The Law Suit
Some critics of the Donahue theory say that the theory must be bogus because Hickey sued St. Martin’s Press for libel in its publishing Mortal Error. But given all the evidence of cover-up, which will be presented later, isn’t that exactly what his Secret Service “handlers” would want him to do in order to cover up the true circumstances of the shooting?
There were some statute of limitations issues related to Hickey’s suit. The website http://leagle.com/decision/19971208978FSupp230_11189.xml/ HICKEY%20v.%20ST.%20MARTIN'S%20PRESS,%20INC provides details, though it is rather daunting to read in its legalese.
The NBC News site at http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/accidental-assassin-jfk-theory-alleges-secret-service-agent-fumbled-gun-f2D11634276 gives a more understandable summary:
Hickey, who died in 2011, filed a libel suit against Menninger, Donahue and St. Martin's Press, the publisher of Menninger's book, in 1995. But a judge ruled that the statute of limitations had run out, and the case was dismissed.
St. Martin's Press later settled with Hickey to preclude an appeal of the dismissal, according to Menninger.
Law suits are often settled for what is convenient, rather than what is true or morally correct, and this suit may have ultimately been settled for that reason. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error and other sources, the amount of the settlement paid by St. Martins Press was undisclosed as part of the settlement agreement (and since the amount was undisclosed, it could have been as little as one dollar). The point of the suit may not have been to actually recover monetary damages for a victim who was “wronged,” but to provide an argument that—on the surface, at least—seemed to rebut the Donahue theory.
The settlement also seemed to require an apology from Donahue. But Donahue never wavered in his belief of his theory. Look at his “apology” to Hickey. He didn’t “recant” his theory—note that the article below says he “recounted” it. Apparently the actual “apology” was the last line below (taken from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-08-22/news/1996235048_1_hickey-mortal-error-dealey-plaza):
Donahue -- who was not named as a defendant in the suit -- says the entrance wound in Kennedy's head was slanted from left to right, precluding a shot from the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald took aim. He says the wound was a quarter-inch wide, an indication that the bullet expanded upon impact, as would the high-velocity, thin-jacketed projectile fired by an AR-15.
Donahue's theory has been questioned many times before.
Last year, Donahue settled a lawsuit filed by Hickey in Baltimore County after he recounted his theory on a public television show of which then-Congressman Kweisi Mfume was the host. Donahue declined to disclose the details of the settlement, but he said yesterday that he admires Hickey's heroism.
"He showed a great deal of courage and nerve to stand up during an ambush and try to return fire," Donahue said.
The site http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/00/hickey.lawsuit provides the actual lawsuit document, in all its points. Consider the “evidence” used in the lawsuit document to disprove Donahue’s theory—i.e., the Bronson film (per http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/00/hickey.lawsuit), which we have already seen is far from conclusive. Also consider how wording got twisted around. Note especially item 15 below (“the film” referring to the Bronson film), which I’ve bolded:
13. Upon information and belief, in or about April, 1992, Thomas McCormack ("McCormack"), the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Trade Division Editorial Director of St. Martins and SMP, was telephonically contacted by Gary Mack ("Mack"), an archivist for the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, Texas, who notified him of the existence of a film taken of the assassination by Charles Bronson. The "Bronson film", the prior existence of which was known to Donahue, contains images of the assassination, including the head shot of President Kennedy and Hickey's movements at the time. St .Martins and SMP were specifically informed by Mack that the film absolutely disproves Donahue's theory.
14. Upon information and belief, as a result of Mack's telephone call, an attorney for St. Martins and SMP traveled to Dallas to view the film. Following this visit, the said attorney, McCormack, Menninger and Donahue, all personally traveled to Dallas to view the film together in or about April, 1992.
15. Upon information and belief, immediately following a viewing of the film McCormack was witnessed as being verbally abusive and upset towards Donahue and Menninger.
16. Upon information and belief, after having viewed the images on the film, SMP, through St. Martins, nevertheless, and with malice, published the paperback version of Mortal Error in or about October, 1992.
Through e-mail, I asked Bonar Menninger, author of Mortal Error, about McCormack’s becoming “verbally abusive and upset towards Donahue and Menninger.” Menninger’s reply was very clear that that was not what happened:
"The claim that McCormack was verbally abusive and upset towards Donahue and myself is completely and unequivocally untrue. McCormack was upset, but with Mack, who had asserted that the Bronson film ‘absolutely’ disproved Donahue's theory when, in fact, it did nothing of the sort."
I was able to obtain contact information for Mr. McCormack, the one who was supposedly “verbally abusive and upset towards Donahue and Menninger,” and sent him an e-mail asking for his version of this event. In his reply, he first stated “My current recollections of events of twenty-five ago are spotty — some elements sharp, some elements fuzzy indeed.” But then he went on:
"But I do have a fairly clear recall of fragments of my visit to Dallas to see the “Bronson film”. I have denied before, and I deny again, that I had harsh words for Donahue and Menninger that day. (In fact, I have no recall of Donahue’s having been there.) I did express my exasperation to the Dallas TV man who had insisted the Bronson film conclusively refuted the Donahue-Menninger theory. I felt it didn’t come close to doing that, and I bridled at having to spend time on a 1,400 mile trip to consider so weightless a piece of evidence. I’ve always assumed the report of my having harsh words for my colleagues originated with the TV man.
"I had already studied Donahue’s theory at great length to decide if that theory deserved promulgation — and this included an extended search for info that would disqualify his book. I didn’t want to publish another shamefully defective account of the shooting. I’d found nothing that refuted anything Donahue said, and his theory did have the singular virtue of accounting for evidential details that no previous theory could explain. Given a continuing national preoccupation with the puzzles (and wild theories) about the assassination, I decided Donahue’s theory deserved a place in the ongoing discussions."
Despite McCormack’s “fuzzy memory,” there was no discrepancy between what Menninger and McCormack reported, other than that McCormack didn’t remember Donahue’s presence. Both remembered that McCormack was upset not with Donahue, but with Gary Mack, the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, whom they visited at a TV station in Fort Worth, and who was the only one present besides the three of them (Menninger, Donahue, and McCormack). Both Menninger and McCormack are quite clear that McCormack was upset because McCormack had wasted time and money for “so weightless a piece of evidence,” not because McCormack thought the film disproved Donahue's theory.
This sort of twisting events around, as we shall see, is typical of the JFK case.
I might also add that Hickey’s attorney for this lawsuit, Mr. Mark Zaid, possesses “Secret” level security clearance, and is apparently one Hell of a lawyer. Per his biography at http://www.markzaid.com/biography.php?id=1:
"(Zaid) was named as a Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer in 2009 (profiled), 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, as well as a "Best Lawyer" by Washingtonian Magazine in 2009, 2011 and 2013 (issued bi-annually), for his national security work. As the National Law Journal once wrote, 'if Agent Mulder ever needed a lawyer, Zaid would be his man.'
…
"In connection with his legal practice on international and national security matters, Mr. Zaid has testified before, or provided testimony to, a variety of governmental bodies including the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, the House Government Operations Committee, the Department of Energy, the Public Interest Declassification Board and the Assassination Records Review Board."
So Hickey’s lawyer for this suit specialized in National Security. “National Security” seemed to be the catch-all phrase that was used to force autopsy participant Jerrol Custer and others to sign “gag orders.” “Reasons of Security” was also the phrase Secret Service Chief Rowley used when he faltered on Warren Commission questions on the AR-15.
Some critics of the Donahue theory say that the theory must be bogus because Hickey sued St. Martin’s Press for libel in its publishing Mortal Error. But given all the evidence of cover-up, which will be presented later, isn’t that exactly what his Secret Service “handlers” would want him to do in order to cover up the true circumstances of the shooting?
There were some statute of limitations issues related to Hickey’s suit. The website http://leagle.com/decision/19971208978FSupp230_11189.xml/ HICKEY%20v.%20ST.%20MARTIN'S%20PRESS,%20INC provides details, though it is rather daunting to read in its legalese.
The NBC News site at http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/accidental-assassin-jfk-theory-alleges-secret-service-agent-fumbled-gun-f2D11634276 gives a more understandable summary:
Hickey, who died in 2011, filed a libel suit against Menninger, Donahue and St. Martin's Press, the publisher of Menninger's book, in 1995. But a judge ruled that the statute of limitations had run out, and the case was dismissed.
St. Martin's Press later settled with Hickey to preclude an appeal of the dismissal, according to Menninger.
Law suits are often settled for what is convenient, rather than what is true or morally correct, and this suit may have ultimately been settled for that reason. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error and other sources, the amount of the settlement paid by St. Martins Press was undisclosed as part of the settlement agreement (and since the amount was undisclosed, it could have been as little as one dollar). The point of the suit may not have been to actually recover monetary damages for a victim who was “wronged,” but to provide an argument that—on the surface, at least—seemed to rebut the Donahue theory.
The settlement also seemed to require an apology from Donahue. But Donahue never wavered in his belief of his theory. Look at his “apology” to Hickey. He didn’t “recant” his theory—note that the article below says he “recounted” it. Apparently the actual “apology” was the last line below (taken from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-08-22/news/1996235048_1_hickey-mortal-error-dealey-plaza):
Donahue -- who was not named as a defendant in the suit -- says the entrance wound in Kennedy's head was slanted from left to right, precluding a shot from the Texas School Book Depository where Oswald took aim. He says the wound was a quarter-inch wide, an indication that the bullet expanded upon impact, as would the high-velocity, thin-jacketed projectile fired by an AR-15.
Donahue's theory has been questioned many times before.
Last year, Donahue settled a lawsuit filed by Hickey in Baltimore County after he recounted his theory on a public television show of which then-Congressman Kweisi Mfume was the host. Donahue declined to disclose the details of the settlement, but he said yesterday that he admires Hickey's heroism.
"He showed a great deal of courage and nerve to stand up during an ambush and try to return fire," Donahue said.
The site http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/00/hickey.lawsuit provides the actual lawsuit document, in all its points. Consider the “evidence” used in the lawsuit document to disprove Donahue’s theory—i.e., the Bronson film (per http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/00/hickey.lawsuit), which we have already seen is far from conclusive. Also consider how wording got twisted around. Note especially item 15 below (“the film” referring to the Bronson film), which I’ve bolded:
13. Upon information and belief, in or about April, 1992, Thomas McCormack ("McCormack"), the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Trade Division Editorial Director of St. Martins and SMP, was telephonically contacted by Gary Mack ("Mack"), an archivist for the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, Texas, who notified him of the existence of a film taken of the assassination by Charles Bronson. The "Bronson film", the prior existence of which was known to Donahue, contains images of the assassination, including the head shot of President Kennedy and Hickey's movements at the time. St .Martins and SMP were specifically informed by Mack that the film absolutely disproves Donahue's theory.
14. Upon information and belief, as a result of Mack's telephone call, an attorney for St. Martins and SMP traveled to Dallas to view the film. Following this visit, the said attorney, McCormack, Menninger and Donahue, all personally traveled to Dallas to view the film together in or about April, 1992.
15. Upon information and belief, immediately following a viewing of the film McCormack was witnessed as being verbally abusive and upset towards Donahue and Menninger.
16. Upon information and belief, after having viewed the images on the film, SMP, through St. Martins, nevertheless, and with malice, published the paperback version of Mortal Error in or about October, 1992.
Through e-mail, I asked Bonar Menninger, author of Mortal Error, about McCormack’s becoming “verbally abusive and upset towards Donahue and Menninger.” Menninger’s reply was very clear that that was not what happened:
"The claim that McCormack was verbally abusive and upset towards Donahue and myself is completely and unequivocally untrue. McCormack was upset, but with Mack, who had asserted that the Bronson film ‘absolutely’ disproved Donahue's theory when, in fact, it did nothing of the sort."
I was able to obtain contact information for Mr. McCormack, the one who was supposedly “verbally abusive and upset towards Donahue and Menninger,” and sent him an e-mail asking for his version of this event. In his reply, he first stated “My current recollections of events of twenty-five ago are spotty — some elements sharp, some elements fuzzy indeed.” But then he went on:
"But I do have a fairly clear recall of fragments of my visit to Dallas to see the “Bronson film”. I have denied before, and I deny again, that I had harsh words for Donahue and Menninger that day. (In fact, I have no recall of Donahue’s having been there.) I did express my exasperation to the Dallas TV man who had insisted the Bronson film conclusively refuted the Donahue-Menninger theory. I felt it didn’t come close to doing that, and I bridled at having to spend time on a 1,400 mile trip to consider so weightless a piece of evidence. I’ve always assumed the report of my having harsh words for my colleagues originated with the TV man.
"I had already studied Donahue’s theory at great length to decide if that theory deserved promulgation — and this included an extended search for info that would disqualify his book. I didn’t want to publish another shamefully defective account of the shooting. I’d found nothing that refuted anything Donahue said, and his theory did have the singular virtue of accounting for evidential details that no previous theory could explain. Given a continuing national preoccupation with the puzzles (and wild theories) about the assassination, I decided Donahue’s theory deserved a place in the ongoing discussions."
Despite McCormack’s “fuzzy memory,” there was no discrepancy between what Menninger and McCormack reported, other than that McCormack didn’t remember Donahue’s presence. Both remembered that McCormack was upset not with Donahue, but with Gary Mack, the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, whom they visited at a TV station in Fort Worth, and who was the only one present besides the three of them (Menninger, Donahue, and McCormack). Both Menninger and McCormack are quite clear that McCormack was upset because McCormack had wasted time and money for “so weightless a piece of evidence,” not because McCormack thought the film disproved Donahue's theory.
This sort of twisting events around, as we shall see, is typical of the JFK case.
I might also add that Hickey’s attorney for this lawsuit, Mr. Mark Zaid, possesses “Secret” level security clearance, and is apparently one Hell of a lawyer. Per his biography at http://www.markzaid.com/biography.php?id=1:
"(Zaid) was named as a Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer in 2009 (profiled), 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, as well as a "Best Lawyer" by Washingtonian Magazine in 2009, 2011 and 2013 (issued bi-annually), for his national security work. As the National Law Journal once wrote, 'if Agent Mulder ever needed a lawyer, Zaid would be his man.'
…
"In connection with his legal practice on international and national security matters, Mr. Zaid has testified before, or provided testimony to, a variety of governmental bodies including the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, the House Government Operations Committee, the Department of Energy, the Public Interest Declassification Board and the Assassination Records Review Board."
So Hickey’s lawyer for this suit specialized in National Security. “National Security” seemed to be the catch-all phrase that was used to force autopsy participant Jerrol Custer and others to sign “gag orders.” “Reasons of Security” was also the phrase Secret Service Chief Rowley used when he faltered on Warren Commission questions on the AR-15.