Cross Posted on Casolaro Thread:
This just in from Virginia McCullough:
Wow! 14 pages of talking on this discussion board re "What would you do if Danny Casolaro asked for your help?" and only 2 pgs about Jimmy Hughes arrest for the Alvarez murders. This is disconcerting to me because it is obvious that there is far less interest on Jeff's site than I thought there would be re the Alvarez executions. However, I took the time this afternoon to read all of the 14 pages and I do have some comments.
Pg. 11 fascinated me because of the discussion between Penguin, Percival and Nathan 28 re the reality of the Promis software. Certainly Danny Casolaro became involved in "The Octopus" because of Bill and Nancy Hamilton and the Inslaw case. Behind the introduction of Danny to the Hamiltons was Jeffrey Steinberg of the LaRouche origanization. Therefore the reality of the fabled Promis software and whether or not it was/is truly "the Cadillac" of all software iwas at the core of his investigation, at least it was in its infancy. But like all good investigations, the center of the investigation changes with time and the information obtained. So it did with Danny. I know this because in the months before his murder I often talked to him three or four times a day, evidenced by both his and my phone records in my possession. So the discussion on page 11 clearly demonstrates that over time Inslaw was not everything that was being hyped so intensely in the media and promoted by Michael Riconosciuto in the later part of 1990 and throughout 1991. Most scientists in Silicon Valley the Cobol-based Promis software is old and slow...by today's standards it is a dinosaur. It was Michael Riconosciuto's allegations that turned Promis into the super software of legend. During the last several weeks of Danny's life his attention had clearly shifted to the gold transfers conveyed by various intelligence operatives as so well detailed by Unsolved Mysteries reporter Don Devereaux. The two Unsolved Mysteries programs covering Danny's killing and the misplaced hit intended for Don Devereaux following the Casolaro airing clearly demonstrates the danger in delving into government/mob secrets .
What I see now is the same manipulation of the Alvarez executions, several years after the fact, by the same brilliant individual Michael Riconosciuto. The story that Desert Fae is centering on and conveying to Nathan Baca and to law enforcement is the one promoted by Michael; i.e. the reason that Fred Alvarez was killed is because he was going to expose the Wackenhut/Cabazon Joint Venture and the arms manufacturing and sales that would be generated had that venture been successful. To be totally fair Desert Fae is also now saying that Robert Booth Nichols and his access to CIA funds might have been a motive for murder. In my opinion, based on my knowledge, documents and other books written about the Alvarez murders, there was a far greater, long term monetary incentive for the Alvarez executions. And that motive was control of land and the income it would bring to support our dirty little wars around the globe. I am currently working on a detailed article about this issue but it probably will not be post until next week. In any case, I have seen no proof, aside from Michael's allegations, that Promis was either developed and/or altered on the Cabazon reservation or that Dr. Gerald Bull's work product from Valleyfield ended up at the Cabazon Resevation, as also alleged by Michael.
As for Desert Fae, I can assure you that I know that she, law enforcement and Nathan Baca of KESQ-TV maintain a trilogy by communicating and attempting to control what is released. That is why the term "The Octopus Murders" is being used in unison when these individuals refer to what has historically been known as the Alvarez Executions. I also believe that Desert Fae has high hopes of being a key witness in the event that Jimmy Hughes is ever brought to trial. There is a long way between arrest, extradition, trial and conviction. I am not certain that I would want to rely on what I see available at the present time as evidence and witnesses in the event that Jimmy Hughes is quickly brought to trial. Justice is a brutal task master and it takes many twists and turns once it gets into a courtroom. It is my fervent belief that (1) Jimmy Hughes was involved in the killings, (2) that Jimmy Hughes was not the only shooter, (3) Jimmy Hughes will have very high priced and well versed attorneys, and (4) he will not be easily "turned" to rat on any one else. In spite of this exacting analysis, it is my hope that someone or several killers will eventually answer for the Alvarez executions.
At this point, I will simply let my writings and the documentation I offer be accepted or declined on its merits. My thought process in determining what I believe is true or false is my own based on my own knowledge and experience. As those who read my articles well know, I have been both right and wrong over the years. I suspect that this will continue to be the case because knowledge is an evolving process based on changing times.
virginia mccullough
The woman's name is Rachel and her father was murdered. To suggest that she has high hopes of being a star witness first of all makes little sense in itself, in that who the hell dreams of growing up to be a star witness? It's also an extremely hostile and cold-hearted way for someone who's in a position to influence the opinion of other people to characterize someone who's seeking justice in connection with a parent's murder. It has no news value, in itself. If your only point is that the conspiracy is other and/or larger than a case that's only just now in its very early stages, assuming that your documents and knowledge don't include complete access to every single act of a prosecution that hasn't happened yet, I don't really see (a) how you could possibly know with enough certainty to report it in what direction it's heading; or (b) why you couldn't do your fortune-telling wrt the future without insulting a woman who does not have as much clout and influence as you do and who is not a criminal suspect or a part of a conspiracy that happened long ago, but rather the child of one of its victims.
Your tone is inappropriate, unbecoming, and unprofessional. And that does speak for itself, by the way. Thanks.
