I've recently been reading through portions of Warren Commission Document #75 (CD 75), which consists of various reports relating to the FBI's investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, and I have been fascinated by the lengthy and very detailed interview of David Ferrie that was conducted by two FBI special agents on November 25, 1963 (the day of JFK's funeral).
In the multi-page FBI interview, which begins on Page 285 of CD 75 (linked above), almost every minute of David Ferrie's activities and whereabouts on the dates of 11/22/63 through 11/25/63 are discussed and dissected, including the names and addresses of the various motels that he and his two companions (Al Beauboeuf and Melvin Coffee) stayed at during Ferrie's mini-"vacation" to multiple cities in the states of Louisiana and Texas, which was a driving trip that commenced (per Ferrie) approximately six hours after President Kennedy had been assassinated in Dallas. According to the FBI report, Ferrie made the excursion to "merely relax" [CD 75; p.288].
There are still many conspiracy theorists who firmly believe that David W. Ferrie was a key "conspirator" in the murder of President John F. Kennedy, with some of these same conspiracists also believing that Ferrie was murdered in order to keep him from spilling any additional beans concerning his alleged involvement in Kennedy's assassination. (Ferrie's death on February 22, 1967, however, was ruled a "natural" death by the New Orleans coroner.)
But after taking a detailed look at the 11/25/63 FBI interview of Ferrie in CD 75, a logical question immediately entered my head....this question:
If Dave Ferrie had been involved (in any way) as a conspirator in the assassination of President Kennedy, then why on Earth didn't he make arrangements to GET HIMSELF OUT OF THE COUNTRY immediately after (or even BEFORE) the assassination?
But not only did Ferrie NOT flee the country on 11/22/63, he took a three-day driving trip with two of his friends (who would be able to confirm Ferrie's whereabouts and activities), which was a trip that included many different stops in several cities and towns in Louisiana and Texas (the latter state, of course, being the very same state where Kennedy was killed).
And during this automobile trip, Ferrie came into contact with many additional witnesses who can verify where he was located during the days that immediately followed JFK's assassination.
Therefore, we aren't forced to accept ONLY Ferrie's word for the things he told the FBI on 11/25/63, which I think is an important point to be made, particularly when the following question is asked (mostly by conspiracy theorists who want to implicate Ferrie in a plot to kill JFK):
Did David Ferrie really travel to Houston and go ice skating shortly after President Kennedy's assassination?
In Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", Stone almost certainly wants people watching his film to believe that Ferrie was a liar when he told Jim Garrison on November 25, 1963 (the very same day of Ferrie's lengthy interview with the FBI, by the way), that he (Ferrie) drove to Houston in a heavy thunderstorm on the evening of 11/22/63 and then went ice skating at a local Houston skating rink.
In Stone's motion picture, Garrison tells Ferrie that he doesn't think Ferrie's story about driving to Houston to go ice skating is believable, and therefore Ferrie is detained by Garrison's office for further questioning.
But what Oliver Stone doesn't tell his movie audience (naturally) is that Ferrie's account about travelling to Houston and going ice skating was FULLY CORROBORATED by other people and was proven to be a factual story.*
* = Now I will admit that Garrison, at the precise time he interviewed Ferrie on November 25th, couldn't have known for a fact whether Ferrie's story was the truth or not, but I think it's fairly obvious that Oliver Stone wanted the millions of people watching his 1991 film to believe that Ferrie wasn't telling the truth about taking a trip to Houston (and other cities) shortly after the assassination took place.
One of the witnesses who was able to verify a major portion of Ferrie's 1963 statement to the FBI was Rowland Charles (Chuck) Rolland, who was the President and General Manager of the Winterland Ice Skating Rink in Houston, Texas.
On February 12, 1969, during the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw, Rolland testified that Ferrie (and two companions of Ferrie's) visited the Winterland Rink in Houston on the afternoon of November 23, 1963, with Ferrie staying for quite some time.
The 11/25/63 FBI report states that "Ferrie said that he had been considering for some time the feasibility and possibility of opening an ice skating rink in New Orleans" [CD 75; p. 288].
Later the same day (11/23/63), Ferrie visited another ice-skating rink in the Houston area--the Bellaire Skating Rink--where Ferrie said he stayed for "approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour" [CD 75; p.289].
Now, I suppose the conspiracy believers might be asking this: Well, so what? What do Ferrie's actions and movements AFTER the assassination have to do with whether or not he participated in a plot to kill Kennedy?
But in response to the above question, I'd then pose the following question to the conspiracy theorists who believe that David Ferrie was part of a sinister plot to kill JFK in November 1963:
If Dave Ferrie had played a part in a conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy, what is the likelihood that he would have had a desire to drive to Texas on the evening of 11/22/63 (the same day that such a conspiracy to kill JFK was successfully accomplished in Dallas) in order for Ferrie to visit a couple of ice-skating rinks in Houston?
Now, yes, I suppose it's POSSIBLE that a person who had just been involved in a secretive plan to assassinate the President of the United States MIGHT want to jump into his car and make tracks toward the VERY SAME STATE in which the assassination had just taken place in order to engage in a pleasurable activity such as ice skating.
But, in my opinion, if Mr. Ferrie had been involved (in even the tiniest way) in a plot to kill Kennedy, taking such a trip to visit two ice skating establishments in Houston at that particular point in time is something that simply does not make any sense whatsoever.
Because at that particular point in time on November 22-25, 1963, if he had been a behind-the-scenes conspirator in JFK's killing, Ferrie would most certainly have been totally consumed with thoughts about the Presidential assassination he had helped orchestrate, in addition to the efforts he most certainly would have been making at that time to ensure his future safety and freedom (while trying to avoid capture for what he had done).
I ask: If David Ferrie was a guilty plotter, do his known actions during the period of November 22-25, 1963, make any logical sense at all? I say they do not.
In fact, if Ferrie had been guilty of conspiracy to murder JFK, it really makes no sense at all for him to have still been anywhere within the UNITED STATES at any point in time on the dates of November 22-25, 1963 (since Ferrie, himself, was certainly not one of the actual "gunmen" in Dallas; and I know of no conspiracy theorist who has ever alleged that Ferrie, himself, was one of the supposed shooters in Dealey Plaza).
Ferrie would have very likely been thousands of miles from the scene of President Kennedy's murder by the time the first shot was even fired in Dealey Plaza if he had been involved in any kind of a plot to assassinate Kennedy. And, being a pilot himself, he would probably also have arranged for his "getaway" to be accomplished at an altitude of several thousand feet.
Another point that I think is worth mentioning when talking about Dave Ferrie is this:
On February 18, 1967, four days before he died, Ferrie was interviewed in his apartment by Andrew Sciambra and Lou Ivon of the New Orleans District Attorney's office. At one point during the interview, Sciambra asked Ferrie, "Dave, who shot the President?" Ferrie's answer was: "Well, that's an interesting question and I've got my own thoughts about it."
Quoting directly from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History":
"Ferrie then proceeded to sit up and draw a sketch of Dealey Plaza and the Texas School Book Depository Building and [per the memorandum of the interview supplied to Jim Garrison by Sciambra and Ivon] "went into a long spiel about the trajectory of bullets in relation to the height and distance." He then gave a "lecture on anatomy and pathology [and] named every bone in the human body and every hard and soft muscle area" and concluded that one bullet could not have caused all the damage the Warren Commission claimed it did." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 1400
Now, I think a logical question to ask after reading the above paragraph is: Why would Ferrie, if he was guilty of being part of a conspiracy, have wanted to say ANYTHING at all of a derogatory nature about the Warren Commission's investigation (which was, after all, an investigation that ended with the determination that Oswald had acted alone in killing JFK)?
When Ferrie told Sciambra and Ivon that, in essence, he didn't think the Single-Bullet Theory was true, that was pretty much the same thing as Ferrie saying a conspiracy did, in fact, exist in the murder of John Kennedy.
And why would ONE OF THE CONSPIRATORS WHO HAD KENNEDY KILLED want to say anything at all (to Jim Garrison's investigators, no less!) of a negative or critical nature concerning the Warren Commission's "lone assassin" conclusion?
In my opinion, that would have been a crazy and illogical thing for Ferrie to do IF Ferrie had really played a role in some kind of a plot to murder President Kennedy.
But, since it's fairly obvious that there isn't a scrap of
...
>>> "Ferrie took no active part in the assassination. He made a few phone
calls to recruit people and connected Oswald with Marcello..." <<<
Dave Ferrie would have been thousands of miles from Dallas (in a different country) BEFORE 12:30 ever arrived on 11/22/63 if he had been involved (in ANY way) in a conspiracy plot to murder John F. Kennedy.
Don't you agree, Robert Harris, that the above statement I just made makes a good deal of sense (vs. Ferrie travelling TO Texas to go ice skating six hours after the assassination)?
As for Lee Oswald and "544 Camp St." -- the 544 Camp building was only one block away from a place where Oswald worked in the summer of 1963-- the Reily Coffee Company.
Plus: There's not a speck of evidence to show that Oswald ever rented an office at 544 Camp either. He merely stamped the address on one of his FPCC handbills.
The "Ferrie-Marcello" angle was a pure coincidence...yes. Ferrie was working with Attorney Wray Gill on a legal case involving Marcello. Nothing more than that.
Some CTers, however, apparently want to think that Ferrie and Marcello "plotted" JFK's murder together. But I'd like to see Jim DiEugenio (or any other Garrison supporter or any other conspiracy theorist, period) come within 100 miles of PROVING that Ferrie and Marcello (either one) had a single thing to do with JFK's assassination.
Naturally, since Oswald killed Kennedy by himself, nobody on Earth can possibly prove such a thing regarding David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello. All the CTers have is their collective imaginations.
David, you need to read Waldron's book, "Legacy of Secrecy". He has documents from the FBI stating that Marcello not only confessed to setting up the assassination, but that Ferrie helped him set it up, and introduced him to Oswald.
But if you believe Ferrie, then you must believe that it was a coincidence that he and Oswald were in CAP together and you must believe that it was a coincidence that Oswald chose the address of one building out of thousands, where Ferrie worked, to put on his flyers.
And you must believe it was a coincidence that the HSCA concluded that Ferrie called the apartments where people lived who met with Jack Ruby on the eve of the assassination.
And that it was a coincidence that Ferrie worked out of the same floor of the same building where Jim Braden worked - another guy who was with Ruby at that Cabana hotel on 11/21/63, and whom I would stake everything I own, on him being one of the shooters.
And you must explain why several people, including Banister's secretary/mistress recalled Oswald being in their office.
And when Ferrie was told that Oswald had his library card, he didn't just laugh it off. He raced out to Oswald's neighborhood and grilled the neighbors and his landlady about it.
Why did he do that unless he believed Oswald could have had it David?
Ferrie took no active part in the assassination. He made a few phone calls to recruit people and connected Oswald with Marcello - undoubtedly, because he hoped that the attack could be blamed on Castro, something Marcello probably didn't care one way or the other about.
As for his ice skating tour, I have no idea. But this guy worked for somebody who was responsible for numerous murders and countless other violent crimes. Ferrie was also a convicted pedophile.
I would trust his word on something like that about as much as any other criminal.
Ferrie hated Kennedy almost as much as Marcello did, though for different reasons. He was forced from the podium when he spoke before a veterans group, for screaming out that Kennedy should be killed for failing to support the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Robert Harris
In article <f1b99643-a381-435b-961b-4e973d101...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I've recently been reading through portions of Warren Commission > Document #75 (CD 75), which consists of various reports relating to > the FBI's investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, and > I have been fascinated by the lengthy and very detailed interview of > David Ferrie that was conducted by two FBI special agents on November > 25, 1963 (the day of JFK's funeral).
> In the multi-page FBI interview, which begins on Page 285 of CD 75 > (linked above), almost every minute of David Ferrie's activities and > whereabouts on the dates of 11/22/63 through 11/25/63 are discussed > and dissected, including the names and addresses of the various motels > that he and his two companions (Al Beauboeuf and Melvin Coffee) stayed > at during Ferrie's mini-"vacation" to multiple cities in the states of > Louisiana and Texas, which was a driving trip that commenced (per > Ferrie) approximately six hours after President Kennedy had been > assassinated in Dallas. According to the FBI report, Ferrie made the > excursion to "merely relax" [CD 75; p.288].
> There are still many conspiracy theorists who firmly believe that > David W. Ferrie was a key "conspirator" in the murder of President > John F. Kennedy, with some of these same conspiracists also believing > that Ferrie was murdered in order to keep him from spilling any > additional beans concerning his alleged involvement in Kennedy's > assassination. (Ferrie's death on February 22, 1967, however, was > ruled a "natural" death by the New Orleans coroner.)
> But after taking a detailed look at the 11/25/63 FBI interview of > Ferrie in CD 75, a logical question immediately entered my > head....this question:
> If Dave Ferrie had been involved (in any way) as a conspirator > in the assassination of President Kennedy, then why on Earth didn't he > make arrangements to GET HIMSELF OUT OF THE COUNTRY immediately after > (or even BEFORE) the assassination?
> But not only did Ferrie NOT flee the country on 11/22/63, he took a > three-day driving trip with two of his friends (who would be able to > confirm Ferrie's whereabouts and activities), which was a trip that > included many different stops in several cities and towns in Louisiana > and Texas (the latter state, of course, being the very same state > where Kennedy was killed).
> And during this automobile trip, Ferrie came into contact with many > additional witnesses who can verify where he was located during the > days that immediately followed JFK's assassination.
> Therefore, we aren't forced to accept ONLY Ferrie's word for the > things he told the FBI on 11/25/63, which I think is an important > point to be made, particularly when the following question is asked > (mostly by conspiracy theorists who want to implicate Ferrie in a plot > to kill JFK):
> Did David Ferrie really travel to Houston and go ice skating > shortly after President Kennedy's assassination?
> In Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", Stone almost certainly wants people > watching his film to believe that Ferrie was a liar when he told Jim > Garrison on November 25, 1963 (the very same day of Ferrie's lengthy > interview with the FBI, by the way), that he (Ferrie) drove to Houston > in a heavy thunderstorm on the evening of 11/22/63 and then went ice > skating at a local Houston skating rink.
> In Stone's motion picture, Garrison tells Ferrie that he doesn't think > Ferrie's story about driving to Houston to go ice skating is > believable, and therefore Ferrie is detained by Garrison's office for > further questioning.
> But what Oliver Stone doesn't tell his movie audience (naturally) is > that Ferrie's account about travelling to Houston and going ice > skating was FULLY CORROBORATED by other people and was proven to be a > factual story.*
> * = Now I will admit that Garrison, at the precise time he interviewed > Ferrie on November 25th, couldn't have known for a fact whether > Ferrie's story was the truth or not, but I think it's fairly obvious > that Oliver Stone wanted the millions of people watching his 1991 film > to believe that Ferrie wasn't telling the truth about taking a trip to > Houston (and other cities) shortly after the assassination took place.
> One of the witnesses who was able to verify a major portion of > Ferrie's 1963 statement to the FBI was Rowland Charles (Chuck) > Rolland, who was the President and General Manager of the Winterland > Ice Skating Rink in Houston, Texas.
> On February 12, 1969, during the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw, > Rolland testified that Ferrie (and two companions of Ferrie's) visited > the Winterland Rink in Houston on the afternoon of November 23, 1963, > with Ferrie staying for quite some time.
> The 11/25/63 FBI report states that "Ferrie said that he had been > considering for some time the feasibility and possibility of opening > an ice skating rink in New Orleans" [CD 75; p. 288].
> Later the same day (11/23/63), Ferrie visited another ice-skating rink > in the Houston area--the Bellaire Skating Rink--where Ferrie said he > stayed for "approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour" [CD 75; p.289].
> Now, I suppose the conspiracy believers might be asking this: Well, so > what? What do Ferrie's actions and movements AFTER the assassination > have to do with whether or not he participated in a plot to kill > Kennedy?
> But in response to the above question, I'd then pose the following > question to the conspiracy theorists who believe that David Ferrie was > part of a sinister plot to kill JFK in November 1963:
> If Dave Ferrie had played a part in a conspiracy to murder John > F. Kennedy, what is the likelihood that he would have had a desire to > drive to Texas on the evening of 11/22/63 (the same day that such a > conspiracy to kill JFK was successfully accomplished in Dallas) in > order for Ferrie to visit a couple of ice-skating rinks in Houston?
> Now, yes, I suppose it's POSSIBLE that a person who had just been > involved in a secretive plan to assassinate the President of the > United States MIGHT want to jump into his car and make tracks toward > the VERY SAME STATE in which the assassination had just taken place in > order to engage in a pleasurable activity such as ice skating.
> But, in my opinion, if Mr. Ferrie had been involved (in even the > tiniest way) in a plot to kill Kennedy, taking such a trip to visit > two ice skating establishments in Houston at that particular point in > time is something that simply does not make any sense whatsoever.
> Because at that particular point in time on November 22-25, 1963, if > he had been a behind-the-scenes conspirator in JFK's killing, Ferrie > would most certainly have been totally consumed with thoughts about > the Presidential assassination he had helped orchestrate, in addition > to the efforts he most certainly would have been making at that time > to ensure his future safety and freedom (while trying to avoid capture > for what he had done).
> I ask: If David Ferrie was a guilty plotter, do his known actions > during the period of November 22-25, 1963, make any logical sense at > all? I say they do not.
> In fact, if Ferrie had been guilty of conspiracy to murder JFK, it > really makes no sense at all for him to have still been anywhere > within the UNITED STATES at any point in time on the dates of November > 22-25, 1963 (since Ferrie, himself, was certainly not one of the > actual "gunmen" in Dallas; and I know of no conspiracy theorist who > has ever alleged
David Von Pein wrote: >>>> "Ferrie took no active part in the assassination. He made a few phone > calls to recruit people and connected Oswald with Marcello..." <<<
> Dave Ferrie would have been thousands of miles from Dallas (in a different > country) BEFORE 12:30 ever arrived on 11/22/63 if he had been involved (in > ANY way) in a conspiracy plot to murder John F. Kennedy.
Not if his job was to fly the team out of Texas. Ferrie was not a mastermind. Only the mastermind need not be on the scene. Everyone else involved must be on the scene. Look at Watergate. Plenty of conspirators on the scene while the mastermind sits in the White House, not thousands of miles away. You've been watching too many movies and not studying real life.
> Don't you agree, Robert Harris, that the above statement I just made makes > a good deal of sense (vs. Ferrie travelling TO Texas to go ice skating six > hours after the assassination)?
Pure nonsense. Because you refuse to study history.
> As for Lee Oswald and "544 Camp St." -- the 544 Camp building was only one > block away from a place where Oswald worked in the summer of 1963-- the > Reily Coffee Company.
> Plus: There's not a speck of evidence to show that Oswald ever rented an > office at 544 Camp either. He merely stamped the address on one of his > FPCC handbills.
> The "Ferrie-Marcello" angle was a pure coincidence...yes. Ferrie was > working with Attorney Wray Gill on a legal case involving Marcello. > Nothing more than that.
So, everything's just a coincidence in your world. If you happened to work for a certain government agency that would be just a coincidence.
> Some CTers, however, apparently want to think that Ferrie and Marcello > "plotted" JFK's murder together. But I'd like to see Jim DiEugenio (or any > other Garrison supporter or any other conspiracy theorist, period) come > within 100 miles of PROVING that Ferrie and Marcello (either one) had a > single thing to do with JFK's assassination.
> Naturally, since Oswald killed Kennedy by himself, nobody on Earth can > possibly prove such a thing regarding David Ferrie and Carlos Marcello. > All the CTers have is their collective imaginations.
On Sep 19, 3:44 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David, you need to read Waldron's book, "Legacy of Secrecy". He has > documents from the FBI stating that Marcello not only confessed to setting > up the assassination, but that Ferrie helped him set it up, and introduced > him to Oswald.
Iv read the file where Marcello confessed, never seen one where he says Ferrie introduced him to Oswald. Could you elaborate and not pull a Shackelford by telling us to "buy the book?"
> But if you believe Ferrie, then you must believe that it was a coincidence > that he and Oswald were in CAP together and you must believe that it was a > coincidence that Oswald chose the address of one building out of > thousands, where Ferrie worked, to put on his flyers.
> And you must believe it was a coincidence that the HSCA concluded that > Ferrie called the apartments where people lived who met with Jack Ruby on > the eve of the assassination.
> And that it was a coincidence that Ferrie worked out of the same floor of > the same building where Jim Braden worked - another guy who was with Ruby > at that Cabana hotel on 11/21/63, and whom I would stake everything I own, > on him being one of the shooters.
> And you must explain why several people, including Banister's > secretary/mistress recalled Oswald being in their office.
> And when Ferrie was told that Oswald had his library card, he didn't just > laugh it off. He raced out to Oswald's neighborhood and grilled the > neighbors and his landlady about it.
> Why did he do that unless he believed Oswald could have had it David?
> Ferrie took no active part in the assassination. He made a few phone calls > to recruit people and connected Oswald with Marcello - undoubtedly, > because he hoped that the attack could be blamed on Castro, something > Marcello probably didn't care one way or the other about.
> As for his ice skating tour, I have no idea. But this guy worked for > somebody who was responsible for numerous murders and countless other > violent crimes. Ferrie was also a convicted pedophile.
> I would trust his word on something like that about as much as any other > criminal.
> Ferrie hated Kennedy almost as much as Marcello did, though for different > reasons. He was forced from the podium when he spoke before a veterans > group, for screaming out that Kennedy should be killed for failing to > support the Bay of Pigs invasion.
> Robert Harris
> In article > <f1b99643-a381-435b-961b-4e973d101...@d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, > David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I've recently been reading through portions of Warren Commission > > Document #75 (CD 75), which consists of various reports relating to > > the FBI's investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, and > > I have been fascinated by the lengthy and very detailed interview of > > David Ferrie that was conducted by two FBI special agents on November > > 25, 1963 (the day of JFK's funeral).
> > In the multi-page FBI interview, which begins on Page 285 of CD 75 > > (linked above), almost every minute of David Ferrie's activities and > > whereabouts on the dates of 11/22/63 through 11/25/63 are discussed > > and dissected, including the names and addresses of the various motels > > that he and his two companions (Al Beauboeuf and Melvin Coffee) stayed > > at during Ferrie's mini-"vacation" to multiple cities in the states of > > Louisiana and Texas, which was a driving trip that commenced (per > > Ferrie) approximately six hours after President Kennedy had been > > assassinated in Dallas. According to the FBI report, Ferrie made the > > excursion to "merely relax" [CD 75; p.288].
> > There are still many conspiracy theorists who firmly believe that > > David W. Ferrie was a key "conspirator" in the murder of President > > John F. Kennedy, with some of these same conspiracists also believing > > that Ferrie was murdered in order to keep him from spilling any > > additional beans concerning his alleged involvement in Kennedy's > > assassination. (Ferrie's death on February 22, 1967, however, was > > ruled a "natural" death by the New Orleans coroner.)
> > But after taking a detailed look at the 11/25/63 FBI interview of > > Ferrie in CD 75, a logical question immediately entered my > > head....this question:
> > If Dave Ferrie had been involved (in any way) as a conspirator > > in the assassination of President Kennedy, then why on Earth didn't he > > make arrangements to GET HIMSELF OUT OF THE COUNTRY immediately after > > (or even BEFORE) the assassination?
> > But not only did Ferrie NOT flee the country on 11/22/63, he took a > > three-day driving trip with two of his friends (who would be able to > > confirm Ferrie's whereabouts and activities), which was a trip that > > included many different stops in several cities and towns in Louisiana > > and Texas (the latter state, of course, being the very same state > > where Kennedy was killed).
> > And during this automobile trip, Ferrie came into contact with many > > additional witnesses who can verify where he was located during the > > days that immediately followed JFK's assassination.
> > Therefore, we aren't forced to accept ONLY Ferrie's word for the > > things he told the FBI on 11/25/63, which I think is an important > > point to be made, particularly when the following question is asked > > (mostly by conspiracy theorists who want to implicate Ferrie in a plot > > to kill JFK):
> > Did David Ferrie really travel to Houston and go ice skating > > shortly after President Kennedy's assassination?
> > In Oliver Stone's movie "JFK", Stone almost certainly wants people > > watching his film to believe that Ferrie was a liar when he told Jim > > Garrison on November 25, 1963 (the very same day of Ferrie's lengthy > > interview with the FBI, by the way), that he (Ferrie) drove to Houston > > in a heavy thunderstorm on the evening of 11/22/63 and then went ice > > skating at a local Houston skating rink.
> > In Stone's motion picture, Garrison tells Ferrie that he doesn't think > > Ferrie's story about driving to Houston to go ice skating is > > believable, and therefore Ferrie is detained by Garrison's office for > > further questioning.
> > But what Oliver Stone doesn't tell his movie audience (naturally) is > > that Ferrie's account about travelling to Houston and going ice > > skating was FULLY CORROBORATED by other people and was proven to be a > > factual story.*
> > * = Now I will admit that Garrison, at the precise time he interviewed > > Ferrie on November 25th, couldn't have known for a fact whether > > Ferrie's story was the truth or not, but I think it's fairly obvious > > that Oliver Stone wanted the millions of people watching his 1991 film > > to believe that Ferrie wasn't telling the truth about taking a trip to > > Houston (and other cities) shortly after the assassination took place.
> > One of the witnesses who was able to verify a major portion of > > Ferrie's 1963 statement to the FBI was Rowland Charles (Chuck) > > Rolland, who was the President and General Manager of the Winterland > > Ice Skating Rink in Houston, Texas.
> > On February 12, 1969, during the New Orleans trial of Clay Shaw, > > Rolland testified that Ferrie (and two companions of Ferrie's) visited > > the Winterland Rink in Houston on the afternoon of November 23, 1963, > > with Ferrie staying for quite some time.
> > The 11/25/63 FBI report states that "Ferrie said that he had been > > considering for some time the feasibility and possibility of opening > > an ice skating rink in New Orleans" [CD 75; p. 288].
> > Later the same day (11/23/63), Ferrie visited another ice-skating rink > > in the Houston area--the Bellaire Skating Rink--where Ferrie said he > > stayed for "approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour" [CD 75; p.289].
> > Now, I suppose the conspiracy believers might be asking this: Well, so > > what? What do Ferrie's actions and movements AFTER the assassination > > have to do with whether or not he participated in a plot to kill > > Kennedy?
> > But in response to the above question, I'd then pose the following > > question to the conspiracy theorists who believe that David Ferrie was > > part of a sinister plot to kill JFK in November 1963:
> > If Dave Ferrie had played a part in a conspiracy to murder John > > F. Kennedy, what is the likelihood that he would have had a desire to > > drive to Texas on the evening of 11/22/63 (the same day that such a > > conspiracy to kill JFK was successfully accomplished in Dallas) in > > order for Ferrie to visit a couple of ice-skating rinks in Houston?
> > Now, yes, I suppose it's POSSIBLE that a person who had just been > > involved in a secretive plan to assassinate the President of the > > United States MIGHT want to jump into his car and make tracks toward > > the VERY SAME STATE in which the assassination had just taken place in > > order to engage in a pleasurable activity such as ice skating.
> > But, in my opinion, if Mr. Ferrie had been involved (in even the > > tiniest way) in a plot to kill Kennedy, taking such a trip to visit > > two ice skating establishments in Houston at that particular point in > > time is something that simply does not make any sense whatsoever.
> > Because at that particular point in time on November 22-25, 1963, if > > he had been a behind-the-scenes conspirator in JFK's killing, Ferrie > > would most certainly have been totally consumed with thoughts about > > the Presidential assassination he had helped orchestrate, in addition > > to the efforts he most certainly would have been making at that time > > to ensure his future safety and freedom (while trying to avoid capture > > for what he had done).
Let's bask in the Pot & Kettle nature of Robert Harris' last post (regarding "thugs"):
"When you deal with thugs like this, you believe about 1% of what they tell you, if that." -- Bob Harris; 9/19/09
And then, just seconds later, Bob Harris tells us this:
"Marcello admitted it [plotting JFK's murder], David." -- Bob Harris; 9/19/09
LOL.
So, it appears that early in the post, Robert Harris doesn't think it's wise at all to believe much of anything that "thugs" like David Ferrie have to say. But a few seconds later we find Mr. Harris ready and eager to believe another "thug" (i.e., a mobster) named Carlos Marcello when Marcello apparently confessed to being part of a plot to assassinate JFK.
I guess Marcello doesn't qualify as a "thug", is that it Robert?
Since Marcello was well ABOVE Ferrie's lowly station and class, Harris wants to BELIEVE Marcello was telling the gospel truth, but he'll throw Ferrie under the bus.
Nice logic, Bob. The way you get to pick and choose which scumbag/ crook/plotter/mobster/"thug" should be believed and which one should be fed to the wolves is quite illuminating. (Not to mention hilarious.)
Also:
Evidently Bob Harris doesn't think it was unusual at all for David Ferrie (whom Mr. Harris thinks was involved in a conspiracy to murder the President) to travel for many hours by automobile with two of his friends from New Orleans to Houston, Texas, just so Ferrie can use the telephone at some ICE-SKATING RINK in Houston (presumably so that Ferrie could make contact with other "conspirators" in Dallas).
Apparently the only telephone available to Ferrie was at Chuck Rolland's ice-skating rink in Houston.
Time for another one of these ---> LOL!
To repeat the obvious --- If David Ferrie (OR CARLOS MARCELLO) had been part of a plot to kill President Kennedy, both of those "thugs" would have been thousands of miles from Texas (and out of the country) by the time the first shot was even fired in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
>>> "Not if his job was to fly the team out of Texas." <<<
So, let me try to get a handle on this idiocy you are suggesting here:
David Ferrie is supposedly the getaway pilot for the assassination "team" (a team which was in DALLAS). So, what does Ferrie do? He decides he'll stay in NEW ORLEANS until 6:30 PM on the day of the "big hit". (Brilliant!)
Is that about the size of it, Tony??
Ferrie is desperately needed in DALLAS at 12:31 PM on 11/22/63, so he stays in New Orleans until about 6:30 PM, and only then does he start to drive to Texas (and then, he doesn't drive to DALLAS--he drives to HOUSTON, 200 miles from Dallas).
Brilliant!
Maybe Ferrie got lost, huh? He didn't have the right road map perhaps?
Conspiracy-seeking people are always a howl. And Tony Marsh is no exception.
>>>> "Not if his job was to fly the team out of Texas." <<<
> So, let me try to get a handle on this idiocy you are suggesting here:
> David Ferrie is supposedly the getaway pilot for the assassination "team" > (a team which was in DALLAS). So, what does Ferrie do? He decides he'll > stay in NEW ORLEANS until 6:30 PM on the day of the "big hit". > (Brilliant!)
Your construction was based on the use of the word WOULD. Hypothetical, speculation.
> Is that about the size of it, Tony??
I am not advancing any theory. I am telling you WHY Ferrie would need to be on the scene if he were part of the plot. That would be his job.
> Ferrie is desperately needed in DALLAS at 12:31 PM on 11/22/63, so he > stays in New Orleans until about 6:30 PM, and only then does he start to > drive to Texas (and then, he doesn't drive to DALLAS--he drives to > HOUSTON, 200 miles from Dallas).
> Brilliant!
> Maybe Ferrie got lost, huh? He didn't have the right road map perhaps?
> Conspiracy-seeking people are always a howl. And Tony Marsh is no > exception.
You are the one who said there Ferrie would NOT be in Dallas if he were part of the plot. Well, he wasn't in Dallas, so you must think that proves that he was part of the plot.
On Sep 20, 4:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Let's bask in the Pot & Kettle nature of Robert Harris' last post > (regarding "thugs"):
> "When you deal with thugs like this, you believe about 1% of what > they tell you, if that." -- Bob Harris; 9/19/09
> And then, just seconds later, Bob Harris tells us this:
> "Marcello admitted it [plotting JFK's murder], David." -- Bob > Harris; 9/19/09
Not only that, but would it be out of the realm of possibility that Marcello was trying to make himself appear to be more of a big shot than he actually was?
> So, it appears that early in the post, Robert Harris doesn't think it's > wise at all to believe much of anything that "thugs" like David Ferrie > have to say. But a few seconds later we find Mr. Harris ready and eager to > believe another "thug" (i.e., a mobster) named Carlos Marcello when > Marcello apparently confessed to being part of a plot to assassinate JFK.
> I guess Marcello doesn't qualify as a "thug", is that it Robert?
> Since Marcello was well ABOVE Ferrie's lowly station and class, Harris > wants to BELIEVE Marcello was telling the gospel truth, but he'll throw > Ferrie under the bus.
> Nice logic, Bob. The way you get to pick and choose which scumbag/ > crook/plotter/mobster/"thug" should be believed and which one should be > fed to the wolves is quite illuminating. (Not to mention hilarious.)
> Also:
> Evidently Bob Harris doesn't think it was unusual at all for David Ferrie > (whom Mr. Harris thinks was involved in a conspiracy to murder the > President) to travel for many hours by automobile with two of his friends > from New Orleans to Houston, Texas, just so Ferrie can use the telephone > at some ICE-SKATING RINK in Houston (presumably so that Ferrie could make > contact with other "conspirators" in Dallas).
> Apparently the only telephone available to Ferrie was at Chuck Rolland's > ice-skating rink in Houston.
> Time for another one of these ---> LOL!
> To repeat the obvious --- If David Ferrie (OR CARLOS MARCELLO) had been > part of a plot to kill President Kennedy, both of those "thugs" would have > been thousands of miles from Texas (and out of the country) by the time > the first shot was even fired in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
In article <f9b1d2f6-b196-4dbc-a618-1f019016f...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Let's bask in the Pot & Kettle nature of Robert Harris' last post > (regarding "thugs"):
> "When you deal with thugs like this, you believe about 1% of what > they tell you, if that." -- Bob Harris; 9/19/09
> And then, just seconds later, Bob Harris tells us this:
> "Marcello admitted it [plotting JFK's murder], David." -- Bob > Harris; 9/19/09
David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
It means that authorities believe confessions far more than they believe denials of guilt, because a confession is against the interest of the accused.
But let me ask you a question that you evaded in the other newsgroup. If Oswald had confessed to killing JFK, would you have the same attitude as you do to Marcello's confession to a man he thought, was one of his own?
Unlike Marcello, Oswald never in his life, was known to have threatened JFK or had a motive to kill him. But would you still accept Oswald's confession, but not Marcello's???
Please answer the question David, instead of running from it.
Marcello was not the kind of guy to run around shooting his mouth off. In fact, I don't believe that throughout his entire life, he is on the record EVER confessing to ANYTHING, other than setting up the assassination.
Marcello had lied on his passport David. He was from Sicily but claimed he was from Guatemala, a place he had never even seen before.
Of course Bobby Kennedy knew that, but as a lark, he had his people kidnap Marcello and "deport" him, dropping him in the middle of nowhere in Guatemala. Reportedly, David Ferrie flew there and rescued the humiliated Marcello, returning him to Louisiana.
Afterward, he was charged with being an illegal alien but thanks to Ferrie and others, he managed to beat the rap. They celebrated his victory with a big party on the evening of 11/22/1963.
David, I have never met any mafia dons and I'm sure you haven't either. But we've all read about them and seen them in the movies. What would you EXPECT a guy like that to do, under those circumstances?
In his "tail of the dog.." statement, he made it clear that it would do no good to only kill Bobby. JFK would be all over him if he did. But by killing JFK, he took Bobby's power away.
According to Waldron, there are other reasons why Bobby didn't go after the mob. But I don't think he would have had LBJ's backing, if he did, do you?
>>>> "I am not advancing any theory. I am telling you WHY Ferrie would
need to be on the scene if he were part of the plot. That would be his job." <<<
> So you think JFK was killed in New Orleans, eh Tony?
> What's your definition of "on the scene"? Is 441 miles away the same > as being "on the scene"?
Is your problem that you don't understand English grammar or that you think the only way you can win an argument is to misrepresent what your opponent said? I said WOULD need, IF. I was following up on your hypothetical.
> In article > <f9b1d2f6-b196-4dbc-a618-1f019016f...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, > David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Let's bask in the Pot & Kettle nature of Robert Harris' last post > > (regarding "thugs"):
> > "When you deal with thugs like this, you believe about 1% of what > > they tell you, if that." -- Bob Harris; 9/19/09
> > And then, just seconds later, Bob Harris tells us this:
> > "Marcello admitted it [plotting JFK's murder], David." -- Bob > > Harris; 9/19/09
> David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what > criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
You don't think criminals make up stuff to sound more ruthless than they actually are? Tell me Bob, in the criminal underworld, what would top bragging about killing the President?
> And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
> It means that authorities believe confessions far more than they believe > denials of guilt, because a confession is against the interest of the > accused.
> But let me ask you a question that you evaded in the other newsgroup. If > Oswald had confessed to killing JFK, would you have the same attitude as > you do to Marcello's confession to a man he thought, was one of his own?
> Unlike Marcello, Oswald never in his life, was known to have threatened > JFK or had a motive to kill him.
You don't think a guy with Oswald's history could have killed the Prez? Come on Bob, its ridiculous to act like Oswald wasn't somewhat nutty.
But would you still accept Oswald's
> confession, but not Marcello's???
They didn't find Marcello's gun in the TSBD did they?
> Please answer the question David, instead of running from it.
> Marcello was not the kind of guy to run around shooting his mouth off. > In fact, I don't believe that throughout his entire life, he is on the > record EVER confessing to ANYTHING, other than setting up the > assassination.
WRONG, read Mafia Kingfish, the BRILAB tapes are full of Marcello bragging about illegal activities. I even remember this off the top my head, not exact but paraphrasing.
"i used to bring Beauregard H. Miller $50,000.00 cash money a month"
> Marcello had lied on his passport David. He was from Sicily but claimed > he was from Guatemala, a place he had never even seen before.
> Of course Bobby Kennedy knew that, but as a lark, he had his people > kidnap Marcello and "deport" him, dropping him in the middle of nowhere > in Guatemala. Reportedly, David Ferrie flew there and rescued the > humiliated Marcello, returning him to Louisiana.\
That is a rumor Bob, there is also one about coming back on a shrimp boat, and one about him coming back on a Dominican Republic military jet, and then there is Marcello's version of just flying into Miami on a commercial flight.
> Afterward, he was charged with being an illegal alien but thanks to > Ferrie and others, he managed to beat the rap. They celebrated his > victory with a big party on the evening of 11/22/1963.
Didn't he bribe a juror to beat that rap?
> David, I have never met any mafia dons and I'm sure you haven't either. > But we've all read about them and seen them in the movies. What would > you EXPECT a guy like that to do, under those circumstances?
When you bribe jurors you don't have to worry about the laws.
> In his "tail of the dog.." statement, he made it clear that it would do > no good to only kill Bobby. JFK would be all over him if he did. But by > killing JFK, he took Bobby's power away.
> According to Waldron, there are other reasons why Bobby didn't go after > the mob. But I don't think he would have had LBJ's backing, if he did, > do you?
> Robert Harris
Hey Bob, why no response?
Iv read the file where Marcello confessed, never seen one where he says Ferrie introduced him to Oswald. Could you elaborate and not pull a Shackelford by telling us to "buy the book?"
>In article ><f9b1d2f6-b196-4dbc-a618-1f019016f...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, > David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Let's bask in the Pot & Kettle nature of Robert Harris' last post >> (regarding "thugs"):
>> "When you deal with thugs like this, you believe about 1% of what >> they tell you, if that." -- Bob Harris; 9/19/09
>> And then, just seconds later, Bob Harris tells us this:
>> "Marcello admitted it [plotting JFK's murder], David." -- Bob >> Harris; 9/19/09
>David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what >criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
Are you assuming they tell each other the truth?
Naive.
>And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
The problem is that "confessing" is not necesarily "against interest."
Do you believe James Files, Bob? Yes or no?
"Confess" and you sound like a big shot. Of course, you are secure in the knowledge that you could never be convicted. Indeed, it's unlikely any prosecutor would bother with somebody making an obviously bogus "confession."
>It means that authorities believe confessions far more than they believe >denials of guilt, because a confession is against the interest of the >accused.
> On 22 Sep 2009 20:12:27 -0400, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> > wrote:
> >In article > ><f9b1d2f6-b196-4dbc-a618-1f019016f...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, > > David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> Let's bask in the Pot & Kettle nature of Robert Harris' last post > >> (regarding "thugs"):
> >> "When you deal with thugs like this, you believe about 1% of what > >> they tell you, if that." -- Bob Harris; 9/19/09
> >> And then, just seconds later, Bob Harris tells us this:
> >> "Marcello admitted it [plotting JFK's murder], David." -- Bob > >> Harris; 9/19/09
> >David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what > >criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
> Are you assuming they tell each other the truth?
What difference does it make, john?
If it was a saint, appointed by Jesus himself, you'd call him a liar if he said there was a conspiracy.
> Naive.
Nonsense.
In the history of the United States, NO mafia don was humiliated the way Marcello was by Bobby Kennedy. His "take the stone from my shoe" and "tail of the dog" statements were deadly serious to these Sicilian thugs. They amounted to solid commitments that he intended to have JFK killed.
And why do you suppose that Marcello also made up a story about Ferrie's involvement?
> >And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
> The problem is that "confessing" is not necesarily "against interest."
> Do you believe James Files, Bob? Yes or no?
Why would I form an opinion without adequate evidence?
Only extremely dishonest people do that kind of thing john.
> "Confess" and you sound like a big shot.
Yes, of course. The mafia don for the entire SE United States was so insecure that he needed to impress some guy posing as a bottom level thug.
And I guess he was just trying to impress people when he swore to kill Kennedy too, eh?
> Of course, you are secure in > the knowledge that you could never be convicted. Indeed, it's > unlikely any prosecutor would bother with somebody making an obviously > bogus "confession."
There is nothing "bogus" about it.
The FBI planted an informant in Marcello's cell in the hope that he WOULD make confessions, and obviously, had every intention of believing them - all except one of course.
> On Sep 22, 7:12?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > In article > > <f9b1d2f6-b196-4dbc-a618-1f019016f...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, > > ?David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Let's bask in the Pot & Kettle nature of Robert Harris' last post > > > (regarding "thugs"):
> > > ? ? ? "When you deal with thugs like this, you believe about 1% of what > > > they tell you, if that." -- Bob Harris; 9/19/09
> > > And then, just seconds later, Bob Harris tells us this:
> > > ? ? ? "Marcello admitted it [plotting JFK's murder], David." -- Bob > > > Harris; 9/19/09
> > David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what > > criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
> You don't think criminals make up stuff to sound more ruthless than > they actually are? Tell me Bob, in the criminal underworld, what would top > bragging about killing the President?
Well, how about repeatedly swearing to have Kennedy killed, prior to the assassination?
BTW, he never said he killed Kennedy himself, although he he wished he had. He said he ordered the assassination, which required a phone call or two. Ferrie did the recruiting for him.
> > And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
> > It means that authorities believe confessions far more than they believe > > denials of guilt, because a confession is against the interest of the > > accused.
> > But let me ask you a question that you evaded in the other newsgroup. If > > Oswald had confessed to killing JFK, would you have the same attitude as > > you do to Marcello's confession to a man he thought, was one of his own?
> > Unlike Marcello, Oswald never in his life, was known to have threatened > > JFK or had a motive to kill him.
> You don't think a guy with Oswald's history could have killed > the Prez?
Please read more carefully. I didn't say that Oswald was not involved in the attack. He certainly was.
I asked David why he would accept a confession from Oswald, who never in his life stated an intention or indicated a motive to kill Kennedy, but reject a confession by Marcello, who had done exactly that, in spades.
Perhaps you would like to address that question for him, since David doesn't seem very eager to reply.
> Come on Bob, its ridiculous to act like Oswald wasn't > somewhat nutty.
Yes he was. He was obsessed with Herbert Philbrick and wanted to be exactly like him, to the point that he tried to kill himself when his first real assignment in Russia fell through.
> But would you still accept Oswald's > > confession, but not Marcello's???
> They didn't find Marcello's gun in the TSBD did they?
Silly question. No-one is claiming that Marcello was a shooter.
> > Please answer the question David, instead of running from it.
> > Marcello was not the kind of guy to run around shooting his mouth off. > > In fact, I don't believe that throughout his entire life, he is on the > > record EVER confessing to ANYTHING, other than setting up the > > assassination.
> WRONG, read Mafia Kingfish, the BRILAB tapes are full of Marcello > bragging about illegal activities. I even remember this off the top my > head, not exact but paraphrasing.
> "i used to bring Beauregard H. Miller $50,000.00 cash money a month"
LOL!! It is not "bragging" to talk about things that really happened.
Tell me, can you point to a single thing that Marcello ever said to his associates that was demonstrably, a lie??
> > > David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what > > > criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
> > You don't think criminals make up stuff to sound more ruthless than > > they actually are? Tell me Bob, in the criminal underworld, what would top > > bragging about killing the President?
> Well, how about repeatedly swearing to have Kennedy killed, prior to the > assassination?
Can you name the instances? Becker? I remember his account, but that's the only one i can think of at the moment and he didn't report it before hand. So who's to say that he isn't making it up? How many people reported BEFORE the assassination, that Marcello had made a threat to kill the President? Not only that, but do you know how many politicians my dad repeatedly swore he would kill? Now granted, none of them ended up getting their head blown off, but still. If i had been thrown out of the only country i had ever known, i am sure i would have repeatedly swore to kill the SOB that did it "to anyone who would listen" as Marcello said in his testimony before the HSCA. Maybe it's just the New Orleans attitude, and the rest of the world doesn't think that way.
> BTW, he never said he killed Kennedy himself, although he he wished he > had. He said he ordered the assassination, which required a phone call > or two. Ferrie did the recruiting for him.
Yeah Bob i know the instance, but still, if Bobby Kennedy had me thrown out of the country, and some guy that worked for my lawyer at the time of JFK's death had been investigated for participation in said "plot," and i was sitting in jail years later, i might brag that i had "the SOB" killed too.
> > > And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
> > > It means that authorities believe confessions far more than they believe > > > denials of guilt, because a confession is against the interest of the > > > accused.
> > > But let me ask you a question that you evaded in the other newsgroup. If > > > Oswald had confessed to killing JFK, would you have the same attitude as > > > you do to Marcello's confession to a man he thought, was one of his own?
> > > Unlike Marcello, Oswald never in his life, was known to have threatened > > > JFK or had a motive to kill him.
> > You don't think a guy with Oswald's history could have killed > > the Prez?
> Please read more carefully. I didn't say that Oswald was not involved in > the attack. He certainly was.
> I asked David why he would accept a confession from Oswald, who never in > his life stated an intention or indicated a motive to kill Kennedy, but > reject a confession by Marcello, who had done exactly that, in spades.
Because Oswald's gun was found in the building? And criminals are known to lie.
> Perhaps you would like to address that question for him, since David > doesn't seem very eager to reply.
> > Come on Bob, its ridiculous to act like Oswald wasn't > > somewhat nutty.
> Yes he was. He was obsessed with Herbert Philbrick and wanted to be > exactly like him, to the point that he tried to kill himself when his > first real assignment in Russia fell through.
You'd have to first prove Oswald was an agent, i haven't seen anything concrete on that, but i am open to anything new you might have.
> > But would you still accept Oswald's > > > confession, but not Marcello's???
> > They didn't find Marcello's gun in the TSBD did they?
> Silly question. No-one is claiming that Marcello was a shooter.
No you don't get it Bob, that's the reason i would believe Oswald's confession over Marcello's. That and I know a lot of criminals, they lie.
> > > Please answer the question David, instead of running from it.
> > > Marcello was not the kind of guy to run around shooting his mouth off. > > > In fact, I don't believe that throughout his entire life, he is on the > > > record EVER confessing to ANYTHING, other than setting up the > > > assassination.
> > WRONG, read Mafia Kingfish, the BRILAB tapes are full of Marcello > > bragging about illegal activities. I even remember this off the top my > > head, not exact but paraphrasing.
> > "i used to bring Beauregard H. Miller $50,000.00 cash money a month"
> LOL!! It is not "bragging" to talk about things that really happened.
> Tell me, can you point to a single thing that Marcello ever said to his > associates that was demonstrably, a lie??
Can you prove that Marcello actually "brought Beauregard H. Miller $50,000.00 cash money a month?" I'd like to see the evidence Bob!
> > > David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what > > > criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
> > You don't think criminals make up stuff to sound more ruthless than > > they actually are? Tell me Bob, in the criminal underworld, what would > > top > > bragging about killing the President?
> Well, how about repeatedly swearing to have Kennedy killed, prior to the > assassination?
Can you name the instances? Becker? I remember his account, but that's the only one i can think of at the moment and he didn't report it before hand. So who's to say that he isn't making it up? How many people reported BEFORE the assassination, that Marcello had made a threat to kill the President? Not only that, but do you know how many politicians my dad repeatedly swore he would kill? Now granted, none of them ended up getting their head blown off, but still. If i had been thrown out of the only country i had ever known, i am sure i would have repeatedly swore to kill the SOB that did it "to anyone who would listen" as Marcello said in his testimony before the HSCA. Maybe it's just the New Orleans attitude, and the rest of the world doesn't think that way.
> BTW, he never said he killed Kennedy himself, although he he wished he > had. He said he ordered the assassination, which required a phone call > or two. Ferrie did the recruiting for him.
Yeah Bob i know the instance, but still, if Bobby Kennedy had me thrown out of the country, and some guy that worked for my lawyer at the time of JFK's death had been investigated for participation in said "plot," and i was sitting in jail years later, i might brag that i had "the SOB" killed too.
> > > And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
> > > It means that authorities believe confessions far more than they > > > believe > > > denials of guilt, because a confession is against the interest of the > > > accused.
> > > But let me ask you a question that you evaded in the other newsgroup. > > > If > > > Oswald had confessed to killing JFK, would you have the same attitude > > > as > > > you do to Marcello's confession to a man he thought, was one of his > > > own?
> > > Unlike Marcello, Oswald never in his life, was known to have > > > threatened > > > JFK or had a motive to kill him.
> > You don't think a guy with Oswald's history could have killed > > the Prez?
> Please read more carefully. I didn't say that Oswald was not involved in > the attack. He certainly was.
> I asked David why he would accept a confession from Oswald, who never in > his life stated an intention or indicated a motive to kill Kennedy, but > reject a confession by Marcello, who had done exactly that, in spades.
Because Oswald's gun was found in the building? And criminals are known to lie.
> Perhaps you would like to address that question for him, since David > doesn't seem very eager to reply.
> > Come on Bob, its ridiculous to act like Oswald wasn't > > somewhat nutty.
> Yes he was. He was obsessed with Herbert Philbrick and wanted to be > exactly like him, to the point that he tried to kill himself when his > first real assignment in Russia fell through.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ steve wrote;
You'd have to first prove Oswald was an agent, i haven't seen anything concrete on that, but i am open to anything new you might have.
> > > Please answer the question David, instead of running from it.
> > > Marcello was not the kind of guy to run around shooting his mouth off. > > > In fact, I don't believe that throughout his entire life, he is on the > > > record EVER confessing to ANYTHING, other than setting up the > > > assassination.
> > WRONG, read Mafia Kingfish, the BRILAB tapes are full of Marcello > > bragging about illegal activities. I even remember this off the top my > > head, not exact but paraphrasing.
> > "i used to bring Beauregard H. Miller $50,000.00 cash money a month"
> LOL!! It is not "bragging" to talk about things that really happened.
> Tell me, can you point to a single thing that Marcello ever said to his > associates that was demonstrably, a lie??
Can you prove that Marcello actually "brought Beauregard H. Miller $50,000.00 cash money a month?" I'd like to see the evidence Bob!
> > > David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what > > > criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
> > You don't think criminals make up stuff to sound more ruthless than > > they actually are? Tell me Bob, in the criminal underworld, what would top > > bragging about killing the President?
> Well, how about repeatedly swearing to have Kennedy killed, prior to the > assassination?
> BTW, he never said he killed Kennedy himself, although he he wished he > had. He said he ordered the assassination, which required a phone call > or two. Ferrie did the recruiting for him.
> > > And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
> > > It means that authorities believe confessions far more than they believe > > > denials of guilt, because a confession is against the interest of the > > > accused.
> > > But let me ask you a question that you evaded in the other newsgroup. If > > > Oswald had confessed to killing JFK, would you have the same attitude as > > > you do to Marcello's confession to a man he thought, was one of his own?
> > > Unlike Marcello, Oswald never in his life, was known to have threatened > > > JFK or had a motive to kill him.
> > You don't think a guy with Oswald's history could have killed > > the Prez?
> Please read more carefully. I didn't say that Oswald was not involved in > the attack. He certainly was.
> I asked David why he would accept a confession from Oswald, who never in > his life stated an intention or indicated a motive to kill Kennedy, but > reject a confession by Marcello, who had done exactly that, in spades.
> Perhaps you would like to address that question for him, since David > doesn't seem very eager to reply.
> > Come on Bob, its ridiculous to act like Oswald wasn't > > somewhat nutty.
> Yes he was. He was obsessed with Herbert Philbrick and wanted to be > exactly like him, to the point that he tried to kill himself when his > first real assignment in Russia fell through.
> > But would you still accept Oswald's > > > confession, but not Marcello's???
> > They didn't find Marcello's gun in the TSBD did they?
> Silly question. No-one is claiming that Marcello was a shooter.
> > > Please answer the question David, instead of running from it.
> > > Marcello was not the kind of guy to run around shooting his mouth off. > > > In fact, I don't believe that throughout his entire life, he is on the > > > record EVER confessing to ANYTHING, other than setting up the > > > assassination.
> > WRONG, read Mafia Kingfish, the BRILAB tapes are full of Marcello > > bragging about illegal activities. I even remember this off the top my > > head, not exact but paraphrasing.
> > "i used to bring Beauregard H. Miller $50,000.00 cash money a month"
> LOL!! It is not "bragging" to talk about things that really happened.
You keep changing stuff Bob. You said "I don't believe that throughout his entire life, he is on the record EVER confessing to ANYTHING, other than setting up the assassination." When i point out another "confession" you change your position to something about bragging. Why can't you admit Marcello did in fact confess to illegal activities that may or may not have actually taken place?
> Tell me, can you point to a single thing that Marcello ever said to his > associates that was demonstrably, a lie??
Still waiting for you to prove he actually paid Miller 50k a month.
> > > > David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what > > > > criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
> > > You don't think criminals make up stuff to sound more ruthless than > > > they actually are? Tell me Bob, in the criminal underworld, what would > > > top > > > bragging about killing the President?
> > Well, how about repeatedly swearing to have Kennedy killed, prior to the > > assassination?
> Can you name the instances? Becker? I remember his account, but > that's the only one i can think of at the moment and he didn't report it > before hand. So who's to say that he isn't making it up? How many people > reported BEFORE the assassination, that Marcello had made a threat to kill > the President? > Not only that, but do you know how many politicians my dad repeatedly > swore he would kill? Now granted, none of them ended up getting their head > blown off, but still. If i had been thrown out of the only country i had > ever known, i am sure i would have repeatedly swore to kill the SOB that > did it "to anyone who would listen" as Marcello said in his testimony > before the HSCA. Maybe it's just the New Orleans attitude, and the rest of > the world doesn't think that way.
> > BTW, he never said he killed Kennedy himself, although he he wished he > > had. He said he ordered the assassination, which required a phone call > > or two. Ferrie did the recruiting for him.
> Yeah Bob i know the instance, but still, if Bobby Kennedy had me > thrown out of the country, and some guy that worked for my lawyer at the > time of JFK's death had been investigated for participation in said > "plot," and i was sitting in jail years later, i might brag that i had > "the SOB" killed too.
> > > > And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
> > > > It means that authorities believe confessions far more than they > > > > believe > > > > denials of guilt, because a confession is against the interest of the > > > > accused.
> > > > But let me ask you a question that you evaded in the other newsgroup. > > > > If > > > > Oswald had confessed to killing JFK, would you have the same attitude > > > > as > > > > you do to Marcello's confession to a man he thought, was one of his > > > > own?
> > > > Unlike Marcello, Oswald never in his life, was known to have > > > > threatened > > > > JFK or had a motive to kill him.
> > > You don't think a guy with Oswald's history could have killed > > > the Prez?
> > Please read more carefully. I didn't say that Oswald was not involved in > > the attack. He certainly was.
> > I asked David why he would accept a confession from Oswald, who never in > > his life stated an intention or indicated a motive to kill Kennedy, but > > reject a confession by Marcello, who had done exactly that, in spades.
> Because Oswald's gun was found in the building? And criminals are > known to lie.
> > Perhaps you would like to address that question for him, since David > > doesn't seem very eager to reply.
> > > Come on Bob, its ridiculous to act like Oswald wasn't > > > somewhat nutty.
> > Yes he was. He was obsessed with Herbert Philbrick and wanted to be > > exactly like him, to the point that he tried to kill himself when his > > first real assignment in Russia fell through.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > steve wrote;
> You'd have to first prove Oswald was an agent, i haven't seen > anything concrete on that, but i am open to anything new you might > have.
> > > But would you still accept Oswald's > > > > confession, but not Marcello's???
> > > They didn't find Marcello's gun in the TSBD did they?
> > Silly question. No-one is claiming that Marcello was a shooter.
> No you don't get it Bob, that's the reason i would believe > Oswald's confession over Marcello's. That and I know a lot of > criminals, they lie.
> > > > Please answer the question David, instead of running from it.
> > > > Marcello was not the kind of guy to run around shooting his mouth off. > > > > In fact, I don't believe that throughout his entire life, he is on the > > > > record EVER confessing to ANYTHING, other than setting up the > > > > assassination.
> > > WRONG, read Mafia Kingfish, the BRILAB tapes are full of Marcello > > > bragging about illegal activities. I even remember this off the top my > > > head, not exact but paraphrasing.
> > > "i used to bring Beauregard H. Miller $50,000.00 cash money a month"
> > LOL!! It is not "bragging" to talk about things that really happened.
> > Tell me, can you point to a single thing that Marcello ever said to his > > associates that was demonstrably, a lie??
> Can you prove that Marcello actually "brought Beauregard H. Miller > $50,000.00 cash money a month?" I'd like to see the evidence Bob!
> > > > David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what > > > > criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
> > > You don't think criminals make up stuff to sound more ruthless than > > > they actually are? Tell me Bob, in the criminal underworld, what would > > > top > > > bragging about killing the President?
> > Well, how about repeatedly swearing to have Kennedy killed, prior to the > > assassination?
> Can you name the instances? Becker? I remember his account, but > that's the only one i can think of at the moment and he didn't report it > before hand. So who's to say that he isn't making it up? How many people > reported BEFORE the assassination, that Marcello had made a threat to kill > the President? > Not only that, but do you know how many politicians my dad repeatedly > swore he would kill? Now granted, none of them ended up getting their head > blown off, but still. If i had been thrown out of the only country i had > ever known, i am sure i would have repeatedly swore to kill the SOB that > did it "to anyone who would listen" as Marcello said in his testimony > before the HSCA. Maybe it's just the New Orleans attitude, and the rest of > the world doesn't think that way.
> > BTW, he never said he killed Kennedy himself, although he he wished he > > had. He said he ordered the assassination, which required a phone call > > or two. Ferrie did the recruiting for him.
> Yeah Bob i know the instance, but still, if Bobby Kennedy had me > thrown out of the country, and some guy that worked for my lawyer at the > time of JFK's death had been investigated for participation in said > "plot," and i was sitting in jail years later, i might brag that i had > "the SOB" killed too.
> > > > And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
> > > > It means that authorities believe confessions far more than they > > > > believe > > > > denials of guilt, because a confession is against the interest of > > > > the > > > > accused.
> > > > But let me ask you a question that you evaded in the other > > > > newsgroup. > > > > If > > > > Oswald had confessed to killing JFK, would you have the same > > > > attitude > > > > as > > > > you do to Marcello's confession to a man he thought, was one of his > > > > own?
> > > > Unlike Marcello, Oswald never in his life, was known to have > > > > threatened > > > > JFK or had a motive to kill him.
> > > You don't think a guy with Oswald's history could have killed > > > the Prez?
> > Please read more carefully. I didn't say that Oswald was not involved in > > the attack. He certainly was.
> > I asked David why he would accept a confession from Oswald, who never in > > his life stated an intention or indicated a motive to kill Kennedy, but > > reject a confession by Marcello, who had done exactly that, in spades.
> Because Oswald's gun was found in the building? And criminals are > known to lie.
> > Perhaps you would like to address that question for him, since David > > doesn't seem very eager to reply.
> > > Come on Bob, its ridiculous to act like Oswald wasn't > > > somewhat nutty.
> > Yes he was. He was obsessed with Herbert Philbrick and wanted to be > > exactly like him, to the point that he tried to kill himself when his > > first real assignment in Russia fell through.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > steve wrote;
> You'd have to first prove Oswald was an agent, i haven't seen > anything concrete on that, but i am open to anything new you might > have.
> > > But would you still accept Oswald's > > > > confession, but not Marcello's???
> > > They didn't find Marcello's gun in the TSBD did they?
> > Silly question. No-one is claiming that Marcello was a shooter.
> No you don't get it Bob, that's the reason i would believe > Oswald's confession over Marcello's. That and I know a lot of > criminals, they lie.
> > > > Please answer the question David, instead of running from it.
> > > > Marcello was not the kind of guy to run around shooting his mouth > > > > off. > > > > In fact, I don't believe that throughout his entire life, he is on > > > > the > > > > record EVER confessing to ANYTHING, other than setting up the > > > > assassination.
> > > WRONG, read Mafia Kingfish, the BRILAB tapes are full of Marcello > > > bragging about illegal activities. I even remember this off the top my > > > head, not exact but paraphrasing.
> > > "i used to bring Beauregard H. Miller $50,000.00 cash money a month"
> > LOL!! It is not "bragging" to talk about things that really happened.
> > Tell me, can you point to a single thing that Marcello ever said to his > > associates that was demonstrably, a lie??
> Can you prove that Marcello actually "brought Beauregard H. Miller > $50,000.00 cash money a month?" I'd like to see the evidence Bob!
> > > > David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what > > > > criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
> > > You don't think criminals make up stuff to sound more ruthless than > > > they actually are? Tell me Bob, in the criminal underworld, what would > > > top > > > bragging about killing the President?
> > Well, how about repeatedly swearing to have Kennedy killed, prior to the > > assassination?
> Can you name the instances? Becker? I remember his account, but > that's the only one i can think of at the moment and he didn't report it > before hand. So who's to say that he isn't making it up? How many people > reported BEFORE the assassination, that Marcello had made a threat to kill > the President? > Not only that, but do you know how many politicians my dad repeatedly > swore he would kill? Now granted, none of them ended up getting their head > blown off, but still. If i had been thrown out of the only country i had > ever known, i am sure i would have repeatedly swore to kill the SOB that > did it "to anyone who would listen" as Marcello said in his testimony > before the HSCA. Maybe it's just the New Orleans attitude, and the rest of > the world doesn't think that way.
> > BTW, he never said he killed Kennedy himself, although he he wished he > > had. He said he ordered the assassination, which required a phone call > > or two. Ferrie did the recruiting for him.
> Yeah Bob i know the instance, but still, if Bobby Kennedy had me > thrown out of the country, and some guy that worked for my lawyer at the > time of JFK's death had been investigated for participation in said > "plot," and i was sitting in jail years later, i might brag that i had > "the SOB" killed too.
> > > > And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
> > > > It means that authorities believe confessions far more than they > > > > believe > > > > denials of guilt, because a confession is against the interest of > > > > the > > > > accused.
> > > > But let me ask you a question that you evaded in the other > > > > newsgroup. > > > > If > > > > Oswald had confessed to killing JFK, would you have the same > > > > attitude > > > > as > > > > you do to Marcello's confession to a man he thought, was one of his > > > > own?
> > > > Unlike Marcello, Oswald never in his life, was known to have > > > > threatened > > > > JFK or had a motive to kill him.
> > > You don't think a guy with Oswald's history could have killed > > > the Prez?
> > Please read more carefully. I didn't say that Oswald was not involved in > > the attack. He certainly was.
> > I asked David why he would accept a confession from Oswald, who never in > > his life stated an intention or indicated a motive to kill Kennedy, but > > reject a confession by Marcello, who had done exactly that, in spades.
> Because Oswald's gun was found in the building? And criminals are > known to lie.
> > Perhaps you would like to address that question for him, since David > > doesn't seem very eager to reply.
> > > Come on Bob, its ridiculous to act like Oswald wasn't > > > somewhat nutty.
> > Yes he was. He was obsessed with Herbert Philbrick and wanted to be > > exactly like him, to the point that he tried to kill himself when his > > first real assignment in Russia fell through.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > steve wrote;
> You'd have to first prove Oswald was an agent, i haven't seen > anything concrete on that, but i am open to anything new you might > have.
> > > But would you still accept Oswald's > > > > confession, but not Marcello's???
> > > They didn't find Marcello's gun in the TSBD did they?
> > Silly question. No-one is claiming that Marcello was a shooter.
> No you don't get it Bob, that's the reason i would believe > Oswald's confession over Marcello's. That and I know a lot of > criminals, they lie.
> > > > Please answer the question David, instead of running from it.
> > > > Marcello was not the kind of guy to run around shooting his mouth > > > > off. > > > > In fact, I don't believe that throughout his entire life, he is on > > > > the > > > > record EVER confessing to ANYTHING, other than setting up the > > > > assassination.
> > > WRONG, read Mafia Kingfish, the BRILAB tapes are full of Marcello > > > bragging about illegal activities. I even remember this off the top my > > > head, not exact but paraphrasing.
> > > "i used to bring Beauregard H. Miller $50,000.00 cash money a month"
> > LOL!! It is not "bragging" to talk about things that really happened.
> > Tell me, can you point to a single thing that Marcello ever said to his > > associates that was demonstrably, a lie??
> Can you prove that Marcello actually "brought Beauregard H. Miller > $50,000.00 cash money a month?" I'd like to see the evidence Bob!
> > > > David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what > > > > criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
> > > ? ? ? ?You don't think criminals make up stuff to sound more ruthless > > > than > > > they actually are? Tell me Bob, in the criminal underworld, what would > > > top > > > bragging about killing the President?
> > Well, how about repeatedly swearing to have Kennedy killed, prior to the > > assassination?
> > BTW, he never said he killed Kennedy himself, although he he wished he > > had. He said he ordered the assassination, which required a phone call > > or two. Ferrie did the recruiting for him.
> > > > And do you know what the term, "against interest" means?
> > > > It means that authorities believe confessions far more than they > > > > believe > > > > denials of guilt, because a confession is against the interest of the > > > > accused.
> > > > But let me ask you a question that you evaded in the other newsgroup. > > > > If > > > > Oswald had confessed to killing JFK, would you have the same attitude > > > > as > > > > you do to Marcello's confession to a man he thought, was one of his > > > > own?
> > > > Unlike Marcello, Oswald never in his life, was known to have threatened > > > > JFK or had a motive to kill him.
> > > ? ? ? ? You don't think a guy with Oswald's history could have killed > > > the Prez?
> > Please read more carefully. I didn't say that Oswald was not involved in > > the attack. He certainly was.
> > I asked David why he would accept a confession from Oswald, who never in > > his life stated an intention or indicated a motive to kill Kennedy, but > > reject a confession by Marcello, who had done exactly that, in spades.
> > Perhaps you would like to address that question for him, since David > > doesn't seem very eager to reply.
> > > Come on Bob, its ridiculous to act like Oswald wasn't > > > somewhat nutty.
> > Yes he was. He was obsessed with Herbert Philbrick and wanted to be > > exactly like him, to the point that he tried to kill himself when his > > first real assignment in Russia fell through.
> > > ?But would you still accept Oswald's > > > > confession, but not Marcello's???
> > > ? They didn't find Marcello's gun in the TSBD did they?
> > Silly question. No-one is claiming that Marcello was a shooter.
> > > > Please answer the question David, instead of running from it.
> > > > Marcello was not the kind of guy to run around shooting his mouth off. > > > > In fact, I don't believe that throughout his entire life, he is on the > > > > record EVER confessing to ANYTHING, other than setting up the > > > > assassination.
> > > ? ?WRONG, read Mafia Kingfish, the BRILAB tapes are full of Marcello > > > bragging about illegal activities. ?I even remember this off the top my > > > head, not exact but paraphrasing.
> > > ? "i used to bring Beauregard H. Miller $50,000.00 cash money a month"
> > LOL!! It is not "bragging" to talk about things that really happened.
> You keep changing stuff Bob. You said "I don't believe that > throughout his entire life, he is on the record EVER confessing to > ANYTHING, other than setting up the assassination." When i point out > another "confession" you change your position to something about bragging. > Why can't you admit Marcello did in fact confess to illegal activities > that may or may not have actually taken place?
This is a silly argument Steve. Of course he talked to associates about other crimes. In fact, he ordered them to carry out countless crimes and undoubtedly, talked about them.
But that is hardly the same as trying to impress them. Can you point to a single, demonstrable lie he told his associates about such things?
> > Tell me, can you point to a single thing that Marcello ever said to his > > associates that was demonstrably, a lie??
> Still waiting for you to prove he actually paid Miller 50k a > month.
LOL! You are the one with the liar, liar accusations. Prove em if you can.
Look - Marcello ran the mafia for the entire SE part of the United States. And he was HUGE on bribes. In fact, that is why he was in prison. Fifty grand was pocket change to this guy.
Your tactics are very simple and rather pathetic, Steve. You accept NOTHING as evidence. Photos, recorded phone calls, confessions, etc. etc. etc, you just deny everything.
If this guy confessed to extortion, murder, peddling drugs, or dozens of other crimes, you wouldn't hesitate to believe it. It is ONLY this crime that puts you into denial.
> > > > David, why do you pretend to not realize the difference between what > > > > criminals tell the police and what they tell each other?
> > > ? ? ? ?You don't think criminals make up stuff to sound more ruthless > > > than > > > they actually are? Tell me Bob, in the criminal underworld, what would > > > top > > > bragging about killing the President?
> > Well, how about repeatedly swearing to have Kennedy killed, prior to the > > assassination?
> Can you name the instances? Becker? I remember his account, but > that's the only one i can think of at the moment and he didn't report > it before hand.
Yes Steve, liars, liars everywhere... sigh.
There are two statements on the record, the "Take this stone from my shoe", which those people take VERY seriously, and there is the "Kill the dog and the tail stops wagging" statement.
If you can't look them up with Google in less that two minutes, let me know.
> So who's to say that he isn't making it up?
No-one Steve. They are all liars or insane - most of the witnesses in DP, most of the doctors and nurses and Parkland, countless cops and other law enforcement professionals, including FBI employees, sheriff's employees, etc. etc. etc.
Has it ever occurred to you that you guys sound a lot like OJ would if there had been witnesses to his murders?
