http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19539
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

And my reply to that post:

Well then, tell us what he really meant. He said,

"These remarkable similarities suggest that whoever was shaping the
Clinton scenario simply appropriated the entire 'profile' of Estus
Morgan, who really did appear at the registrar's office in 1963, and
attributed it to Lee Harvey Oswald."

If David did not mean that this appropriation was an honest
misidentification then what was it? Did all of these men conspire to lie
about who they saw and talked to? Were all the details about Oswald's
age, his military ID, and the men who were with him, complete,
deliberate fabrications?

These men included members of the C.O.R.E. and members of the KKK. Is
David suggesting that they all conspired to deliberately lie?

(unquote)

And if David meant to say that these were all deliberate lies, then why
didn't he say so?

All he does is claim that some sinister character "appropriated"
Morgan's profile. If David does not want to be misunderstood, then he
needs to stop being ambiguous and say what he means. He has made a
career out of innuendo and implication. And this is no exception.

Anyway, whatever the hell he was claiming, is obviously bullshit. Like
Posner, he tries to exploit small errors made by people thinking back
four years, whose first recollections made off the top of their heads,
were not as accurate as those made after more deliberation and
reconstructing of the actual events.

Robert Harris

Well, he stepped in that one, didn't he?  And then he had to "double down" with his response to the person who pointed out the article had not said what he claimed it did.  

I long ceased being surprised that people persist in trying to "save" leads that proved to be of no value.  But it still is interesting from the psychological level.

I think it's quite amazing that while Mr. mcadams is eager to post ad
hominem attacks with his victims names in the header, he has very little
interest in discussing the infinitely more important case related
issues, which prove that Reitzes' article is a major piece of crap.

Neither the notion that the witnesses mistook a 56 year old man for
Oswald, or that they all conspired to lie for Jim Garrison, make even
the slightest bit of sense. Of course David is famous for this kind of
thing. He used to claim that the KKK and the CORE conspired to make up
this story.

He even goes so far as to cite Patricia Lambert, whose book is full of
undocumented claims, and anonymous witnesses. It's not surprising that
david doesn't want to reply to my questions, or that mcadams refuses to
discuss the relevant issues in his silly article:-)

Robert Harris

Just in case there is genuine confusion here:

Corrie Collins, a CORE voter registration worker, saw two white men get
out of a Cadillac to join the voter registration line. One of them he
knew: Estus Morgan; the other, he didn't. Although he later testified at
the Shaw trial that the other man was Oswald, in his interview with
Garrison investigator Anne Dischler, he said that he could not identify
the other. Dischler, however, checked, and discovered that the man in
question had been Winslow Foster, a friend and fellow hospital employee of
Estus Morgan. This didn't fit Garrison's plans regarding the Clinton
story, so Dischler and the police lieutenant who had chosen her to help
with the Clinton investigation were removed from the investigation and the
Foster identification was buried by Garrison.

Mrs. Bobbie Dedon, a hospital employee who testified at the trial that she
gave LHO directions to the personnel office there (though she couldn't
remember how he was dressed, whether he looked neat or messy, or whether
he had a beard) had earlier been reported as saying in a memorandum by
Garrison assistant Andrew Sciambra that "we can't say why but somehow she
relates Oswald with Estes [sic] Morgan."

In the memorandum, Sciambra also reports Henry Palmer, the registrar of
voters, as referring several times to two men, the only two whites in the
line of registering voter hopefuls, together (in a manner that suggests,
but does not make explicit, that they were there with each other). In the
memo, Palmer is reported to have said that he spoke to them and that they
said that they were Lee Harvey Oswald and Estus Morgan. (Apparently Lee
was introducing himself using his famous post-assassination, three-name
moniker; perhaps he traveled back in time?) At the trial, Palmer's story
was refined so that the puzzling conversation while they were in line
dropped out and the two men were separated by a couple of spaces so that
Palmer had no idea whether they were together. Palmer's original claim
that Oswald signed the voter registration was also dropped.

Palmer is the one who sent Garrison's investigators to Corrie Collins.

All of this is from Reitzes's article. Read it. It's quite clear on all of
this. He certainly never says or implies anywhere that anyone mistook
Morgan for Oswald.

So, Palmer, the originator of the
Oswald-trying-to-register-to-vote-in-Clinton-under-the-mistaken-belief-
that-it-would-help-him-get-a-job-at-the-East-Louisiana-State-Hospital
story, was the one who linked Oswald and Morgan. Garrison's office tried
to get that line working, but even with their special techniques only got
a nibble. But, since Palmer and pals were willing to add Shaw and Ferrie
to the mix for Garrison, Garrison went ahead, knowing all along that the
white men from the Cadillac were almost surely Foster and Morgan. If there
were any others in the front seat, one suspects that they may have been
other hospital personnel, giving a ride to co-workers who wanted to
register to vote.

A little further clarification: after Garrison's people had finished reworking Collins's story into the form it took at the trial, it went from Estus Morgan and a man Collins didn't know (who wore all white, as Foster did at his hospital job) stopping by for 10-15 minutes to register during the registration drive while one other white man in a hat (Shaw's uncontradicted testimony at trial was that he never wore hats) waited in the driver's seat to Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw being the Caddy's occupants and Collins now having no idea how long the car stayed. Collins conveniently forgot the 10-15 minutes he had reported earlier, since it was too short for Garrison's timeline of events and to fit with the highly improbable six hours claimed by others.

The most plausible view of the whole Clinton / East Louisiana State Hospital story is that Collins's story about the two white men (one unidentified at the time, plus the still unidentified driver) arriving together in the Cadillac to register at the Voter Registration office in Clinton on the day of a CORE registration drive got around to Henry Palmer. When word of Garrison's search for Louisiana leads on the assassination got out, Palmer and his Klan / WCC buddies decided to cook up a story linking Oswald to CORE, a group with which Palmer repeatedly clashed in his official duties, as CORE worked to help African-Americans register against Palmer's bitter resistance. They needed some reason for Oswald to be there, trying to register to vote somewhere he didn't live. So they came up with the hospital job story (inspired by the connection between the car's actual passenger(s) and ELSH plus the idea that he would need to be a constituent voter in the parish to be likely to get a government patronage job in a corrupt state like Louisiana [no offense to La residents; I live in the Chicago area, so ...]).

So, Palmer and friends try to sell Garrison the Oswald / CORE connection. Garrison sends investigators who debunk it immediately. Garrison dumps those investigators and sends ones more in line with his way of doing business. They like the Oswald "sighting" but not the CORE connection. Garrison decides to make his case against Shaw and witnesses' stories evolve radically so that Oswald is remembered as having been with Shaw (and David Ferrie for good measure). And, it (plus the rest of Garrison's "case") is all so convincing that the jury votes to acquit in near-record time.