La Fontaines' Use of Evidence - IV
John McAdams
The La Fontaines used that silly "Oswald got VD in the line of duty"
stuff!
Yes, on page 59 of OSWALD TALKED they say that:
<Quote on>-----------------------------------------------
. . . Oswald's military CHRONOLOGICAL RECORD OF MEDICAL CARE shows the
disease's "origin" to be "in [the] line of duty, not due to own
misconduct." The medical entry clearly suggests that if the Marine was
involved in intelligence work, it was on the U.S. side.
<Quote off>--------------------------------------------------
Then later (p. 90):
<Quote on>---------------------------------------------------
Is it possible to be both a good Marxist and a temporary asset of some
U.S. government intelligence agency? In the Platonic world, perhaps not.
In the real world, however, where contracting syphilis in the "line of
duty" is an unsurprising matter duly noted in official reports, it would
appear that almost anything is possible . . .
<Quote off>----------------------------------------------------
It would seem that if Oswald got VD "in the line of duty" that this
suggests that he was, for example, having sex with prostitutes on orders
of his intelligence handlers.
It seems that way, that is, if you haven't *begun* to do your homework,
and indeed haven't read the WARREN COMMISSION REPORT.
The WC REPORT, probably in deference to 1964 sensibilities about
discussion of peoples' sex lives, does not discuss the VD issue --
although it is easy enough to find the documents that show his case of VD
and the testimony of an officer discussing the issue in the WC volumes.
But it *does* mention that Oswald shot himself with a pistol he was not
supposed to have. Having the pistol was a violation of Marine
regulations. He was court martialled, and given a fairly stiff sentence,
which was suspended. But Oswald's actions were ruled "in the line of
duty" and not the result "of his own misconduct." WCR, p. 638.
How could a violation of Marine rules not constitute "misconduct?" The
simple fact is that the formula the Corps used was a bureaucratic term of
art. A memo from the Judge Advocate General, dated 17 October 1958, is
included in the WC volumes. See 19H749 (page 111 of the Folsom Exhibit).
The memo notes that:
<Quote on>------------------------------------------------
Misconduct is wrongful conduct. Simple or ordinary negligence, however,
does not constitute misconduct. The fact that an act violates a law,
regulation or order does not, of itself, constitute misconduct. In order
to support a determination of misconduct, it must be found that the injury
was intentionally incurred, or resulted from negligence that was so
gross as to demonstrate a reckless disregard of the consequences.
<Quote off>------------------------------------------------
Thus, "misconduct" for the Corps was not any wrong act. If you could keep
a pistol that was illegal, and not have this ruled "misconduct," you could
get VD from careless sex and also have this ruled "not due to own
misconduct."
In the 1970s, Tony Summers followed up on this issue by phoning one of the
doctors who treated Oswald. He explained that this was a common formula
placed on records, which basically meant "cut this kid some slack."
If the La Fontaines could not do their homework, learning what the WC and
what Summers found out about this, they at *least* could have used a bit
of critical judgment.
Did they *really* believe that the CIA, ONI, or whatever, would recruit a
Marine of some ultra-secret spook assignment, and then allow his
commanding officers, doctors at the base where the Marine was stationed,
and so on to *know* about this? And even if we assume that they did know,
would they put something on Oswald's Marine record that basically said,
"this guy is a spook?"
This is all too typical of OSWALD TALKED. Evidence is ignored, and issues
are not thought through.
.John
AnthonyMarsh
Maybe the former newsgroup died before you got a chance, but yuo never
did respond to another point about the VD which I brought up. In the WC
exhibits it appears that the record has a case of VD which is crossed
out and changed to something else. Do you think that could be an honest
error, or was it an attempt to cover up for Oswald?
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.anaserve.com/~puzzlepalace/
John McAdams
AnthonyMarsh <ama...@centurion.flash.net> wrote:
: John McAdams wrote:
: >
: Maybe the former newsgroup died before you got a chance, but yuo never
: did respond to another point about the VD which I brought up. In the WC
: exhibits it appears that the record has a case of VD which is crossed
: out and changed to something else. Do you think that could be an honest
: error, or was it an attempt to cover up for Oswald?
Dunno. If it was a "coverup," it was ineptly done, since the original
inscription is clear enough.
.John