help needed with research
Jay
I am trying to convince the reader that it was/was not a conspiracy.
From my own research so far, I personally believe that it was not a
conspiracy so I will head in that direction with my paper. I will need to
show both sides of this argument and try to prove one right and the other
wrong. I am having a hard time in writing my paper with all of the
different accounts that I have read and the many conspiracies. So far, I
have written the introduction. My outline so far is this:
Introduction
I. The facts
II. The theories
III. ???
Conclusion
I think so far the outline general and I am still thinking about the 3rd
point. Can someone please help me with my outline? Remember, I am just
trying to convince the reader that it was not a conspiracy. Also, can
anyone recommend any good sources (preferably online) that will help prove
my position? If you have any questions/suggestions, please feel free to
contact me by e-mail at jedi...@yahoo.com Thanks in advance.
--
Faye Musselman
III. Cottage Industry
1. Websites, Newsletters, Associations & Conventions
You've taken on quite a project. What books are you using as your primary
research? The ratio of Lone Assassin to the various conspiracy books is
as unbalanced as was the mind of LHO. In fact, you'll be hardpressed to
find even a dozen good books on the LN (Lone Nut point of view), but be
sure to include Posner's CASE CLOSED.
As to trying to convince the LN view vs. the CT's, that battle has been
going on for 36 years! Anyway, good luck to you, and hopefully you will
share your paper with us when you're done. :)
Jay wrote in message <7t3f4f$na$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
John McAdams
>
> I am writing a research paper on the assassination of JFK and in my paper
> I am trying to convince the reader that it was/was not a conspiracy.
> From my own research so far, I personally believe that it was not a
> conspiracy so I will head in that direction with my paper. I will need to
> show both sides of this argument and try to prove one right and the other
> wrong. I am having a hard time in writing my paper with all of the
> different accounts that I have read and the many conspiracies. So far, I
> have written the introduction. My outline so far is this:
>
> Introduction
> I. The facts
> II. The theories
> III. ???
III. should probably be "how we put facts together to figure out which
theory is best. For example, some evidence is more reliable than other
evidence. A theory that fits the reliable evidence is better than a
rival theory that fits unreliable evidence.
And parsimony is an important factor. Go with the simplest theory that
fits the facts. For example, a fellow here (Bob Harris) believes a
"witness" named Elrod who says he was in the cell with Oswald.
Either Elrod is lying, or the Memphis FBI, the Dallas FBI, and the
Dallas cops are all lying, and the Dallas City Archivist is clueless
about how documents she is releasing to the public got released. Easy
to see which theory is the simplest.
A key thing here is how many ad hoc assumptions you have to make to get
the theory to fit the data. An "ad hoc" assumption is a proposition for
which you have no independent evidence, but you make it because it's
necessary to make the data fit the theory.
And of course, a discussion about selectivity in the use of evidence
would be good. If for example, you find a book or video that tells you
about *all* those witnesses who heard shots from the Grassy Knoll, and
then note that a systematic tabulation shows more "Depository" than
"Knoll" earwitnesses, you've identified a very tendentious use of
testimony. On this point see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
> Conclusion
>
> I think so far the outline general and I am still thinking about the 3rd
> point. Can someone please help me with my outline? Remember, I am just
> trying to convince the reader that it was not a conspiracy. Also, can
> anyone recommend any good sources (preferably online) that will help prove
> my position? If you have any questions/suggestions, please feel free to
> contact me by e-mail at jedi...@yahoo.com Thanks in advance.
>
> --
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Martin Shackelford
quite sure that it was. See below.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
Conspiracy Evidence:
Five Minutes' Worth
by Martin Shackelford
FOLLOW THE MONEY:
1.November 1963 statements by Jack Ruby and Oswald or a "second Oswald"
that they expected to come into a large amount of money soon.
2.A deposit of over $200,000 by an offshore bank into the account of
George DeMohrenschildt in December 1963.
MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE BEFORE NOVEMBER 22
1.The Mexico City false evidence trail.
2. The possibly fraudulent/substituted "backyard photos" of Oswald.
3. The "second Oswald" appearances.
PREDICTIONS OF ASSASSINATION
1. Carlos Marcello (reported by Ed Becker).
2. Santos Trafficante (reported by Jose Aleman)
3. Jimmy Hoffa/Marcello/Trafficante (reported by Frank Ragano)
4. Rose Cheramie (reported by Lt. Francis Fruge, LA State Police, and
others)
5. Joseph Milteer (documented by Willie Somersett via tape recordings)
6. Lyndon Johnson (reported by Madeleine Brown).
SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE ON NOVEMBER 22
1. Joseph Milteer's presence in Dallas.
2. The presence of several men in the east end 6th floor windows before
the shots; the descriptions not matching Oswald.
3. The presence of an unidentified man in the west end 6th floor window
of the Depository immediately after the shots.
4. Phony Secret Service agents on the Grassy Knoll and behind the
Depository.
5. Evidence of activity on the knoll at the time of the assassination.
6. The identification of Oswald as the President's killer by a police
officer at the Texas Theater, BEFORE he had been arrested and
identified.
7. The unusual makeup of the group that went to the Texas Theater to
arrest him (FBI, Assistant D.A., downtown rather than sub-station
police).
THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
1. A rifle found with the same serial number as that ordered by Oswald,
but a different model, four inches longer.
2. The absence of the paper bag and ammunition clip from police and
press photos of the area in which they were allegedly found, though
other evidence appears in the photos (e.g., bullet casings, etc.). No
evidence the paper bag ever contained the rifle.
3. The presence on one of the "sniper's nest" boxes of a fingerprint not
that of Oswald or any other Depository employee.
4. The location of bullet CE 399 on a stretcher at Parkland unrelated to
the assassination.
AFTER THE ASSASSINATION
1. FBI surveillance tape made after the death of Sam Giancana, which
recorded Santos Trafficante's statement:"Now only two people are alive
who know who killed Kennedy."
2. Trafficante's deathbed confession confession to Frank Ragano.
3. Marcello's tape-recorded and other statements to FBI informant Joseph
Hauser.
Dave Reitzes
>From: "Jay" jedi...@yahoo.com
>Date: Fri, 01 October 1999 07:08 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7t3f4f$na$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>
>
>I am writing a research paper on the assassination of JFK and in my paper
>I am trying to convince the reader that it was/was not a conspiracy.
>From my own research so far, I personally believe that it was not a
>conspiracy so I will head in that direction with my paper. I will need to
>show both sides of this argument and try to prove one right and the other
>wrong. I am having a hard time in writing my paper with all of the
>different accounts that I have read and the many conspiracies. So far, I
>have written the introduction. My outline so far is this:
>
>Introduction
>I. The facts
>II. The theories
>III. ???
>
>I think so far the outline general and I am still thinking about the 3rd
>point. Can someone please help me with my outline? Remember, I am just
>trying to convince the reader that it was not a conspiracy. Also, can
>anyone recommend any good sources (preferably online) that will help prove
>my position? If you have any questions/suggestions, please feel free to
>contact me by e-mail at jedi...@yahoo.com Thanks in advance.
Jay, you've chosen a difficult task for yourself, as it's not really
possible to prove there *wasn't* a conspiracy -- what you want to do is
pick the most important criticisms people have made of the Warren Report,
and show where those criticisms might not be as valid as the critics
thought.
Here are some topics I would suggest you look at:
1. The single bullet theory (SBT) -- the SBT is crucial to the finding of
one lone assassin. Warren Commission critics say that the SBT is
impossible, and I'm not going to say that it isn't. But if you go to John
McAdams' Kennedy Assassination Home Page, you'll find many well-written
articles defending the Warren Report, including some articles specifically
on the SBT:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Also, you might try Dale Myers' Web site:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/~dmyers/jfk/
This is mainly an advertisement for a video Dale has created defending the
SBT, but I believe there is also some basic information on the theory.
2. Could one man alone have fired the shots?
John McAdams' Web site has some articles on this topic as well.
Some people will probably recommend you read Gerald Posner's *Case
Closed.* I'm not so sure about that, because I think Posner argues too
much like a lawyer -- he hides facts that he doesn't want "the other side"
to know. Instead, I recommend you check out a book that isn't as well
known, *Conspiracy of One,* by Jim Moore. It is easier to read than
Posner's book, and I also think it is more honest. I've caught Moore in
some mistakes, but overall I think his approach is honest and reasonable.
On the other hand, Moore and Posner each have their own explanation for
how the single bullet theory actually occurred, and I find Posner's
version more likely than Moore's.
Confusing, isn't it? The John F. Kennedy assassination is very confusing,
no matter what side of the debate you're on. But if you hit the books and
really think the issues through, it's not as confusing as it seems.
3. Practically everyone -- even on the Warren Commission side -- admits
that the government covered up evidence in the Kennedy assassination. The
question is, Why? Was it because the government was guilty of involvement?
Was it because the government knew who *was* guilty and covered up for
them? Or were there other reasons? Gus Russo's *Live by the Sword* is a
recent book you'll probably be able to find at the library. Russo believes
that the government covered up information because a full investigation
would have brought out illegal government assassination plots against
Fidel Castro. He also is one of many people who believe that President
Kennedy's medical evidence was covered up by the Kennedy family, because
the family didn't want the public to know that JFK had Addison's Disease.
I'm not endorsing Russo's opinions, but he demonstrates that there are
many reasons the government could have covered up evidence that *don't*
necessarily mean they were part of an assassination plot.
One of the greatest weapons conspiracy theorists have had is the obvious
fact that the government covered up evidence. The critics always asked,
"Why would they cover it up if they have nothing to hide?"
(If you've seen the movie *JFK* you know that this was a big question for
Oliver Stone.)
Well, obviously the government had many things to hide, but as that
evidence has been released over the years, it's also become obvious that
many of these things have nothing to do with any kind of JFK assassination
conspiracy. The critics were only fair in pointing out cover-ups -- do not
think that I'm condoning such cover-ups, because cover-ups only breed
suspicion and fear among the public -- but in my opinion, sometimes the
critics went overboard in accusing the government of being part of the
conspiracy.
Two more books I recommend you look for at the library are:
*First Day Evidence* by Gary Savage -- the book that broke the story that
Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints WERE on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
after all -- but it took modern computer technology to read these partial
prints and discover whose they are.
*No More Silence* by Larry Sneed -- if you can find it, and if you have
time to read it, this contains many, many valuable interviews with
witnesses, Dallas police, FBI agents on the scene, etc., and gives an
illuminating peek into the events of the assassination weekend. I highly
recommend it to you personally for the interview with assassination
eyewitness Charles Brehm, because Brehm was not called before the Warren
Commission, and he was an experienced combat veteran who was one of the
closest witnesses of all to JFK at the time of the fatal shot -- and Brehm
believed THAT VERY DAY that the shooter had hit JFK and Connally with a
single bullet -- the theory it would take the Warren Commission many
months to come up with. Brehm was also living proof that bullets can act
very strangely -- he himself had sustained a most unusual bullet wound
while in combat, and he was not the least bit reluctant to tell conspiracy
theorists all about it! There might be interviews with Charles Brehm in
other books, but *No More Silence* certainly has a great one.
Two more on-line resources you might want to check out:
Deanie Richards' JFK Place:
gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK
Has a great deal of information on all sides of the case.
Ralph Schuster's Kennedy Assassination Home Page:
http://www.informatik.uni-rostock.de/Kennedy/
Has a great deal of original Warren Commission testimony.
Don't let all this information overwhelm you -- pick out the areas you
think are most important (SBT, etc.), and research the daylights out of
them.
Let me know if I can provide any more assistance.
Good luck,
Dave Reitzes
Dave Reitzes
>From: Martin Shackelford msh...@concentric.net
>Afraid I can't help you convince people it WASN'T a conspiracy. I'm
>quite sure that it was. See below.
>
>Martin
Let it be known that the LAST thing I need is to try to square off against
Martin Shackelford over whether there was a conspiracy or not. (I'm not
even convinced myself that there wasn't.) I'm going to take a crack at
this particular post, though, for the sake of the original poster's
question.
>Conspiracy Evidence:
>Five Minutes' Worth
>by Martin Shackelford
>
>FOLLOW THE MONEY:
>1.November 1963 statements by Jack Ruby and Oswald or a "second Oswald"
>that they expected to come into a large amount of money soon.
According to salesman Albert Guy Bogard, someone he identified as Lee
Harvey Oswald came into the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership (near the
Texas School Book Depository), test-drove a car, and made a comment that
he expected to come into money soon. Bogard took a polygraph test and
passed, for whatever that's worth. I have no doubt myself that Bogard well
telling the truth as he knew it. I think it's even possible that this
really was Oswald, though it's not terribly likely. I would point out that
after the assassination, hundreds of people reported "sightings" of Oswald
or Ruby -- sometimes both together -- in places and at times that don't
fit their known whereabouts. A researcher named John Armstrong has even
woven these "sightings" into a theory about a man impersonating Oswald for
literally the entire decade prior to the assassination -- and I myself
once found Armstrong's theory very compelling.
When I actually read some of the statements by these witnesses, however,
it was obvious that many of them simply were talking about somebody that
didn't fit Oswald's (or Ruby's) description at all. Some of these reports
were intentional -- a few people without a lot of ethical baggage were
trying to "link" the alleged assassin to someone they knew. Most were just
people with lousy memories, many of whom only wanted to be helpful to the
authorities. Albert Guy Bogard *could* be one of these people. Don't
misunderstand, though -- I'm not saying he *was* -- only that he could
have been.
> 2.A deposit of over $200,000 by an offshore bank into the account of
>George DeMohrenschildt in December 1963.
I have to take issue with Martin's bringing this up. Oswald's friend
George De Mohrenschildt left the USA for Haiti half a year before the
assassination. To try to link him to the crime seems a little unreasonable
without some solid evidence.
>MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE BEFORE NOVEMBER 22
>1.The Mexico City false evidence trail.
Oswald's visit (or alleged visit, as some would have it) to Mexico City is
one of the most puzzling episodes in the assassination investigation. I
would only point out one thing: Oswald's (alleged) trip to Mexico City
began a few days before the White House announced that President Kennedy
would be coming to Dallas. I think that's reason enough to ask ourselves
if there could be any relevance between the Mexico trip and an
assassination conspiracy.
>2. The possibly fraudulent/substituted "backyard photos" of Oswald.
Martin himself quite rightfully gets angry when people bring up
discredited issues like the old theory that a photograph by James Altgens
shows Oswald standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository
as the shots were being fired. This theory never made any sense to begin
with, as Oswald admitted to a roomful of reporters that he'd been INSIDE
the building during the assassination, and thus had no alibi. The House
Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) proved that the Altgens photo
showed TSBD employee Billy Nolan Lovelady -- who did indeed resemble
Oswald -- not Oswald himself.
Martin is aware that the HSCA also proved that there was no evidence of
forgery in the "backyard" photographs of Oswald with a rifle and revolver.
Furthermore, Marina Oswald says point blank that she took those pictures,
and at least three people (Michael Paine and two employees of a Communist
newspaper to whom Oswald mailed a photo) say they saw one of these photos
months *before* the assassination.
This really should be a dead issue as well, unless someone can demonstrate
that the HSCA's tests were invalid. The grain analysis test is persuasive
evidence that the photos are almost certainly not composites.
>3. The "second Oswald" appearances.
It would only be fair to go over these one by one. No one knows better
than I how many there are and how valid some of these "sightings" could be
-- I wrote several hundred pages on such "sightings" that I posted on-line
last year, when I believed them to be extremely important evidence. But no
one knows better than I how phony some of these "sightings" turned out to
be, and how potentially phony the others could be. They are worthy of
debate, but they should not be used as positive evidence of conspiracy.
>PREDICTIONS OF ASSASSINATION
>1. Carlos Marcello (reported by Ed Becker).
>2. Santos Trafficante (reported by Jose Aleman)
>3. Jimmy Hoffa/Marcello/Trafficante (reported by Frank Ragano)
These are all hearsay, and from extremely dubious sources. Personally, I'd
be surprised if a lot of mobsters *didn't* make up boasts about having
killed Kennedy.
>4. Rose Cheramie (reported by Lt. Francis Fruge, LA State Police, and
>others)
As I've noted on this newsgroup -- and posted sources to prove -- the
HSCA's main witnesses, Victor Weiss and Lt. Francis Fruge, gave
demonstrably false testimony about Rose Cheramie -- testimony that flatly
contradicted statements they gave in 1967 to the New Orleans District
Attorneys office. There is no doubt in my mind that Cheramie said
*something* provocative about the assassination, but in 1967, Garrison's
office could not find a single witness who heard her say anything about it
until *afterwards.*
Meanwhile, Cheramie herself never said she had any *first-hand* knowledge
of the assassination -- she said that "word in the underground" had it
that Kennedy would be killed. It was only in 1978 that Francis Fruge
claimed she had spoken about a conspiracy plot to him personally *before*
the assassination -- he NEVER said this during Jim Garrisons' 1967
investigation, and Fruge WORKED for Garrison for a short time. Dr. Victor
Weiss claimed in 1978 that a "Dr. Bowers" had heard Cheramie predict the
assassination, but in 1967, Weiss couldn't remember whether Bowers heard
this *before or after* the assassination. I've posted exact quotes from
Garrison's Cheramie file on these matters.
Rose Cheramie was a lifelong heroin addict with a rap sheet a mile long
and a history of mental illness. She'd used literally dozens of different
aliases. She'd been institutionalized at least twice. She'd tried on
several occasions to become an FBI informant, but had been rejected
because her information always turned out to be false. After the
assassination, she claimed to have known Jack Ruby and Lee Oswald, and she
claimed they were homosexual lovers. This should have discredited her
fairly quickly, but it happened to fit one of Jim Garrison's pet theories,
so he gave it some credence. (By that time, Cheramie was dead, the victim
of a hit-and-run accident. A well-known researcher, J. Gary Shaw, claims
her death certificate shows she may have been shot in the head; I have
copies of her death certificate and there is no such wound present.)
Bottom line: Whatever value Rose Cheramie might have ever had as a witness
has been forever compromised by the House Committee's biased investigation
of her, because HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey wanted Cheramie to
bolster his theory that the Mafia killed Kennedy. I saw Blakey himself on
television several months ago citing Cheramie as a credible witness of a
Mafia plot. That's an awfully subjective opinion, and the HSCA's report on
Cheramie makes some really dubious claims on the basis of nothing but Lt.
Francis Fruge's word alone.
>5. Joseph Milteer (documented by Willie Somersett via tape recordings)
Milteer's statement is indeed very suggestive, no argument there. I
wouldn't dismiss him as quickly as John McAdams and others do. His
statement suggests, however, that Kennedy was shot from a tall office
building, which is what the conspiracy theorists are arguing *against.*
>6. Lyndon Johnson (reported by Madeleine Brown).
Brown said that Johnson told her on the night before the assassination
that 'after tomorrow,' those Kennedys would never embarrass him again. I
do not dismiss Brown's statements; I think they deserve serious
investigation. I would find them more convincing if it could be more
substantially documented that LBJ was at the Murchison's mansion on the
evening of 11-21-63, and that, just as importantly, so was J. Edgar
Hoover, as Madeleine Brown and others have claimed. Hoover we know was at
his desk in Washington the following morning, and he was not enamored of
airplane flight. If it could be shown that Hoover indeed made a
surreptitious jaunt to Texas that evening, Brown would have an enormous
boost in credibility.
>SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE ON NOVEMBER 22
>1. Joseph Milteer's presence in Dallas.
Possible, but unverified. (The photo in Groden's books is intriguing, even
if the HSCA decided it wasn't Milteer.)
>2. The presence of several men in the east end 6th floor windows before
>the shots; the descriptions not matching Oswald.
Depending entirely on eyewitness testimony, and -- I say this as someone
who has written several articles *emphasizing* such witnesses' possible
importance -- the witnesses *do not* corroborate one another on this
aspect of their stories. Even those who describe two people on the sixth
floor describe very different-looking people in widely varying locations.
One witness -- Richard Randolph Carr -- changed his story greatly before
testifying about it at the trial of Clay Shaw in 1969.
Again, don't get me wrong -- I don't dismiss these witnesses. But they
don't *prove* conspiracy.
>3. The presence of an unidentified man in the west end 6th floor window
>of the Depository immediately after the shots.
*After* the shots? In that case, you must be talking about the alleged man
in Groden's photo analysis. There are different ways to read that photo --
I'll leave it at that.
>4. Phony Secret Service agents on the Grassy Knoll and behind the
>Depository.
Again, very controversial. There were only a few contemporary reports of
such people, and I don't think they're by any means conclusive. I don't
dismiss these reports, but I've become skeptical of them; they're never
consistent with one another. For example, Lee Bowers had as good a view as
anyone of the area behind the knoll stockade fence, and he didn't describe
anyone in a suit, the way a Secret Service agent would be expected to
dress.
>5. Evidence of activity on the knoll at the time of the assassination.
I can't agree with that at all. Activity according to whom? Lee Bowers saw
a car driving around minutes before the shots; he described two men
standing a distance apart from each other behind the fence, but he didn't
see them actually doing anything, and he didn't even see fit to mention
them in his earliest statement to the authorities. Jean Hill claimed to
see a man running behind the fence, but her earliest statements contradict
this, and she was not in a position to see much behind the fence anyway.
Maybe you're thinking of Ed Hoffman, but I don't think you'd cite him
without at least some qualification. Who does that leave? Gordon Arnold --
the man who doesn't appear on film? J. C. Price -- the guy who thought the
last two shots came five *minutes* apart?
>6. The identification of Oswald as the President's killer by a police
>officer at the Texas Theater, BEFORE he had been arrested and
>identified.
This, I have to say, is silly. Martin, do you really think that mob at the
front of the Texas Theatre was calling for Oswald's blood because he'd
killed a police officer? Come on, Martin -- the Warren Commission, IMO,
stuck to the silly story about Oswald only being a Tippit suspect because
they didn't want to accuse the DPD of concluding Oswald's guilt in the JFK
assassination before the evidence was in. But it's pretty obvious, again
IMO, that the fifteen patrols cars and the dozens of spectators were not
drawn to the Texas Theatre because of a suspected cop-killer. There are
plenty of policemen who now freely admit -- now that the spotlight has
long since gone off -- that they proceeded to the Texas Theatre because
they assumed there was a link between the Tippit killing and the
assassination. Even HUGH AYNESWORTH believed there was a conspiracy when
he heard the news of the Tippit slaying over the police radio -- he
assumed, like everyone else, that the two events were connected, and he
never thought at THAT time that a lone assassin could have escaped to kill
a policeman in Oak Cliff so quickly. See Larry Sneed's *No More Silence*
for interviews with Aynesworth and a number of Dallas police and Sheriff's
deputies on these subjects.
>7. The unusual makeup of the group that went to the Texas Theater to
>arrest him (FBI, Assistant D.A., downtown rather than sub-station
>police).
Same thing -- this wasn't your typical arrest, and no one thought it was.
The *Warren Commission* claimed it was, but are you going to take their
word for it? Really?
>THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
>1. A rifle found with the same serial number as that ordered by Oswald,
>but a different model, four inches longer.
People make mistakes.
>2. The absence of the paper bag and ammunition clip from police and
>press photos of the area in which they were allegedly found, though
>other evidence appears in the photos (e.g., bullet casings, etc.). No
>evidence the paper bag ever contained the rifle.
The clip appears in photographs of the rifle being carried out in the
building. IMO, statements by Tom Alyea and several witnesses interviewed
in Sneed's *No More Silence* provide an adequate explanation for all this.
One officer -- I believe it was L. D. Montgomery -- picked up the bag like
a dope and moved it before it was photographed. No one identified
Montgomery to the Warren Commission because they didn't want him to be
blamed for that obvious blunder.
>3. The presence on one of the "sniper's nest" boxes of a fingerprint not
>that of Oswald or any other Depository employee.
This deserved more investigation than it got, absolutely.
>4. The location of bullet CE 399 on a stretcher at Parkland unrelated to
>the assassination.
This is very possibly true -- not definitely, but very possibly. It's also
very possible that some idiot -- like Montgomery with the paper bag --
picked it up before realizing what they'd done, then stashed it back
somewhere as quickly as they could. Do I endorse this theory? No, I don't
think I do. But stranger things happened that day, and I don't think all
of them are sinister.
>AFTER THE ASSASSINATION
>1. FBI surveillance tape made after the death of Sam Giancana, which
>recorded Santos Trafficante's statement:"Now only two people are alive
>who know who killed Kennedy."
Consider the source.
>2. Trafficante's deathbed confession confession to Frank Ragano.
Ditto.
>3. Marcello's tape-recorded and other statements to FBI informant Joseph
>Hauser.
Ditto.
Hearsay is only hearsay, and hearsay from criminals is only hearsay from
criminals. Maybe valuable and accurate, maybe neither.
I'm biased in this sense because I never credited the theories of Mob
involvement -- I confess to simply thinking that they're silly. If the Mob
were involved, they'd need some high-level help to pull it off, and none
of these alleged threats and confessions give any sign of government
complicity. I can't take any of them seriously without some solid
corroboration.
Just my two cents' worth -- I'm sure others will have a few things to say
in return, and that's how it should be.
Dave
ritchie linton
>
> I am writing a research paper on the assassination of JFK and in my paper
> I am trying to convince the reader that it was/was not a conspiracy.
> From my own research so far, I personally believe that it was not a
> conspiracy so I will head in that direction with my paper. I will need to
> show both sides of this argument and try to prove one right and the other
########
Start with the books of Harold Weisberg.He documents the use made of all
the evidence by the WC=and when you are done, you will likely see what he
sees=thats is, that Oswald could not have done it.You might also try
Sylvia Meagher's book, "Accessories After The Fact".
You can get Harold's books by writing to him at:
7627 Old Receiver Road,
Frederick, Maryland.
21702
I might add that once you have undertsood that Oswald did not do
it...well, thats your proof of a conspiracy, since someone else made it
LOOK like it had been him.Somebody left that rifle under the boxes on the
6th floor of the TSBD, and it wasn't him.
Good luck. By the way, its not likely that you will enjoy reading Harold's
books. First of all, they are ugly in appearance, by virtue of the fact
that they are self-published. Secondly, he writes with force and passion,
slamming all the time the WCR.But if you can get over that, his
scholarship on the subject is unsurpassed....once you get used to his tone
of voice.On the plus side, he sells them very inexpensively by todays
standards.
Good books, all of them=if you have a limited time or budget, ask for his
first, "Whitewash" and his later, "Post-Mortem".In spite of his failing
health(for he is now very old) he is likely to be gracious enough to type
you a covering letter in response.
You may gather from this that I am a friend of his= and if you are really,
really interested in the subject, I can tell you that you may even visit
his home in Maryland and review for yourself his extensive collection of
original FBI Reports on the murder case-he lets anybody do that;even
providing his own photocopier for your use.He sued the Government for
stuff 13 times= and the results are all in his basement.When he passes
away, he has deeded it all to Hood College(also in Frederick, Maryland),
where it will join the materials left there as well by Sylvia Meagher.
For what its worth, I have compared that collection to that maintained by
the National Archives, and I can tell you this- Harold has stuff that even
the Archives do not have.
So, if you are really interested in the subject matter, write to him as
above.I hope this helps.
Ritchie
ritchie linton
>
> Jay wrote:
> >
> > I am writing a research paper on the assassination of JFK and in my paper
> > I am trying to convince the reader that it was/was not a conspiracy.
> > From my own research so far, I personally believe that it was not a
> > conspiracy so I will head in that direction with my paper. I will need to
> > show both sides of this argument and try to prove one right and the other
> > different accounts that I have read and the many conspiracies. So far, I
> > have written the introduction. My outline so far is this:
> >
> > Introduction
> > I. The facts
> > II. The theories
> > III. ???
>
> theory is best. For example, some evidence is more reliable than other
> evidence. A theory that fits the reliable evidence is better than a
> rival theory that fits unreliable evidence.
>
> And parsimony is an important factor. Go with the simplest theory that
########
Gee- I try to do that very thing- and when I do, you mostly ignore me.
The "simplest theory that fits the facts"- you ask? Why, its the fact that
the theory of guilt against Oswald does not work.That, for sure, is the
simplest thing that all the evidence shows.Parsimony, as you said.
I meet your criteria- is that why you chose to mostly ignore? I think so=
but thats another subject.
So back to the simple point=your theory of Oswald guilt is still a failed
one=thus and now, you have to explain why it still APPEARS as Oswald.Thats
a frame;for someone put that rifle under the boxs to make it LOOK like
Oswald=and thats a conspiracy.Instead of going of on tangents...as you do
below..start there."the simplest theory that fits the facts", as you
say.Instead, you go off on a tangent...
For example, a fellow here (Bob Harris) believes a
> "witness" named Elrod who says he was in the cell with Oswald.####
###### Who cares? Keep to the simple point, you said.Doing so=what are the
implications of Oswald as innocent? Someone put that rifle under those
boxes to make it LOOK like it was by Oswald-but it wasn't.Start there.You
want to get simple?=get really simple, and deal with that.
After almost three years on this NG, I have learned your preference for
diversion-tiresome though it is- but here you declare your simple
critereia.Meet it, as you yourself have estabished.
The "simplest theory that meets the facts", you said- is Oswald as
innocent.Can you deal with that? Someone else hid the rifle under the
boxes....simple
RJ
ritchie linton
>
> Well, obviously the government had many things to hide, but as that
> evidence has been released over the years, it's also become obvious that
> many of these things have nothing to do with any kind of JFK assassination
> conspiracy. The critics were only fair in pointing out cover-ups -- do not
> think that I'm condoning such cover-ups, because cover-ups only breed
> suspicion and fear among the public -- but in my opinion, sometimes the
> critics went overboard in accusing the government of being part of the
#######
Me too. And I am an avowed CT's in this murder case.So the question is,
WHY did the next government do as you acknowledge? Cover-up. I mean? If it
was as simple as the LN theory you espouse, why this observed behaviour?
Thats an irreconcilable conflict in the evidence, as I see it. What we all
see is that there were no reprisals agianst the conspiracy=thats a fact in
this case.Therefore, we ask next, who in any society has the power to
render them imune? Here, we introduce the evidence of Helms of the CIA,
who said the Oswald file was "a Navy responsibity".
The navy being a part of the miiltary, I say we have now the power to get
away.The fact is, they did, with no reprisals=right?Thats the power
speaking, if your still with me.
Helms showed a lot of guts,pointing to the "responsiblity" as he said.Can
you go there with your theory?
In any ones theory of life, "power ='s fear".Can you go there?You have
read Dean Andrews on the point.Andrews said in the result, " I'll testify
to anything".
RJ
Dave Reitzes
>
>Dave:
>
> The points you raise are worth commenting on.
>
> Money: Oswald may well have been the man at Downtown Lincoln
>Mercury.
I agree. I said that in my post.
>He did know how to drive.
Yes, he did, though he is not known to have been able to drive with any
skill.
The source on Ruby's claim to be
>coming into money knew him very well, so there's no mistaken identity.
Ruby was always talking about coming into money. He was almost invariably
wrong.
> DeMohrenschildt: I wish I could discuss this in more detail at
>present, but I am not presently at liberty to discuss all of the
>evidence on this point. Suffice it to say that the $200,000 sent to
>DeMohrenschildt was not intended for DeMohrenschildt.
> Mexico City: Whether the trip had anything to do with an
>assassination conspiracy, there was something going on involving
>intelligence, and an attempt to build on Oswald's presence by pretending
>to be him. At the same time, the fact that the Dallas trip hadn't yet
>been announced either means someone had knowledge BEFORE the public
>announcement, or that the assassination conspiracy was a flexible one,
>and didn't depend on whether JFK went to Dallas.
The Mexico City episode raised many questions. The answers need not
involve a JFK assassination conspiracy, though I would certainly not rule
the possibility out. More importantly, it isn't clear what function the
Mexico City episode could have served in an assassination conspiracy; if
the intent had been to reaffirm motive on Oswald's part, many chances to
do so would seem to have been overlooked.
> Backyard Photos: Marina has said she took them, she has said
>she had her back to the stairs when she took them, and apparently she
>told Walt Brown that she took the ones presently in the record. Maybe
>she did. I'm not ready to take that to the bank. The Militant staffers
>only recalled seeing a photo with a man and a rifle, but couldn't
>identify the photos in evidence. Forgery in the photos, including the
>grain, would require only enlarged fine-grain composites re-photographed
>with Oswald's camera. The HSCA test wasn't definitive.
No, I said they were not definitive. But I think it's time to acknowledge
that forging these photos would have been more risky than the result could
have even conceivably been worth. If Oswald was telling the truth -- if
the photos of the faces and nothing else were his -- where did the
conspirators get these photos of his face? Not while Oswald was in custody
-- that's pretty clear just from eyeballing the photos.
> Predictions: People who plan assassinations are often
>"dubious sources." Most Mobsters are sent to prison on the testimony of
>"dubious sources," so I'm not sure why you bothered to state this. Ed
>Becker was a private detective, and considered a reliable source on
>other matters. Jose Aleman was also considered a reliable source--later,
>he had a breakdown, but that is hardly relevant to 1962. Frank Ragano,
>as Trafficante's attorney, was well-placed to know what he reported.
>It's true that a lot of Mobsters made boasts about the Kennedys--there
>was another in Bonnanno's recent book. Marcello and Trafficante,
>however, were speaking privately to confidantes, not boasting.
There must be two dozen people who have claimed inside knowledge of an
assassination plot. In addition to the mobsters, we have Billie Sol Estes,
Richard Case Nagell, Madeleine Brown, Robert Easterling, Eugene Dinkin,
Gary Underhill (pending corroboration), Harry Dean, Chauncey Holt, Loy
Factor, Charles Harrelson, James Files, William Bishop, and God knows how
many others.
Meanwhile, are all the mobsters' tales consistent with one another? It
doesn't seem so to me. Therefore, even if we rule out all alleged threats
and confessions from outside the Mob, we have to establish some criteria
for judging which Mob-related claims are credible. Stacking a bunch of
dubious claims up side by side doesn't make any one of them more credible
than it would be on its own.
> Rose Cheramie: However accurate or inaccurate Fruge and Weiss
>were, the other attending doctor heard Cheramie's prediction before the
>assassination--and that's also in the HSCA report on Cheramie.
I mentioned him in my post, Martin. What did he say to the HSCA? Can you
tell me his first name?
Cheramie
>was a Marcello Mob prostitute,
Source, please.
and in a position perhaps to have heard
>something, but not know much.
How accurate was the information she is documented to have advanced,
Martin? Were Oswald and Ruby lovers? Did anyone else ever verify that Ruby
was known to some as "Pinky"? Can you show me the documentation that she
worked for Ruby and/or Marcello?
That she had a long rap sheet, no one
>disputes.
Have you seen it? It's quite interesting.
> Milteer: SOME of the shots obviously came from the TSBD. This
>is not something "conspiracy theorists" dispute, except perhaps for
>David Lifton. Milteer probably knew part of the plan, not all of it. The
>photo doesn't show Milteer. The evidence of his presence is his phone
>call from Dallas to Willie Sommersett on the day of the assassination.
So he claimed. Again, Martin, I take Milteer's statement quite seriously,
but I will not take him or anyone else solely at their word. How come in
over three decades no one has even remotely connected Milteer to an
assassination plot? How do we know he wasn't just a blowhard, one among
many?
> Others on the Sixth Floor: That there was more than one person
>up there seems quite clear.
As opinions go, this is perfectly valid. As a statement of fact, it
requires some evidence. Some witnesses, such as Arnold Rowland and Richard
Randolph Carr, seem to have changed their stories later. Which witnesses
and/or documentary evidence do you find conclusive?
That there is no way to fit more than Oswald
>into the official version is also clear. The descriptions vary, clearly,
>but that isn't evidence of only one person up there, just makes it
>difficult to determine who WAS up there.
I can't go along with that. Descriptions of a possible second person vary
from a white male with horn-rimmed glasses in a sports jacket to an
elderly black male, while others would have a Native American and a woman
on the sixth floor at that time. Whom do we believe?
> Texas Theater: You've explained why people might have thought
>there was a link between the assassination and the shooting of Tippit,
>but not why it was assumed the same man did both shootings, as many
>assumed a conspiracy until later. No one is taking the Warren
>Commission's word for anything, much less that this was a typical
>arrest. I never said it was a typical arrest. Why would you assume I
>believed that?
Oswald was not presumed to have been behind both crimes; the DPD had
something like five witnesses who placed him at the Tippit crime scene and
by Oswald's own admission he was in the TSBD at the time of the shooting,
he had no alibi, and he had no good reason to have left Dealey Plaza.
Within about 24 hours, a rifle at the crime was linked to him and his
political background provided him with a reasonably obvious motive, even
if he himself denied any such motive.
To sum up, there is no reason I know that Oswald should have been assumed
to have been the only participant in the JFK assassination, but credible
evidence linked him to that crime and the Tippit shooting. I don't see any
reason to question why the DPD would have considered him a prime suspect
for both crimes.
> Paper Bag: No one photographed the paper bag ANYWHERE in the
>Depository, not just where it was found. Other evidence was put back
>where it was picked up from, then photographed (the cartridge cases are
>an example)--why not the paper bag?
Isn't this a lawyer's argument? Wouldn't a better question be why any TSBD
photographs were staged and passed off as authentic?
> Stretcher Bullet: Those who found the bullet said it rolled
>off of the stretcher with the bloody sheets. That was Ronald Fuller's
>stretcher. The other odd thing is that descriptions of the bullet don't
>match CE 399.
Some do, some don't. If someone was going to plant a bullet, though, why
would they not plant one they intended to stick with? Why complicate
things with an extra bullet?
> Mob: Oswald grew up among the Mob in New Orleans.
I have to hold you to a higher standard than this, Martin. What does "grew
up among the Mob" mean? He lived with his Uncle "Dutz" for about a year
when he was three, then rarely saw him again. What else would you advance
as evidence of Oswald's "Mob background"?
Ruby was
>Mob-connected, and got his girls through Mob sources in New Orleans. How
>silly is Mob involvement?
Again, Martin, a researcher of your standing in the community should not
have to resort to "connections" to bolster your convictions. Please detail
your evidence of Marcello-Ruby business relations. Was Ruby any more
"Mob-connected" than his competitors in the nightclub business? Have even
a fraction of the seamier rumors about Ruby ever been substantiated?
Didn't the HSCA go to great lengths to try to verify some of these rumors
and "connections"?
Dave
Martin Shackelford
You are repeating questions that you've asked and I've answered
in the past.
The source on the DeMohrenschildt $200,000 is a document cited by
Edward Epstein in the DeMohrenschildt chapter of The Assassination
Chronicles.
Red Herring: I didn't say Oswald wasn't in Mexico City. He was. I
said there was a false evidence trail as well, including the phony phone
call claiming to be Oswald.
Milteer in Dallas: Jean Davison debunked this one effectively.
You just threw another red herring into the discussion. Why would I trust
your website for all the "right answers" on other issues?
Grassy knoll: Both Bowers and Hoffman said they saw a gun.
Texas Theater: Another red herring. I never said the police at
the Theater "knew Oswald was the designated patsy."
CE 399: Tomlinson, Poole, Wright. All mistaken?
Mafia types like to bullshit people? Apparently academic types
do, too, John.
Martin Shackelford
which I saw a photocopy.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Afraid I can't help you convince people it WASN'T a conspiracy. I'm
>quite sure that it was. See below.
>
>Martin
>
>--
>
>Conspiracy Evidence:
>Five Minutes' Worth
>by Martin Shackelford
>
>FOLLOW THE MONEY:
>1.November 1963 statements by Jack Ruby and Oswald or a "second Oswald"
>that they expected to come into a large amount of money soon.
Oswald never said any such thing. You are invoking an "Oswald
sighting." Lurkers will want to see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sightings.txt
> 2.A deposit of over $200,000 by an offshore bank into the account of
>George DeMohrenschildt in December 1963.
But DeM hadn't been in Dallas for six months in November 1963. He was
in Haiti. How was he supposed to have mastermined the assassination
from Haiti?
And how is it sinister when somebody engaged in international business
gets $200,000?
BTW, what is your source on the $200,000? Did this in fact happen?
>MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE BEFORE NOVEMBER 22
>1.The Mexico City false evidence trail.
Martin, Oswald was in Mexico City. There is a *massive* amount of
evidence on this. It includes a Visa Application in his own
handwriting, and a letter in his handwriting bitching to the Soviet
Embassy in Washington how badly he was treated in the Soviet Embassy
in Mexico City.
>2. The possibly fraudulent/substituted "backyard photos" of Oswald.
I'm really surprised, Martin, that somebody who rejects the wacko
"Zapruder film alteration" theory embraces this. The photos were
authenticated 15 ways from Sunday by the HSCA. Why don't you see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
. . . and come back and tell us what you think the HSCA overlooked?
>3. The "second Oswald" appearances.
Absolutely normal in any kind of celebrated case. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sightings.txt
>PREDICTIONS OF ASSASSINATION
>1. Carlos Marcello (reported by Ed Becker).
>2. Santos Trafficante (reported by Jose Aleman)
>3. Jimmy Hoffa/Marcello/Trafficante (reported by Frank Ragano)
And you believe these guys, right?
If so, *which* account do you believe?
>4. Rose Cheramie (reported by Lt. Francis Fruge, LA State Police, and
>others)
She was the woman who claimed to work at the Carousel, but didn't.
She was the woman who said that Ruby and Oswald were homosexual
lovers, and had been "shacking up for years."
She said Ruby's nickname was "Pinky."
She was dropped as in informant for supplying unreliable information.
How much nonsense can she spout and *still* have you take her
seriously?
>5. Joseph Milteer (documented by Willie Somersett via tape recordings)
Martin, *please* read the following and see whether you can still view
Milteer as reliable:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/milteer.txt
Do you really believe that JFK has 15 "look-alikes" travelling with
him?
Do you think he was shot from a tall building with a high-powered
rifle, as opposed to a "triangulation of crossfire?" IOW, do you
accept Milteer's scenario, and *reject* buff scenarios with three or
more shooters?
>6. Lyndon Johnson (reported by Madeleine Brown).
This has been debunked right here. She has Lyndon Johnson, Richard
Nixon, and J. Edgar Hoover at a late night Nov. 21 "assassination
party."
But Nixon and Johnson are known to be elsewhere, and Hoover is known
to have been in his office in DC at 9:00 am. the next morning. Want
to post a private "red-eye" jet trip?
And she reported the "changed parade route."
It didn't happen, Martin, and people who claim personal knowledge of
it are clearly lying. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
>SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE ON NOVEMBER 22
>1. Joseph Milteer's presence in Dallas.
You have no evidence he *was* in Dallas. The Groden picture has been
definitively debunked by the HSCA.
>2. The presence of several men in the east end 6th floor windows before
>the shots; the descriptions not matching Oswald.
The witness testimony is all over the place on who was in what
Depository window.
>3. The presence of an unidentified man in the west end 6th floor window
>of the Depository immediately after the shots.
See?
>4. Phony Secret Service agents on the Grassy Knoll and behind the
>Depository.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#ljohns
>5. Evidence of activity on the knoll at the time of the assassination.
All from witnesses who saw *no* shooter, and no gun. This is actually
evidence *against* a GK shooter.
>6. The identification of Oswald as the President's killer by a police
>officer at the Texas Theater, BEFORE he had been arrested and
>identified.
Listen to the radio transmissions, Martin. The cops had noticed that
the descriptions of the JFK shooter and the Tippit shooter were
similiar.
Besides, if the cops at the Texas Theatre knew that Oswald was the
"designated patsy" why didn't they shoot him when he drew his gun?
>7. The unusual makeup of the group that went to the Texas Theater to
>arrest him (FBI, Assistant D.A., downtown rather than sub-station
>police).
Again, *everybody* was on edge, and wanting to catch the assassin, and
wanting to catch Tippit's killer.
You really have no evidence this was "unusual" -- given that nothing
like this had happened before. You have no basis for comparison.
>THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
>1. A rifle found with the same serial number as that ordered by Oswald,
>but a different model, four inches longer.
But it was ordered by Oswald. Why would Kleins shipping a slightly
different model be sinister?
>2. The absence of the paper bag and ammunition clip from police and
>press photos of the area in which they were allegedly found, though
>other evidence appears in the photos (e.g., bullet casings, etc.). No
>evidence the paper bag ever contained the rifle.
Do you deny that the paper bag was indeed found in the Depository,
just as all the police testimony shows?
>3. The presence on one of the "sniper's nest" boxes of a fingerprint not
>that of Oswald or any other Depository employee.
You mean not *identified* as such.
>4. The location of bullet CE 399 on a stretcher at Parkland unrelated to
>the assassination.
Unless Tomlinson was merely mistaken.
>AFTER THE ASSASSINATION
>1. FBI surveillance tape made after the death of Sam Giancana, which
>recorded Santos Trafficante's statement:"Now only two people are alive
>who know who killed Kennedy."
>2. Trafficante's deathbed confession confession to Frank Ragano.
>3. Marcello's tape-recorded and other statements to FBI informant Joseph
>Hauser.
>
You really don't understand that Mafia types like to bullshit people,
do you Martin?
Let me repeat my advice to the original poster: go with the
*reliable* evidence. That's the hard ballistic, handwriting, and
photographic evidence.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>
> John:
>
> You are repeating questions that you've asked and I've answered
> in the past.
> The source on the DeMohrenschildt $200,000 is a document cited by
> Edward Epstein in the DeMohrenschildt chapter of The Assassination
> Chronicles.
I'll check that out, Martin, but in the meantime you might explain how
it's sinister.
> Red Herring: I didn't say Oswald wasn't in Mexico City. He was. I
> said there was a false evidence trail as well, including the phony phone
> call claiming to be Oswald.
I don't think you know that this was a "phony phone call." That's what
John Newman thinks, and he doesn't see it as evidence of any conspiracy
to kill JFK.
> Milteer in Dallas: Jean Davison debunked this one effectively.
> You just threw another red herring into the discussion. Why would I trust
> your website for all the "right answers" on other issues?
Here is what you posted, Martin:
<Quote on>
SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE ON NOVEMBER 22
1. Joseph Milteer's presence in Dallas.
<Quote off>
You are now admitting that this is a factoid? If so, good for you.
> Grassy knoll: Both Bowers and Hoffman said they saw a gun.
When did Bowers say he saw a gun?
Do you really believe that Hoffman saw a shooter? If so, you have some
fancy footwork to do to explain how Sam Holland and his buddies didn't
see the retreating shooter nor the "railroad man" who was supposedly
breaking down the gun.
> Texas Theater: Another red herring. I never said the police at
> the Theater "knew Oswald was the designated patsy."
Then what did you mean by the following, Martin?
<Quote on>
6. The identification of Oswald as the President's killer by a police
officer at the Texas Theater, BEFORE he had been arrested and
identified.
<Quote off>
Remember, this was "Conspiracy Evidence: Five Minutes Worth."
So how was this "conspiracy evidence?"
> CE 399: Tomlinson, Poole, Wright. All mistaken?
How were Poole and Wright supposed to be mistaken?
You're not using Tink Thompson's claim that Tomlinson and Write thought
the bullet looked different from CE 399, are you? If so, you need to
see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/399doc.gif
I haven't looked at Poole's testimony for a long while, but I thought it
pretty much supported the SBT.
Please explain what your point is about him.
> Mafia types like to bullshit people? Apparently academic types
> do, too, John.
>
Sashay(tm)!
And ad hominem too.
Do you really believe all the Mafia types, Martin? If not, you have no
business listing their statements as "conspiracy evidence."
.John
--
Dave Reitzes
>John:
>
> You are repeating questions that you've asked and I've answered
>in the past.
> The source on the DeMohrenschildt $200,000 is a document cited by
>Edward Epstein in the DeMohrenschildt chapter of The Assassination
>Chronicles.
>said there was a false evidence trail as well, including the phony phone
>call claiming to be Oswald.
But there are numerous ways of interpreting such things, some of them not
at all sinister. I would guess that even spooks make mistakes, Martin.
> Milteer in Dallas: Jean Davison debunked this one effectively.
>You just threw another red herring into the discussion. Why would I trust
>your website for all the "right answers" on other issues?
I don't see what "trust" has to do with it. In my experience, the articles
on John's Web site tend to contain source citations and other references
to help readers, including links to Web sites with opposing views. Only
people without evidence have to ask anyone to take their word for
anything. Speaking of which . . .
> Grassy knoll: Both Bowers and Hoffman said they saw a gun.
Al Navis never produced the letter that allegedly had Bowers claiming to
have seen a gun. Walt Brown wrote him a very detailed, polite open letter,
published in JFK/DPQ several years ago -- and posted on his Web site now
-- about this issue, and urging Navis to produce the letter. It never
happened. Navis doesn't have the letter. That's consistent with everything
Bowers ever said, including an 11-22-63 statement that doesn't mention
anyone behind the fence at all, and an interview with Mark Lane in which
he and Bowers joke about the Warren Commission -- not exactly supportive
of the theory that Bowers was "frightened."
If you want to cite Ed Hoffman, you're on your own.
> Texas Theater: Another red herring. I never said the police at
>the Theater "knew Oswald was the designated patsy."
But John challenged your article and you seem to have chosen not to
respond. Who's the one throwing around red herrings?
> CE 399: Tomlinson, Poole, Wright. All mistaken?
So are you saying that CE 399's condition itself cannot be used as an
argument against the SBT, because it's not, in your opinion, the genuine
bullet?
> Mafia types like to bullshit people? Apparently academic types
>do, too, John.
>
>Martin
Do you sink to Bob Harris level so easily, Martin? Pity.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>The Bowers reference to a rifle was in a 1966 to a young researcher, of
>which I saw a photocopy.
>
>Martin
But that letter doesn't seem to exist anymore, does it? Since I'd hate to
think of Lee Bowers as either a liar or a coward, perhaps it's for the
best.
Dave
P.S. Folks unfamiliar with this story can go look up Walt Brown's "Open
Letter to Al Navis" at:
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/angelic/96/jfkdpq.htm
Dave Reitzes
>
> Backyard photos: If they were known to have existed, but believed
>to exist no longer, there might have been a temptation to reconstruct
>them.
Sure, but this is speculation. Would it have been worth the risk?
> Foreknowledge: Thanks for mentioning Nagell, another who expressed
>knowledge prior to the assassination, and acted on it. The others you
>mention reported it AFTER the assassination.
I'm afraid there's no proof that Nagell said a thing about the
assassination until after it occurred. By his own admission, he was not
aware of a plot scheduled for November or in Dallas, regardless of what he
might or might not have said to Jim Bundren about Dallas. You can wait for
me to get around to a Nagell article in four to six months or so, or you
can order some of the files on Nagell for yourself. The more I learn about
him, the clearer it becomes he was just another Garrison witness.
> Cheramie: Worked as a prostititute in New Orleans. You didn't do
>that without the Marcello organization.
You'll have to do better than this, Martin. This sounds like pure
speculation. I've been trying to warn you about the Cheramie story for
months now. "You must unlearn what you have learned." She was just another
Garrison witness -- and a dead one at that.
I never said she worked for
>Marcello, but whoever she worked for had to be connected to the New
>Orleans Mob.
Speculation.
I've never said that ALL of the claims she made were
>accurate--or maybe she thought they all were.
If you're going to cite Cheramie as evidence of conspiracy, I would urge
you to study the primary sources, or at the very least, read the HSCA
Cheramie report with a more critical eye.
> Stretcher bullet: "some do, some don't"? What does this mean, Dave.
>The only two people present at its discovery were Darrell Tomlinson and
>Nathan Poole. Neither fits the description of "some don't."
There are a handful of people who saw and handled the bullet that day.
Their testimonies disagree on whether or not it was CE 399 they handled.
Given the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony, I hardly find this
conclusive evidence of substitution.
> Oswald/Mob: "grew up among the Mob" means that he lived in a Mob
>neighborhood, Exchange Alley, with his mother; that his mother dated
>Mob-connected men; that his uncle worked for the Marcello organization.
>It is not exactly true that he "rarely saw" Dutz after he was three.
>They were in contact when he lived in New Orleans, and when he moved
>back there in 1963, he initially lived with Dutz and his family.
I stand by what I said. Propinquity theories are not to be taken
seriously. If you can demonstrate that he had any significant contact with
the Mob either in 1963 or before, the burden of proof is indeed yours.
Was Dutz Murret a major player himself? Or was he a small-time bookmaker?
> Ruby/Mob: I refer you to the HSCA volumes, and to Seth Kantor's
>book for more details.
>
>Martin
Seth Kantor doesn't theorize any involvement on Ruby's part in an
assassination conspiracy, does he? Frankly, I was disappointed with his
book; even his case for after-the-fact involvement is flimsy.
Dave
Dgosha
thing, boy that really sounds like a great plan (the shooter and the guy
breaking down the gun). I can just imagine the convo. "OK, so then the
plan is Rocko will do the shooting and then Bubba here will take the gun
from him while he runs away and disassemble it in full view of everybody
so there will be no doubt that we're in a conspiracy to murder JFK." Looks
like their plan didn't work too well.
Doug
Dave Reitzes
>"Speculation" indicates you aren't familiar with how prostitution worked
>in New Orleans in those days. You didn't work in that field without
>Marcello sanction.
You know the rules, Martin: Citation, please.
> "Al Navis never produced the letter"? I saw a photocopy of the
>letter at the Dallas conference where he made his presentation about it.
>The original was in storage with the rest of his correspondence from
>that period, awaiting transfer to an archive. Producing the original
>wasn't feasible, but that fact has been a useful stick to beat him with,
>though not a very honest one. By the time Walt Brown made his demand, I
>don't think the correspondence was still in Navis' possession. That
>doesn't mean that it doesn't exist anymore, Dave. Walt demanded that
>Navis produce it; at the time, the demand was unreasonable.
Okay, that was three years ago. What's the excuse now?
Meanwhile, you'd actual credit such a statement from Mr. Bowers? After he
didn't say a word about any such thing prior to that? When he didn't
mention seeing *anything* behind the fence in his 11-22-63 affidavit?
After he and Mark Lane sat around *laughing* about the Warren Commission?
Do you believe Howard Brennan's testimony about being able to ID Oswald,
Martin? If not, do you acknowledge the double standard?
> Stretcher bullet: I'm saying it wasn't found on Connally's
>stretcher,
I'm not arguing with you.
and it didn't resemble CE 399, according to those who found
>it (Tomlinson and Poole) and the Parkland Security Chief (Wright).
The testimony I've read is not consistent with that. Perhaps I'm mistaken,
but some source citations would help. Given the unreliability of
eyewitness testimony, how much value do you think should be placed on
their statements? Do you also support Seymour Weitzman's initial
identification of the TSBD rifle as a Mauser? If not, do you acknowledge
the double standard?
One
>of those in the "chain of possession," Secret Service agent Richard
>Johnson, didn't even recall possessing it, so he wasn't much help.
> Saying that academic types like to bullshit people isn't
>"sinking to Bob Harris' level," Dave. I've known a lot of academic
>types. They like to bullshit people. Some do it for a living.
I was referring to your specific statement, not offering a truism for
mankind.
>Some do it
>to sound knowledgeable about something on which they aren't
>well-informed (I listened to an English professor insist, arguing with a
>lawyer no less, that no royalty payment is necessary when showing a
>film to an independent campus-affiliated organization in a campus
>auditorium; the following year he had to eat his words). When McAdams
>tried to discredit the Mafia types for the same thing, he was doing so
>from a glass house.
>
>Martin
I believe you accused John in particular of "bullshitting" people in this
case; why don't you support that specific argument instead of relying on
generalities and irrelevant examples?
Dave
AnthonyMarsh
There have been some murder plots where the second person is used to get
rid of the weapon, especially in the Mafia. As for disassembling it in
plain view, not necessarily. If it was done quickly and behind the signal
box, it would be hidden from view of most of the spectators. How many
people reported seeing the two men behind the fence? Only a few, so they
went undetected by the vast majority of the witnesses.
> Doug
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Llliibb
false name to gain the interview. He is said to have asked if any charges
could be filed because of this. (I would infer that he had been warned to
stay away from Lane, though nothing of the sort is in the document.)
HSCA inteview with parents gained nought. They described late son as
"private" sort who said "the less you know..." In fact, they were quite
interested to read his WC remarks. Most emphatically does not sound like
one who would write secrets to an anonymous teen.
Bill B
>Subject: Re: help needed with research
>From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
>Date: Mon, 04 October 1999 11:55 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19991004235500...@ng-ba1.aol.com>
Dave Reitzes
Pretty impressive, considering the fence was only five feet high, and the
overpass witnesses only seconds away. Which one of them was the fake
Secret Service agent, I wonder.
Dave
Faye Musselman
based on ONE and only ONE alleged witness = Hoffman. A deaf mute who
claims he tried to convey what he saw to the Dallas police at the time but
could not be understood. Hoffman is not a secret. He's been featured in
documentaries and scores of books. He attends the conventions. He is a
high profile "witness". Why has NO one ever come forward to substantiate
his claims? No Dallas PD officer has come forward and said: "Oh yea, I
remember that guy, but I couldn't understand him at the time." If THAT
were to come forward, Hoffman's credibility, IMHO, would be greatly
enhanced. As it is, I don't believe he saw a damn thing. But it's given
him a long time in the sun, hasn't it? There is NOTHING to substantiate
this claim. I don't believe he could see what he claims from his
position. And I've stood in that area. It's not very likely. Not at
all.
Much was made of the green truck the day before parked at the grassy knoll
and 2 men getting out. That was proven to be utility workers. So much
for that witness.
Much has been made about mysterious people observed in and out of cards,
sitting on curbs with umbrellas, holding "what appeared to be" radios to
their heads. Jeezus. Transistor radios. How mysterious. Listening to a
transister radio broadcasting the motorcade. No mystery there. But CT's
would have us believe they were conspirators communicating with each
other. Don't think so.
AnthonyMarsh wrote in message <37F97CA3...@quik.com>...
>Dgosha wrote:
>>
>> Man, some of these theories are just too much. In reference to the
Hoffman
>> thing, boy that really sounds like a great plan (the shooter and the guy
>> breaking down the gun). I can just imagine the convo. "OK, so then the
>> plan is Rocko will do the shooting and then Bubba here will take the gun
>> from him while he runs away and disassemble it in full view of everybody
>> so there will be no doubt that we're in a conspiracy to murder JFK."
Looks
>> like their plan didn't work too well.
>>
>
>There have been some murder plots where the second person is used to get
>rid of the weapon, especially in the Mafia. As for disassembling it in
>plain view, not necessarily. If it was done quickly and behind the signal
>box, it would be hidden from view of most of the spectators. How many
>people reported seeing the two men behind the fence? Only a few, so they
>went undetected by the vast majority of the witnesses.
>
Jerry
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> The Bowers reference to a rifle was in a 1966 to a young researcher, of
> which I saw a photocopy.
>
> Martin
>
> Martin Shackelford
>
> "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> -Obi-Wan Kenobi
>
Martin,
You actually credit Al Navis claim that Bowers said he saw two DPD
policemen in uniform fire from behind the fence??
Of course, he never testified to anything like this.
Why is it you credit Bower's supposed change of testimony and find it
credible while you dismiss Howard Brennan because he changed his
testimony?
Jerry
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Martin Shackelford
I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
exists.
I don't dismiss Brennan "because he changed his testimony." I dismiss him
because he described things beyond what he could have seen from where he
was, and because his identification got firmer after he saw Oswald on TV
and Oswald was charged with the crime.
Martin
Tony Pitman
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
>
>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
>exists.
>
>I don't dismiss Brennan "because he changed his testimony." I dismiss him
>because he described things beyond what he could have seen from where he
>was, and because his identification got firmer after he saw Oswald on TV
>and Oswald was charged with the crime.
>
>Martin
So you have actually seen a photocopy of the letter Martin?
That is great news, to me anyway.
That means that since copies of it exist there should be no trouble
having a handwriting expert authenticate it.
Assuming it's in longhand of course.
Is it?
I guess the signature would help.
I've allways felt that Bowers probably saw more than he was ready to
admit because of fear of his life. I mean that if these people were
prepared to knock off the president of the U.S. of A. then who the
hell was Bowers to worry about.
Tony
Martin Shackelford
Navis lost the letter. I said the original was boxed up for donation to a
university, thus Navis didn't have ready access to it by the time (rather
later than the conference) the controversy about it arose.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
> On 05 Oct 1999 15:51:00 PDT, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
> >
> >I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
> >exists.
> >
>
> But this contradicts what his family told Gary Mack and Dave Perry.
> They said he told them that there was really nothing beyond what he
> had told the WC and Mark Lane.
>
> Just how could Navis lose a letter like that?
>
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
John McAdams
>
> Nice job of ignoring my other posts on this subject, John. I didn't say
> Navis lost the letter. I said the original was boxed up for donation to a
> university, thus Navis didn't have ready access to it by the time (rather
> later than the conference) the controversy about it arose.
>
Martin, this was discussed on Compuserve a few years ago, and it was
obvious that Navis couldn't produce the letter.
Can he *now* produce the letter?
Where is it?
I'd like to see it. Wouldn't you?
This isn't another of those "your evidence is in the mail" things that
the LaFontaines and Bob Vernon are always pulling, it is?
If not, why doesn't he produce it?
.John
--
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
>
>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
>exists.
>
But this contradicts what his family told Gary Mack and Dave Perry.
They said he told them that there was really nothing beyond what he
had told the WC and Mark Lane.
Just how could Navis lose a letter like that?
.John
John McAdams
wrote:
>Dgosha wrote:
>>
>> Man, some of these theories are just too much. In reference to the Hoffman
>> thing, boy that really sounds like a great plan (the shooter and the guy
>> breaking down the gun). I can just imagine the convo. "OK, so then the
>> plan is Rocko will do the shooting and then Bubba here will take the gun
>> from him while he runs away and disassemble it in full view of everybody
>> so there will be no doubt that we're in a conspiracy to murder JFK." Looks
>> like their plan didn't work too well.
>>
>
>There have been some murder plots where the second person is used to get
>rid of the weapon, especially in the Mafia. As for disassembling it in
>plain view, not necessarily. If it was done quickly and behind the signal
>box, it would be hidden from view of most of the spectators.
Tony, the location behind the signal box was in plain view of every
one of the men on the Underpass. Worse, Holland and his buddies ran
around in that direction within a minute of the shooting.
Not only would they have seen the "Railroad man," they would have been
close to tripping over him.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 04:18:37 GMT, AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dgosha wrote:
> >>
> >> Man, some of these theories are just too much. In reference to the Hoffman
> >> thing, boy that really sounds like a great plan (the shooter and the guy
> >> breaking down the gun). I can just imagine the convo. "OK, so then the
> >> plan is Rocko will do the shooting and then Bubba here will take the gun
> >> from him while he runs away and disassemble it in full view of everybody
> >> so there will be no doubt that we're in a conspiracy to murder JFK." Looks
> >> like their plan didn't work too well.
> >>
> >
> >There have been some murder plots where the second person is used to get
> >rid of the weapon, especially in the Mafia. As for disassembling it in
> >plain view, not necessarily. If it was done quickly and behind the signal
> >box, it would be hidden from view of most of the spectators.
>
> Tony, the location behind the signal box was in plain view of every
> one of the men on the Underpass. Worse, Holland and his buddies ran
> around in that direction within a minute of the shooting.
>
Wrong. This is like Posner claiming that there was a billboard in the way
of Hoffman seeing the area behind the grassy knoll. Get out your Craig
Ciccione's map which shows BOTH signal boxes. The supposed bag man would
have been crouched down behind the north side of the northernmost signal
box. Remember that the railing of the triple underpass was at an angle to
Elm/Main/Commerce. That angle leads just to the west of the northernmost
signal box and the southernmost signal box would partially block the view
from some locations at the railing. Everyone on the southernmost part of
the railing, such as Holland would have his view blocked by his fellow
spectators AND the first signal box. It would NOT be easy to see the other
signal box. You would also expect the bag man, if he indeed would be
trying to hide from being seen, to try to pick the side of the signal box
that would shield him from being seen by whomever he might have known or
suspected could have seen him out in the open. Yes, Holland et al ran
around the fence fairly soon after the shooting. But we are talking about
only a few seconds needed for the bag man to disassemble the rifle and
walk away. And no the shooter did not get away and was not spotted by
Holland et al. He was confronted by Patrolman Smith, not Holland et al,
but he was let go because he proved that he was a Secret Service agent and
actually remained to help search the parking lot. Likewise Holland et al
would be looking for a maniac, not a cop.
> Not only would they have seen the "Railroad man," they would have been
> close to tripping over him.
>
They could have. They might also have assumed that he was one of their
men. But as you suggest, Hoffman's story has problems.
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Martin Shackelford
I saw a photocopy of the letter in Dallas.
I don't care whether you believe it exists or not. Navis is
telling the truth.
Martin
John McAdams
>
> John:
>
> I saw a photocopy of the letter in Dallas.
> I don't care whether you believe it exists or not. Navis is
> telling the truth.
>
So Navis got this hugely explosive piece of evidence, and not only
didn't send copies out to people, he lost it to boot!
Doesn't any of this make you a bit suspicious, Martin?
I'll happily accept that you saw the "letter," but how do you know it
was not a forgery or a prank. Assuming Navis wouldn't do something like
that, how do we know that nobody played a prank on Navis, or perhaps
just fed him a forged letter?
Sort of like the "Mr. Hunt" note. You're aware that was forged, right?
.John
P.S. I don't care whether you care whether I believe it exists or not
:-).
--
John McAdams
Tony, check out the video BEYOND JFK. The position Hoffman shows is in
plain sight of the men on top of the Underpass.
Another thing you failed to take into account is that those guys ran
around in that direction within 60 seconds of the shooting. Sure, you
can argue that Holland could not have seen the "Railroad Man" at the
instant of the shooting. But the "Railroad Man" was supposedly there
*after* the shooter had retreated down the Stockade Fence and tossed him
the gun.
> You would also expect the bag man, if he indeed would be
> trying to hide from being seen, to try to pick the side of the signal box
> that would shield him from being seen by whomever he might have known or
> suspected could have seen him out in the open.
In the first place, what you are suggesting contradicts Hoffman's
account in BEYOND JFK. In the second place, the position you are
suggesting would be in plain sight of Lee Bowers in that signal tower.
So it's not clear the (nonexistent) "Railroad Man" would have chosen the
north side of the signal box.
> Yes, Holland et al ran
> around the fence fairly soon after the shooting. But we are talking about
> only a few seconds needed for the bag man to disassemble the rifle and
> walk away.
Hoffman has the shooter walk, not run, from a position near the HSCA
acoustic position (he story has varied a lot) back to the signal box.
Then there is the fact that rifles can't be knocked down instantly.
> And no the shooter did not get away and was not spotted by
> Holland et al. He was confronted by Patrolman Smith, not Holland et al,
> but he was let go because he proved that he was a Secret Service agent and
> actually remained to help search the parking lot. Likewise Holland et al
> would be looking for a maniac, not a cop.
>
Interesting, since Hoffman does *not* mention any meeting between an
officer (Smith) and his shooter. He says the shooter got away.
Then there is the fact that Holland and his buddies saw *nobody.* Tell
he how *nobody* allows for Hoffman's shooter to still be behind the
Stockade Fence?
> > Not only would they have seen the "Railroad man," they would have been
> > close to tripping over him.
> >
>
> They could have. They might also have assumed that he was one of their
> men. But as you suggest, Hoffman's story has problems.
>
Huh? You've got a guy kneeling on the ground disassembling a rifle and
stuffing it into a case. But you think this would not have caught their
attention? They would not have felt it worth mentioning?
.John
Martin Shackelford
Bowers wrote the letter to Navis when Navis was 16 years old.
Navis has had a good reputation for integrity. I don't believe
he would attempt to foist a forgery on anyone.
No, I don't think it was a "Hunt letter."
Tony Pitman
McAdams) wrote:
>On 05 Oct 1999 15:51:00 PDT, Martin Shackelford
><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
>>
>>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
>>exists.
>>
>
>But this contradicts what his family told Gary Mack and Dave Perry.
>They said he told them that there was really nothing beyond what he
>had told the WC and Mark Lane.
>
>Just how could Navis lose a letter like that?
>
>.John
If he was at worried about his safety, which I think he should have been,
he may also have been just a little concerned for his family as well.
I dont know how he got along with Mark Lane but I could see why he would
not want to tell his family things which could put them in jeopardy.
I understand this contact with Navis took place well after he talked with
Lane so maybe he just finally decided to say what he knew. Since Martin
say the letter exists, or copies of it, then it should be possible to
authenticate it as I have said.
Tony
John McAdams
wrote:
>On 05 Oct 1999 15:51:00 PDT, Martin Shackelford
><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
>>
>>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
>>exists.
>>
>>I don't dismiss Brennan "because he changed his testimony." I dismiss him
>>because he described things beyond what he could have seen from where he
>>was, and because his identification got firmer after he saw Oswald on TV
>>and Oswald was charged with the crime.
>>
>>Martin
>
>
>So you have actually seen a photocopy of the letter Martin?
>That is great news, to me anyway.
>That means that since copies of it exist there should be no trouble
>having a handwriting expert authenticate it.
>Assuming it's in longhand of course.
>Is it?
>I guess the signature would help.
I'm afraid this is one of those pieces of "evidence" that's
conveniently unavailable.
Sort of like Beverly Oliver's film :-).
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>John:
>
> Bowers wrote the letter to Navis when Navis was 16 years old.
> Navis has had a good reputation for integrity. I don't believe
>he would attempt to foist a forgery on anyone.
How would he recognize a forgery? Did he have a questioned documents
expert scrutinize it?
If so, where is the report?
> No, I don't think it was a "Hunt letter."
>
How do you know?
John McAdams
>FBI reported that Bowers subsequently complained that Lane had used a
>false name to gain the interview. He is said to have asked if any charges
>could be filed because of this. (I would infer that he had been warned to
>stay away from Lane, though nothing of the sort is in the document.)
>
>HSCA inteview with parents gained nought. They described late son as
>"private" sort who said "the less you know..." In fact, they were quite
>interested to read his WC remarks. Most emphatically does not sound like
>one who would write secrets to an anonymous teen.
>
Excellent point, Bill.
Do you have a RIF number for the HSCA interview with his parents?
AAvaluables
>Date: Sun, 28 November 1999 10:56 PM EST
>Message-id: <3841f94f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
>
>On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 07:02:24 GMT, a...@southern.co.nz (Tony Pitman)
>wrote:
>
>>On 05 Oct 1999 15:51:00 PDT, Martin Shackelford
>><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
>>>
>>>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
>>>exists.
Never heard of the "Bowers Letter" Can someone point me to it, or a copy,
or online?
>>>
>>>I don't dismiss Brennan "because he changed his testimony." I dismiss him
>>>because he described things beyond what he could have seen from where he
>>>was,
exactly
>>> and because his identification got firmer after he saw Oswald on TV
agree
>>>and Oswald was charged with the crime.
agree
AND after Oswald was murdered. Never have read Brennan's postumously
published book; is it still available?
>>>
>>>Martin
>>
>>
>>So you have actually seen a photocopy of the letter Martin?
>>That is great news, to me anyway.
>>That means that since copies of it exist there should be no trouble
>>having a handwriting expert authenticate it.
>>Assuming it's in longhand of course.
>>Is it?
>>I guess the signature would help.
>
>I'm afraid this is one of those pieces of "evidence" that's
>conveniently unavailable.
yes, like the "Hosty Note", the autopsy Doctor's original written
material, where the MC clip came from, where the bullets were purchased,
certain Z film frames, certain Oswald records, certain JFK X-rays, a
certain brain, a specific casket, the "Nix film", another movie the HSCA
"lost," that little missing piece of the "Walker Chevrolet" photo, the
gore, and whatever else, that was all over the inside, and trunk of the
limo, and, oh yes, "Day's" lifted palmprint of Oswald, to name just a few.
>
>Sort of like Beverly Oliver's film :-).
well, SOMEBODY's missing movie film shot with the knoll in the backround,
that much is for SURE.
LOL ;-)
- of age to remember
Martin Shackelford
letter.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 07:02:24 GMT, a...@southern.co.nz (Tony Pitman)
> wrote:
>
> >On 05 Oct 1999 15:51:00 PDT, Martin Shackelford
> ><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Good try, Jerry, but no cigar.
> >>
> >>I saw a photocopy of the Bowers letter, so I have no problem believing it
> >>exists.
> >>
> >>I don't dismiss Brennan "because he changed his testimony." I dismiss him
> >>because he described things beyond what he could have seen from where he
> >>was, and because his identification got firmer after he saw Oswald on TV
> >>and Oswald was charged with the crime.
> >>
> >>Martin
> >
> >
> >So you have actually seen a photocopy of the letter Martin?
> >That is great news, to me anyway.
> >That means that since copies of it exist there should be no trouble
> >having a handwriting expert authenticate it.
> >Assuming it's in longhand of course.
> >Is it?
> >I guess the signature would help.
>
> I'm afraid this is one of those pieces of "evidence" that's
> conveniently unavailable.
>
> Sort of like Beverly Oliver's film :-).
>
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
Martin Shackelford
your earlier comment, it's not at all "convenient" that the letter isn't
available. I wish I had it to post here.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
> On 05 Nov 1999 19:23:00 EST, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >John:
> >
> > Bowers wrote the letter to Navis when Navis was 16 years old.
> > Navis has had a good reputation for integrity. I don't believe
> >he would attempt to foist a forgery on anyone.
>
> How would he recognize a forgery? Did he have a questioned documents
> expert scrutinize it?
>
> If so, where is the report?
>
> > No, I don't think it was a "Hunt letter."
> >
>
> How do you know?
>
Tony Pitman
But Martin said that he has seen a copy of it John. Are you saying he is a
liar? I dont think so. Not Martin.
Tony