In my opinion it is much better that people with even a passing interest have access to all the facts. It is probably healthier that the information they get is unfiltered and in the case at hand not provided by someone who has invested over $200,000 and countless hours in proving the Files’ case is factual.

To prove me wrong Mr. Dankbaar claims I have lied seven times in my efforts to sabotage the Files’ story. He begins with:

So let us begin by defining the word lie.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines lie as "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood."

With the definition in mind ask yourself if Mr. Dankbaar has shown that I have lied seven times. In my view, he is using the phrase as a propaganda device.

From Dave Perry’s article:

For at least 13 years James Files, currently incarcerated in the state prison at Joliet, Illinois, has been trying to peddle an absurd story about his participation in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. And over those years, his story has changed more than the number of on again, off again investigators, researchers, and hangers on claiming Files' tale is accurate. Some of those proponents were and are the late "Certified Legal Investigator" Joe West and 82nd Airborne historian John Grady, as well as, retired FBI agent Zack Shelton, Houston attorney Don Ervin, TV producer Bob Vernon, Dutch "entrepreneur" Wim Dankbaar, and self professed journalist and - the space aliens are scheming against us - guru Jim Marrs *.

"Lie 1: Wim Dankbaar never professed himself as a journalist. Show the record please! Moreover the phrase "peddle an absurd story " is subjective conjecture."

Perry' response:

Lie 1a] There is no need to show the record. If Mr. Dankbaar read the paragraph carefully, he would have seen the - , and - inserted after his name. I indicated Mr. Marrs was the "self professed journalist and - the space aliens are scheming against us - guru." Mr. Dankbaar was characterized as a "Dutch ‘entrepreneur’."

Lie 1b] Looking at the definition I see nothing that renders "subjective conjecture" a lie.

From Dave Perry’s article:

Files has indicated that upon his alleged return from serving with the 82nd Airborne in Laos, he became a chauffeur and "hit man" for the "Chicago mob." And back in 1996, Files effused about his role in the assassination via MPI's for-profit videotape Confession of an Assassin.

He claims by age 21 he was recruited by, and worked with, mobster John Roselli in orchestrating the assassination. Using a Remington XP-100, known as the Fireball, Files claimed he fatally shot Kennedy in the left side of the head. No - that is not a misprint. In the video, the supposed assassin manages to describe his pistol shot entering the wrong side of Kennedy's head! "To me it was like taking out the garbage." he intoned in that interview.

"Lie 2: (actually two lies in one sentence) Files never claimed he was recruited by Johnny Roselli, and neither at age 21. He claims that in the fall of 1960 (thus at age 18) he was recruited for the CIA by covert operation specialist David Atlee Phillips, on a recommendation of Theodore Shackley, the later Deputy Director for Operations under George H.W. Bush."

Lie 2a] Mr. Dankbaar has not provided my original quote but his distorted version of it. Furthermore, he has constructed his response based upon his confusion. The actual quote is:

"He (Files) claims by age 21 he was recruited by, and worked with, mobster John Roselli in orchestrating the assassination."

After wading through Mr. Dankbaar's "recruitment" puffery the reader will find I never indicated Files was recruited by Roselli for the mob. I said he was recruited by Roselli "in orchestrating the assassination." A portion of what Files’ had to say on the videotape that is shown below:

"I picked up Johnny Roselli and we drove from the Dallas Cabana to Ft. Worth, Texas to a pancake house they had there just off the major highway. We went there to meet someone...I did not know who we was meeting...But he had already told me...Johnny Roselli said we was going to meet a man by the name of Jack Ruby...that he had some things that we had to pick up. When we got there, Johnny Roselli told me he said...I'm going to go in and sit in a booth...he says you wait and come in later...he said sit somewhere else where you can keep an eye on me...in case something goes wrong."

The entire transcript can be found at http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/confession2.htm

Lie 2b] Files was born in January of 1942. If you subtract 1963 from 1942 the result is 21 years. In the above quote I was not referring to the age at which he was allegedly recruited by the mob but the age at which he claims he was assigned to kill President Kennedy.

As an aside, in the fall of 1960 Mr. (Files) Sutton was indeed 18 years old. However, no plausible explanation has been given as to how Files, who by his own admission was using the name James Sutton in 1960, was able to enter the army, train, be deployed to Laos by the 82^nd Airborne, be involved in some sort of courts martial, and be mustered out of the service – all within the short period of one year and nine months.

From Dave Perry’s article:

A serious problem for Files, as well as his defenders, is the fact that John Roselli (a.k.a. Filippo Sacco) was, as the Chicago mob's senior crime boss in Las Vegas, under routine FBI surveillance. Records show Roselli was in residence at the Las Vegas Desert Inn at the time and was informed of the assassination via telephone by his long time friend, Beverly Hills Friar's Club founder, Columbia Pictures producer, and future Colpix president Joni Tapps.

"Lie 3: The records show that the FBI "lost surveillance" of Roselli from November 19 to November 27 1963. The FBI apparently forgot to surveil his home. Joni Tapps is dead and never testified. The records also show that in the mid - 1970s, Roselli began telling associates, journalists and Senate investigators that Ruby was "one of our boys" and had been delegated to silence Oswald."

Lie 3a] I’ve never seen the records that show every FBI agent lost surveillance of Roselli. And what about the records potentially provided by other agencies of Federal, state, and local law enforcement? Mr. Dankbaar seems to have the attitude that if he can’t find appropriate documentation it doesn’t exist. If history repeats, next will come the demand that someone else provide the information for him. And if that someone provides confirmation not supporting Files’ claims, Dankbaar will most likely claim the individual is a disinformation agent guilty of planting bogus information.

In an ironic twist, some of Mr. Dankbaar's associates are not above reproach when it comes to offering questionable proof or doctored "evidence." As confirmation I submit the photograph below. Note the number .221 has been altered to read .222.

Lie 3b] How Joni Tapps' statement that he telephoned Roselli becomes a lie is beyond me. If the evidence anyone supplies must be testimony specific to the event then, by his own criteria, Mr. Dankbaar must discount everything he obtained from or about individuals that are dead and/or didn’t formally testify. Some people falling into this category are Chauncy Holt, David Ferrie, Judyth Baker, Hugh Urdy, J. Gary Shaw, and Joe West. Additionally, I would be interested in seeing Mr. Dankbaar’s un-doctored copy of the sworn testimony of Roselli where he told Senate investigators that Jack Ruby was "one of our boys."

From Dave Perry’s article:

Just about everybody who has taken the time to look carefully into Files' story has dismissed it. The story has been found to be filled with historical inaccuracies and preposterous scenarios. When those legitimately researching the story pointed out some of the numerous gaffes by the alleged assassin, Mr. Files simply revised his fable to fit the historical facts.

Lie 4: Files' story has been found to remain extremely detailed, unchanged and consistent over 15 years. All people who have REALLY taken the time to look carefully into his story, have found no evidence of inaccuracies or impossible scenarios.

Lie 4a] Just because a story is "extremely detailed, unchanged and consistent over 15 years" doesn’t mean it is accurate or truthful.

Lie 4b] I disagree with Mr. Dankbaar’s claim of "no evidence of inaccuracies or impossible scenarios." Here are three examples:

• Files' indicated in his videotaped "confession" that there was a last minute change in the motorcade route. It is well documented that the motorcade route including the jog down Elm Street was published in The Dallas Morning News and Dallas Times Herald on Tuesday November 19, 1963, as well as, their Wednesday and Thursday editions. For details see my article Last Minute Changes In The Motorcade Route?

• Files' claim that "I would have to say that his (Nicoletti) shell struck approximately 1000th of a second ahead of mine maybe but that what's started pushing the head forward which caused me to miss from the left eye and I came in on the left side of the temple." (Emphasis mine) Didn't the fatal shot hit Kennedy in the right side of the head?

From Dave Perry’s article:

Interestingly enough he has attracted the attention of another group including Sam Giancana's 68 year old "Mafia Princess" daughter, Antoinette. It would appear Files' updated version of his involvement will be laid bare in a new book coming out in October of 2005. The book is entitled JFK and Sam - The Connection Between the Giancana and Kennedy Assassinations.

We are told the book is "Written by an insider with access to key figures, it names the assassins and traces the assassination team's movements on November 22, 1963, the team leader's life, his taped confession, and his face-to-face meeting with Antoinette in the Joliet state prison where he is serving a life sentence for killing a policeman."

Lie 5: Files has not attracted the attention of Antoinette Giancana. A meeting was initiated by her. She and attorney Bob McDonald have visited James Files in prison to inquire if he knows anything about the death of Sam Giancana. Based on that visit and interview they have no doubts about Files' veracity.

Lie 5] Since Mr. Dankbaar is from Holland he may not understand the syntax. Simply put, if Antoinette Giancana initiated a meeting with Files then he DID manage to attract her attention.

From Dave Perry’s article:

If the publishers had done some fact checking they would have discovered Files was misleading them from the beginning. Not only has he promoted himself from assassin to assassination "team leader" but as documented in a Chicago Sun-Times article dated August 17, 1994 Files is "serving a 50-year sentence for the 1991 ATTEMPTED murders of two police officers from Round Lake Beach (Illinois)." (Emphasis mine)

Lie 6: Rest assured that both the authors and publishers have done their fact checking and found no proof of inconsistencies, other than malicious falsehoods and disinformation attempts like on the website of Dave Perry.

Perry' response:

Lie 6] I think the publisher’s claim that Files killed a police officer does show they didn’t check their facts. I suppose using Mr. Dankbaar’s logic, I could claim the publishers were guilty of producing a malicious falsehood, disinformation, and a lie.

Lie 7: Files has never "promoted himself" to "team leader", nor has he promoted himself to Giancana's driver. An employee of Cumberland House has done that, no doubt without bad intent.

Lie 7] Notice how careful Mr. Dankbaar is concerning two "promotions" which are factual errors. Whereas I am censured for lying, the publisher is merely guilty of errors without "bad intent."

How is the casual reader able to discern who was responsible for Files’ promotion to team leader or being Giancana's driver? What proof does Mr. Dankbaar have that the "promotion" was due to an error on the part of "an employee of Cumberland House?" How do we not know it was not a LIE on someone’s part to boost book sales?

With all the purported evidence why hasn’t the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, the FOX network, the BBC, publishers Random House, Harper & Row, or even Jim Marrs’ publishing house Carroll & Graff produced a documentary, made for TV movie, or non-fiction work concerning Files’ account?