prior to November 22, 1963. Fifteen years later, he tried to get his information to the House Select Committee on Assassination to help solve the crime, but they also hid this information.
Nobody hid his story.
The Warren Commission had two documents about Dinkin - CD 788, and CD 943. CD 943 was not released because the CIA's reporting involved "sensitive sources and methods," CD 788 was an FBI document and was released much earlier. In fact, Dick Russell showed Dinkin the FBI document in 1975.
The HSCA also did not hide their information on Dinkin. Unfortunately, the House never passed a law to release HSCA documents and so it was up to the ARRB to release Dinkin's submissions.
The important point is that both the Warren Commission and the HSCA realized there was nothing to his story. Dinkin had no relevant information on the assassination and his so-called "psychological sets" were just plain nonsense. His guess that an assassination would take place was just as important as Jeane Dixon's prediction that the Democrat winner of the 1960 election would be assassinated.
Redmon clearly believes that Dinkin's story deserved some sort of follow-up:
So far in my ongoing research, I have found no indication that the FBI did anything that was called for to either corroborate Dinkin's story or refute it.
Even Jim Garrison didn't believe the Dinkin lead was worth following up. An investigator for Jim Garrison found Dinkin in 1968 and nothing happened. Jim Garrison didn't even think it was worth mentioning Dinkin in either of his two books on the JFK assassination.
Redmon obtained a copy of Dinkin's HSCA submission of 23 "demonstrations." He only describes demonstration #2 -- without any providing any of Dinkin's illustrations.
But here is his description:
Demonstration 2, for instance, is comprised of photos from the October 15, 1963 and October 18, 1963 editions of Stars and Stripes. The headline on the October 15th story is “Prospective Bosses Fire Jack With Enthusiasm”. The photo attached to the story is of Jack Pierce, an unemployed California man who has been fired 73 times. The man in the photo has a vague resemblance to Oswald. President Kennedy was often referred to as Jack, so the headline could be processed to mean getting rid of Jack Kennedy. The California man’s name reinforces this subliminal message: pierce Jack -with a bullet. The October 18th story includes a picture of an Army specialist named Clinton Pierce. This photo of Pierce has a vague resemblance to Oswald. Pierce’s job is operating heavy equipment, and the story is about his toy collecting hobby. The caption under his photo is, “so who needs a Jack?” This again could be taken to mean Jack is unnecessary and can be gotten rid of. The last name of the Army specialist is “Pierce”, again a reference to putting a hole in something.
Here is the article from the Stars and Stripes:
Does any of this make any sense? Any reference to Lee Harvey Oswald dates the "demonstration" to after the assassination.
Redmon finds this technique compelling:
The other demonstrations include a number of different types of psychological sets that create a variety of assassination related images in the mind of the reader/viewer. In researching the murder of President Kennedy I have found a number of examples similar to those that Dinkin discovered.
So, Dinkin's 23 "demonstrations' aren't enough! Here is an example of what Redmon found:
The July 2, 1963 edition of Look Magazine has a caption in the upper right-hand corner of the cover page that reads, “Why Kennedy’s in Trouble”. The caption is written in red, the color of blood. The main part of the Look cover is of Pope John kneeling in prayer. The caption and the Pope taken together could suggest the Pope praying at a funeral mass. The title of the story inside, “Why there is trouble on the New Frontier”, has the words “New Frontier” also in blood red. The story itself was critical of many of the President’s decisions on a variety of issues. JFK when first elected was likened to a new Adam, but the article focuses on the New Frontier’s lack of success in getting domestic programs passed, which suggests the fall of Adam. The article included phrases like “a dark breeze blowing through the Washington political community,” “the bloodstained frontier,” “woes descended on the head of the President,” and “White House unfurled the white flag,” suggesting the fall of the new Adam.
Here is the cover of the Look Magazine referenced above:
For the life of me, I don't understand why Redmon finds any of this convincing.
Despite the fact that Redmon quotes the Dinkin letter to the HSCA stating that he had never deciphered any messages related to the JFK assassination, Redmon concludes that his "demonstrations" are just a cover story:
Russell writes that some of the military associates Garrison’s investigators talked to told the DA that while he was hospitalized, Dinkin was made to recite a cover story. This may be because when Garrison dug deeper into Dinkin he discovered that one of his functions as a code breaker was to decipher messages from the French OAS. (Dick Russell, The Man Who Knew too Much, Second Edition, p. 352) Which is interesting, since the OAS despised Kennedy for his alliance with Charles DeGaulle against their efforts to overthrow the French leader, and also Kennedy’s early advocacy for independence for the French colony of Algeria, which they violently resisted. As Henry Hurt later discovered, a member of the OAS (Secret Army Organization) was in Fort Worth the morning of the assassination, and in Dallas that afternoon. He was picked up within 48 hours and expelled back to France. (Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, pp. 414-19)
Redmon quotes Russell who did indeed write that "Dinkin's name first came up in the Garrison investigation, wherein interviews with some of Dinkin's former Army associates led to the conclusion that he had been hospitalized until he memorized a cover story." (page 557)
But I see no evidence that this is true. Boxley did talk to Dinkin and Garrison did receive a letter from a colleague of Dinkin's which talked about Dinkin's paranoia. It was Boxley who said that this was all a cover story, and there are no interviews with Dinkin's associates in Garrison's files.
And there is no evidence to back up the allegation that Dinkin's job was to decipher messages from the French OAS. Dinkin never said that to Russell -- once again it was inferred by Boxley.
Of course, this all just a theory:
This, of course, is only a theory. But it remains such because neither the FBI, nor the Warren Commission, ever investigated the Dinkin case. And there is no evidence that the HSCA, even though they knew he was alive, ever tried to interview him. Even though it was a fact that he predicted Kennedy’s assassination well in advance of his murder. If that was not an important lead, then what was? Such was the quality of the inquiries into the JFK assassination.
Of course, the HSCA never tried to interview Dinkin. Any thinking person receiving Dinkin's 23 "demonstrations" would realize he was not worth talking to.
Redmon's second article on Dinkin was about his death in 2012, and his third article discussed a few more of Dinkin's "psychological sets."
One psych-set demo Dinkin found that had an implied threat to the president was in the July 2, 1963, edition of Look Magazine. The title of an article inside was, “Why Kennedy’s in Trouble”. The title was inside a black border, but the print title was colored blood red.
The article inside the magazine referred to President Kennedy as a new Adam. The analogy would be that Kennedy, like Adam being kicked out of Eden, would be kicked out of his place, the White House. The inside title, “Why There’s Trouble in the New Frontier” is partly colored blood red.
A second example Dinkin deemed significant was from July 5, 1963 edition of Life Magazine. In it, there is a photo of President Kennedy riding in a motorcade in Germany. JFK is standing in the limousine looking back and to the side. There is a dark spot/defect on the back of his head that looks like a chunk of his scalp is missing.
Inside this edition there are pictures of the president’s visit to Ireland. In one of the photos, there is a gravestone with the name John Kennedy on it.
But are these Dinkin's sets or Redmon's? In his first article, he clearly stated that the Look Magazine example from July 2, 1963, was something he came up with. The other examples above are not in Dinkin's submission to the HSCA.
It doesn't really matter. It's all nonsense.
Coming up in our last instalment on Eugene Dinkin: Vince Palamara writes about Dinkin in several of his books.
Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Eugene Dinkin
Dinkin's story from 1964 about his interpretation of various newspapers.
A Garrison investigator spoke to Dinkin in 1968.
Dinkin sued the U. S. government in 1975.
Dinkin writes the HSCA three times with his evidence.
Russell interviewed Dinkin in 1975.
Previous Relevant Links on James DiEugenio:
DiEugenio repeats the story of Ralph Yates as told in James Douglass' s book JFK and the Unspeakable.
DiEugenio misquotes a Warren Commission memo.
DiEugenio runs away from the evidence.
DiEugenio cites a Joan Mellen story about Aynesworth that has no documentation.
James DiEugenio attacks another article about Oliver Stone.
James DiEugenio is unaware that an HSCA report on Oswald and the CIA was actually published.
Dan Hardway rebuts James DiEugenio.
Why does James DiEugenio write for one of the major agents of Russian disinformation?
Mr. DiEugenio thinks that I libeled him, but his accusations are all over the map.
Was Lee Harvey Oswald at an anti-Castro training camp in the summer of 1963?
Was David Ferrie at an anti-Castro training camp in the summer of 1963?
James DiEugenio accepts a phony story as fact.
Bill Boxley was not a CIA plant.
Clay Shaw was not Clay Bertrand.
A response to James DiEugenio about my writings.
Prouty couldn't back up any of his allegations when he was interviewed by the ARRB. You wouldn't believe the lame excuse offered up by DiEugenio.
Why does Oliver Stone support so many dictators?
DiEugenio has no understanding of Permindex/CMC
DiEugenio gets it all wrong on the Mannlicher-Carcano
The conclusion on the Mannlicher-Carcano
Over the past ten months, I have debunked every witness cited by DiEugenio regarding Clay Shaw and David Ferrie.