• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

40 years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, theories about who was responsible for his death continue unabated, reflecting polls showing most Americans don’t believe the official version. One website lists no less than 36 different theories that have floated around over the past four decades. A new release by WND Books, however, based on recently declassified federal documents, material supplied by the KGB, information from the Bonano crime family, documents obtained from a French court and the only interview done with a French witness previously only debriefed by the FBI and CIA, promises to cut through the confusion and completely change the debate.

In “Triangle of Death,” co-authors Brad O’Leary and L.E. Seymour untangle for readers a seemingly outrageous web that becomes increasingly convincing with each corroborated detail. They build a case that leads to a stunning, but convincing conclusion: President John F. Kennedy was killed Nov. 22, 1963, as the result of a massive conspiracy between the CIA-installed government of South Vietnam, the French global heroin syndicate and the New Orleans Mafia. In the first of two excerpts, published exclusively by WorldNetDaily, the authors uncover a key part of the puzzle, “The French Assassin.” Tomorrow: “Brother Bobby’s Cover-up.”

Imagine that a suspected killer and known foreign-national terrorist is on the loose and on the move, seeking escape from United States soil. The U.S. government knows that this terrorist has received rigorous training in a foreign military in the past and is part of a covert paramilitary organization that has already murdered dozens if not hundreds of people and has without conscience initiated public bombings, anti-American propaganda campaigns, and assassinations of military officers, high ranking police officials, and democratically elected politicians.


border=0 width=180 height=272>

One might suspect that such a person might be a member of any number of growing right-wing “militia” organizations, possessed of the same sort of sentiments that led to, say, the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Or it could be someone connected with a Gadhafi-like sect or a pro-Saddam Hussein faction, or perhaps an operative associated with the notorious Osama bin Laden.

But, no, the terrorist in question is not affiliated with any of these groups.

He’s French.

Now, imagine further that the terrorist, this known killer, has been tracked down by the FBI and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service – components of the United States Department of Justice – and these components have caught our suspect after an extensive and well-integrated manhunt. This dangerous terrorist is now safely in the custody of the FBI and INS. Problem solved, right?

Wrong.

He is never charged with any crime. He is never brought before a judge, even though he is wanted by an allied nation. He is not detained, incarcerated, or even officially questioned.

Instead, he is immediately whisked away and deported safely out of the United States, without so much as a raised eyebrow.

Since when does the U.S. Justice Department render safe passage to international terrorists? Why wouldn’t this man at least have been detained for questioning, and why wouldn’t said questioning be officially filed?

These are good questions, but there’s one more thing to imagine.

The capture and deportation took place in Dallas, Texas, on November 24, 1963, two days after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Can you imagine such a scenario?

No one need imagine it, because it’s all true. And numerous documents prove it.

This deportation, in fact, and the sinister man in question have been the subject of repeated U.S. Justice Department investigations for more than three decades, investigations that have been deliberately withheld from the American public and the world. Furthermore, no aspect of this suspicious expulsion was ever reported to the Warren Commission.

Before we explain further, what follows is a verbatim reproduction of a CIA document which, until very recently, had been filed in U.S. government archives vaults with a classification of SECRET.

AAZ-22592

1 Apr 64

SECRET

Jean SOUETRE’s expulsion from the U.S.

CIA HISTORICAL REVIEW PROGRAM
RELEASE IN FULL 1995

8. Jean SOUETRE aka Michel ROUX aka Michel MERTZ – On 5 March 1964, Mr. Papich advised that the French had hit the Legal Attache in Paris and also the SDECE man had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. * He was in Fort Worth the morning of 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon. The French believe that he was expelled to either Mexico or Canada. In January he received mail from a dentist named Alderson living at 5803 Birmingham, Houston, Texas. Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French Army and an activist in the OAS. The French are concerned because of de Gaulle’s planned visit to Mexico. They would like to know the reason for his expulsion from the U.S. and his destination. Bureau files are negative and they are checking in Texas and with INS. They would like to check our files with indications of what may be passed to the French. Mr. Papich was given a copy of CSCI-3/776,742 previously furnished the Bureau and CSDB-3/655,207 together with a photograph of Captain SOUETRE. WE/3Public; CI/SIG; CI/OPS/Evans

* of President Kennedy

Document Number 632-796

SECRET

Now, let’s look very closely at this (for brevity’s sake, from here on, we’ll refer to the above document as 632-796) and distill its meaning and overall pertinence.

In its statement, “… Mr. Papich advised that the French had hit the Legal Attache in Paris,” it’s clear that “the French” is a reference to some component of the French government, and the “Legal Attache” refers to the U.S. Legal Attache office connected to the U.S. Embassy in France. To simplify, when Government A has a question for Government B, the first and generally the most prompt resource is for Government A to submit that question either orally or in writing to Government B’s legal attache at their embassy. That’s what happened here. The French government asked the U.S., via its legal attache, about knowledge of this man named Jean Rene Souetre. It’s unclear exactly who “Mr. Papich” is, but it’s ultimately unimportant. (It’s reasonable to assume, however, that Papich may have been a CIA asset working discretely in the legal attache’s office, a surveillance operator, or simply an employee who served as a liaison for the U.S. Embassy.) But 632-796 also states that “the SDECE man had queried the Bureau [the FBI] in New York City.” This brings in another component of the French government, namely “SDECE,” or the Service de Documentation Exterieure et Contre-Espionage. To generalize, this is the French equivalent to the CIA – it was their major intelligence agency at the time (and an agency with quite a reputation, which we’ll talk about later). At any rate, what we read in 632-796 not only tells us that our embassy in Paris had been questioned about a man named Souetre, it also tells us that a SDECE officer sent an inquiry about Souetre to the FBI field office in New York City.

So who is this Souetre?

Based on the limited information contained in 632-796, we only know a few things. We know that he received mail from a Texas dentist named Alderson in January 1964 (which also tells us that SDECE or some other French authority was looking for Souetre; if not, why would they be tracking his mail?), and we also know that he “is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French Army and an activist in the OAS.” (Since this is a CIA document, why would the CIA suspect such a thing? More on that later.) Now we know that Jean Rene Souetre is a former French Army officer who deserted and joined an activist organization called the OAS. Hence, in what seems a minimal amount of data, this secret document tells us an awful lot about the mysterious man named Jean Rene Souetre. For younger readers, or for those who aren’t familiar with what, in the late 1990s, would be considered historical minutiae, the OAS (Organisation de l’Arm?e Secr?te, or The Secret Army) was a right-wing extremist group composed of men who had deserted from the French Army in opposition to French President Charles de Gaulle’s rather sudden policy to grant the African nation of Algeria its independence from French rule. The OAS was indeed a “secret army,” because during their heyday, they participated in countless acts of terrorism and assassination.

So here is the real meat of 632-796′s significance. The OAS partook in political assassination, and one of its members, Jean Rene Souetre, was captured by U.S. authorities less than forty-eight hours after an assassination of earth-shaking historical importance: John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

Let’s reiterate the lines from the document: “He [Souetre] was in Fort Worth on the morning of 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon.”

On that morning, in Fort Worth, Kennedy was giving a speech in front of the Hotel Texas. In the afternoon, in Dallas, he was shot to death.

Certainly, this is shocking enough. But it gets even more shocking when we read 632-796 in its entirety. The French had information that this same terrorist was “expelled from Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination.”

The ramifications are cataclysmic. Here is verification that Souetre was caught and then “expelled” from the United States. The reason for French concern is so stated: “The French are concerned because of de Gaulle’s planned visit to Mexico. They would like to know the reason for his expulsion from the U.S. and his destination.” We’ll explain the history and significance of the OAS in detail later, but what must be understood immediately is that the OAS considered Charles de Gaulle their primary enemy; in fact, they made repeated attempts on de Gaulle’s life. Typically, the destination for U.S. deportations was either Mexico or Canada, and de Gaulle planned to visit Mexico in the summer of 1964. Hence, we easily see why the French are alarmed. Somehow, they knew that Souetre was deported, and if he was in fact deported to Mexico, the French need to know.

But what about our concerns?

Not only does 632-796 tell us that Souetre was deported from Texas shortly after Kennedy’s assassination – an inexplicable occurrence in the first place – but it also tells us, given the target of the French queries, that it was some U.S. authority that deported Souetre. All U.S. deportations are executed by an arm of the United States Justice Department (the Immigration and Naturalization Service).

Why would an authority of the United States Justice Department deport a known terrorist? One would believe that Souetre, instead, would’ve been apprehended and imprisoned, or at least sent back to France where the legal authorities there had already clearly deemed him an enemy of the state. But there’s no evidence to suggest that Souetre was ever even questioned about his presence in Dallas so soon after Kennedy’s murder.

Instead, Souetre was picked up and quickly and quietly flown out of the United States. He was deported under a cloak of secrecy, and we make this charge based on the obvious facts. The deportation was never reported to the Warren Commission, which officially formed only five days after the event. And in April 1964 – the actual date of 632-796 – the Warren Commission’s investigation into Kennedy’s assassination was in full swing. Yet no one in the CIA, the FBI, the INS, or the Legal Attach?’s office ever reported the existence of this crucial document to the Commission or the American people.

Get Triangle of Death: The Shocking Truth About the Role of South Vietnam and the French Mafia in the Assassination of JFK.


Excerpted by permission of WND Books, a division of Thomas Nelson, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.