Oswald part of the conspiracy
firefly
testimony of his arrest in the theater, if it is accurate, he was guilty
with the bad guys, even if he didn't do the actual killing.
---firefly
tomnln
"firefly" <firef...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vx0Vj.2885$17...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Oswald was paid by the CIA.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
Oswald was also a Paif FBI In formant.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
(Bottom of page)
curtjester1
He could have thought the bad guys in the CIA we're doing good, and
went along with them. So he could have been in on it, but not knowing
all the details. He could have been told that they were just going to
fire a few shots to scare the President and then realized that he
better escape or lay low. Actually, there could be lots of
scenarios. But the fact that he got left off afar from his
roominghouse tells me he was leery of the police at the time, and in
some way connected to the assassination.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
Do not rely on eyewitness statements.
Anthony Marsh
> On 9 May, 18:56, "firefly" <firefly...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I used to think he was innocently working for the CIA, but judging by the
>> testimony of his arrest in the theater, if it is accurate, he was guilty
>> with the bad guys, even if he didn't do the actual killing.
>>
>> ---firefly
>
> He could have thought the bad guys in the CIA we're doing good, and
> went along with them. So he could have been in on it, but not knowing
Not my theory, but his mother claimed that Oswald was working for the
CIA and they killed Kennedy for the good of the country.
74030...@compuserve.com
tomnln wrote:
> "firefly" <firef...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:vx0Vj.2885$17...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> >I used to think he was innocently working for the CIA, but judging by the
> >testimony of his arrest in the theater, if it is accurate, he was guilty
> >with the bad guys, even if he didn't do the actual killing.
> >
> > ---firefly
>
>
> Oswald was paid by the CIA.
Oswald was NEVER paid by CIA. Wilcott's testimony was totally false. Every
claim he made was contradicted by other witnesses including one he named
as talking with in Japan when that person was nolongerin Japan. NO
witness corroborated ANY of his testimony. Nor di he produce any documents
to support his testimony.
74030...@compuserve.com
> "firefly" <firefly...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:vx0Vj.2885$17...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >I used to think he was innocently working for the CIA, but judging by the
> >testimony of his arrest in the theater, if it is accurate, he was guilty
> >with the bad guys, even if he didn't do the actual killing.
>
> > ---firefly
>
> Oswald was paid by the CIA.
Oswald was NEVER paid by CIA. All Wilcott's claims were contradicted by
other witnesses. None of Wo;cott's testimony was supported by any other
witness or documents. Some of his falsehood's were obvious, e.g., that
Oswald was taught Russin and intel by the Marines at Atsugi. Never
happened. A big falsehood is that CIA could not pay him as as Oswald was
on active duty. He could not be cleared. Back to paying, after getting
approval from CIA HQ to hire him, HQ would reject paying him as it is
against the law. Active duty military personnel who work for CIA are
considered on temporary assignment and paid by their organization, in
Oswald's (if he was working for CIA which he wasn't, the Marine Corps.
Thw HSCA did not believe Wilcott.
As for trying for perjury, it would have been a waste of time,
personnel, and resources, without accomplishing anything. I realize that
is beyond your knowledge of government.
s/f Dolan
tomnln
<74030...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:7dde2067-1253-4874...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> tomnln wrote:
>> "firefly" <firef...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:vx0Vj.2885$17...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> >I used to think he was innocently working for the CIA, but judging by
>> >the
>> >testimony of his arrest in the theater, if it is accurate, he was guilty
>> >with the bad guys, even if he didn't do the actual killing.
>> >
>> > ---firefly
>>
>>
>> Oswald was paid by the CIA.
74030 WROTE;
> Oswald was NEVER paid by CIA. Wilcott's testimony was totally false. Every
> claim he made was contradicted by other witnesses including one he named
> as talking with in Japan when that person was nolongerin Japan. NO
> witness corroborated ANY of his testimony. Nor di he produce any documents
> to support his testimony.
I write;
Wilcott was NEVER charged with Perjury;
Why don't you Name thaqt witness who Disputed him?
Wilcott Names 15 other people who discussed the subject with him.
The Committee never called ANY of them.
YOU have to prove Perjury AND, Produce testimony of those who proved him
wrong.
(This is America)
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
Oswald was also a Paif FBI In formant.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
(Bottom of page)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Wilcott gave the committee 15 names of who he discussed Oswald with.
Name one of them?
CIA Director Richard Helms was charged/convicted of Perjury.
ps;
Oswald was tested in the Russian language at the Military school of
languages 7 months before he went to Russia.
Are you telling us that the CIA "Always" obeys the law?
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
<74030...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:7c89ae96-142f-4775...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Conrad W. Paul
hard proof/evidence from the CIA, FBI,GOA for a specific transactional
moment linked to the assasination aside from blatant subjective supposition
and inuendo.
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kR7Vj.34$xF6...@newsfe20.lga...
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>It astounds me that everyone says Oswald was paid by the CIA, yet offer no
>hard proof/evidence from the CIA, FBI,GOA for a specific transactional
>moment linked to the assasination aside from blatant subjective supposition
>and inuendo.
Would you please provide an example of such proof/evidence of a
payment from the CIA to an undercover operative?
One or two will suffice? A written and signed receipt is acceptable or
signed certified cheque!
Are these payments generally public?
Where do you find a list of these payments?
Thanks.
PF
Anthony Marsh
> On May 9, 11:31 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "firefly" <firefly...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:vx0Vj.2885$17...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>> I used to think he was innocently working for the CIA, but judging by the
>>> testimony of his arrest in the theater, if it is accurate, he was guilty
>>> with the bad guys, even if he didn't do the actual killing.
>>> ---firefly
>> Oswald was paid by the CIA.
>
> Oswald was NEVER paid by CIA. All Wilcott's claims were contradicted by
> other witnesses. None of Wo;cott's testimony was supported by any other
> witness or documents. Some of his falsehood's were obvious, e.g., that
> Oswald was taught Russin and intel by the Marines at Atsugi. Never
> happened. A big falsehood is that CIA could not pay him as as Oswald was
> on active duty. He could not be cleared. Back to paying, after getting
> approval from CIA HQ to hire him, HQ would reject paying him as it is
> against the law. Active duty military personnel who work for CIA are
Some of what you say is true, but surely you of all people must know
that the CIA is not deterred from doing something just because it is
illegal. Remember the Family Jewels? The CIA helped E. Howard Hunt when
Hunt was working for Nixon.
> considered on temporary assignment and paid by their organization, in
> Oswald's (if he was working for CIA which he wasn't, the Marine Corps.
> Thw HSCA did not believe Wilcott.
>
Almost nothing that Wilcott said was true. But that does not mean that
he lied about everything.
> As for trying for perjury, it would have been a waste of time,
> personnel, and resources, without accomplishing anything. I realize that
> is beyond your knowledge of government.
>
Oh, you mean like Helms?
> s/f Dolan
tomnln
given under oath.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
"Conrad W. Paul" <cwp...@eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:fyuWj.2571$KB3.2502@edtnps91...
clarkw...@hotmail.com
> It astounds me that everyone says Oswald was paid by the CIA, yet offer no
> hard proof/evidence from the CIA, FBI,GOA for a specific transactional
> moment linked to the assasination aside from blatant subjective supposition
> and inuendo.
>
As a CTer, I looked for years for evidence of Lee secretly being paid by
an outside source, be it a gov't agency or even the mafia. I couldn't
find any evidence he received a single penny. I shared this conclusion
with a major CTer on this forum in private (he may not want me to name
him) and he admitted that he too had no evidence of payments to Lee. We
both concluded Lee was a willing participant to a conspiracy (I have Lee
in the SN. He does not.). Yet we also had to conclude he was an unpaid
volunteer.
This actually fits in better with LN thinking than CT as it requires the
type of personality LNers attribute to Oswald. I further examined Lee to
determine if he was being blackmailed into his participating as the
opportunity existed for Lee to be recalled to Active Duty and then tried
by the USMC for his defection (Threatening to provide the Soviets with
military information would have been sufficient grounds alone for Lee to
get ten years at hard labor.). Yet careful study of his actions were more
consistent with them being voluntary versus involuntary. I eventually
concluded Lee leaned towards a suicidal mindset (My learned colleague
above disagrees.) willing to pull a trigger if he felt the political cause
justified his personal sacrifice. Thus, money was not an object.
And while US intelligence have their fingerprints all over Oswald, he was
not acting under their authority on 11/22/63 in regards to JFK being
assassinated. The presence of those "fingerprints" keep complicating
things for CTer's who want to make this connection while the thought that
Lee can be a single shooter in a conspiracy appears to be an impossible
thought for LNer's to comprehend.
Good luck.
::Clark::
Anthony Marsh
> It astounds me that everyone says Oswald was paid by the CIA, yet offer no
> hard proof/evidence from the CIA, FBI,GOA for a specific transactional
> moment linked to the assasination aside from blatant subjective supposition
> and inuendo.
>
It is illegal to divulge such information.
74030...@compuserve.com
> Name a witness who discredited Wilcott's testimony Dolan?
>
> Wilcott gave the committee 15 names of who he discussed Oswald with.
>
> Name one of them?
Possily, if you admit you are incapable of doing the research in the HSCA
report. Otherwise, I am not going to break the law inre naming CIA
officers.
>
> CIA Director Richard Helms was charged/convicted of Perjury.
Absolutely UNTRUE A total falsehood. Helms was NEVER charge with oerjury,
a felony, and NEVER convicted of perjury. You have no evidence to claim
that.
>
> ps;
>
> Oswald was tested in the Russian language at the Military school of
> languages 7 months before he went to Russia.
>
> Are you telling us that the CIA "Always" obeys the law?
No. But yes to American law, most especially inre paying salaries even
when under cover as I knew of a couple of Marines..CIA was regularly
audited.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
That site is JUNK, full of CRAP. I would if I could UNCONDITIONALLY post
rebuttals. But you are too afraid to opem it up as you know it is full of
BS
>
> <74030.3...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
curtjester1
While you may not have concrete evidence of LHO receiving money, there are
ones that said he did. Richard Case Nagell and those who saw LHO outside
of Alba's garage would say different. You might ask, how is one who
basically has no way of obtaining 'outside money' be capable of traveling
all these long distances, quite often, always seeming able to live
comfortably and raise a family on minimum wage type jobs? I think you are
trying to force a 'non-guilt' umbrella for LHO in this terrible
assassination. I would say that he was set up for patsying purposes to
shield the real perpetrators against JFK, but does this abslove one of
complicity in this crime? Two things point to some complicity. The
conspirators would sure like to have LHO out of the way within the
confines of the TSBD to insure that guilt could be thrown his way. If not
then they would have to deal with a small conspiracy potential, and a much
more difficulty in covering up the case. The second is the fact that when
he was taken home in the cab he could have been let off right in front of
his abode, but chose instead to have the driver keep going and be let off
a good half mile down the road. That was a 6.5 minute walk for me.
Those two things, plus the fact that he was moving from seat to seat in
the Texas Theater, and some of his subsequent actions and interviewing
would lead me to believe he was at least knowledgable of the conspiracy.
(e.g. knowing about and volunteering about the Rambler and Mrs. Paine, and
the "now they will know who I am" statement).
CJ
tomnln
<74030...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:fe5e448d-d56c-43d3...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
That testimony was given to the HSCA under oath by Wilcott.
That testimony contains 15 names of co-workers he discussed "The Oswald
Project" with.
The HSCA questioned NONE of them to confirm Wilcott's testimony.
Richard WAS convicted of Perjury>>>
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/richard-helms-614870.html
Even his OBIT points to it.
No wonder you run from THESE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're right on the 'money' there Nolan! I am glad you brought it in.
CJ
74030...@compuserve.com
> <74030.3...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7dde2067-1253-4874...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > tomnln wrote:
> >> "firefly" <firefly...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >>news:vx0Vj.2885$17...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> >> >I used to think he was innocently working for the CIA, but judging by
> >> >the
> >> >testimony of his arrest in the theater, if it is accurate, he was guilty
> >> >with the bad guys, even if he didn't do the actual killing.
>
> >> > ---firefly
>
> >> Oswald was paid by the CIA.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Oswald was NEVER paid by CIA. Wilcott's testimony was totally false. Every
> > claim he made was contradicted by other witnesses including one he named
> > as talking with in Japan when that person was nolongerin Japan. NO
> > witness corroborated ANY of his testimony. Nor di he produce any documents
> > to support his testimony.
>
> I write;
>
> Wilcott was NEVER charged with Perjury;
So What? What would it accomplish?
>
> Why don't you Name thaqt witness who Disputed him?
The law prohibits it.
>
> Wilcott Names 15 other people who discussed the subject with him.
He does? then why should Ibane them if you know that?
>
> The Committee never called ANY of them.
Are you sure? How?
>
> YOU have to prove Perjury . . .
If ther was an indictment and trial.
AND, Produce testimony of those who proved him
> wrong.
Since the HSCA did not request Wilcott be charged. They did not believe
him based on witnesses they heard. If there was a trial, witnesses would
have been produced, but there was no trial. There was no reason for one,
The HSCA members believed he lied.
tomnln
<74030...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:b8c5aded-c667-4f20...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
TRUTH/JUSTICE
>> Why don't you Name thaqt witness who Disputed him?
> The law prohibits it.
What Law? their names were Already given in Wilcott's testimony.
>> Wilcott Names 15 other people who discussed the subject with him.
> He does? then why should Ibane them if you know that?
NONE of those Wilcott mentioned were called.
>> The Committee never called ANY of them.
>
> Are you sure? How?
NONE of them are in the official records as having been questioned by the
HSCA.
>> YOU have to prove Perjury . . .
>
> If ther was an indictment and trial.
> AND, Produce testimony of those who proved him
>> wrong.
>
> Since the HSCA did not request Wilcott be charged. They did not believe
> him based on witnesses they heard. If there was a trial, witnesses would
> have been produced, but there was no trial. There was no reason for one,
> The HSCA members believed he lied.
Name the witnesses against Wilcott???
curtjester1
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
They considered his testimony 'problematic'. Hence they showed
themselves for what they were, 'soothers'. What were they going to
sue the Wilcott's for? Quitting? Squealing? The ones that should be
sued are the CIA. Now that would be an interesting trial.
CJ
Anthony Marsh
I seem to remember that Wilcott was cleared to testify by the CIA.
>
>>> Wilcott Names 15 other people who discussed the subject with him.
>
>
>
>> He does? then why should Ibane them if you know that?
>
> NONE of those Wilcott mentioned were called.
>
>
>
>>> The Committee never called ANY of them.
>>
>> Are you sure? How?
>
>
> NONE of them are in the official records as having been questioned by
> the HSCA.
>
But they could have been contacted by phone.
74030...@compuserve.com
> 74030.3...@compuserve.com wrote:
> > On May 9, 11:31 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> "firefly" <firefly...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:vx0Vj.2885$17...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >>> I used to think he was innocently working for the CIA, but judging by the
> >>> testimony of his arrest in the theater, if it is accurate, he was guilty
> >>> with the bad guys, even if he didn't do the actual killing.
> >>> ---firefly
> >> Oswald was paid by the CIA.
>
> > Oswald was NEVER paid by CIA. All Wilcott's claims were contradicted by
> > other witnesses. None of Wo;cott's testimony was supported by any other
> > witness or documents. Some of his falsehood's were obvious, e.g., that
> > Oswald was taught Russin and intel by the Marines at Atsugi. Never
> > happened. A big falsehood is that CIA could not pay him as as Oswald was
> > on active duty. He could not be cleared. Back to paying, after getting
> > approval from CIA HQ to hire him, HQ would reject paying him as it is
> > against the law. Active duty military personnel who work for CIA are
>
> Some of what you say is true, but surely you of all people must know
> that the CIA is not deterred from doing something just because it is
> illegal. Remember the Family Jewels?
Yes. I also recall the Church committee stated that "the CIA was not
out of control., i.e., doing what higher authority ordered.
> The CIA helped E. Howard Hunt when Hunt was working for Nixon.
It was thought he was legit.
>
> > considered on temporary assignment and paid by their organization, in
> > Oswald's (if he was working for CIA which he wasn't, the Marine Corps.
> > Thw HSCA did not believe Wilcott.
>
> Almost nothing that Wilcott said was true. But that does not mean that
> he lied about everything.
Nothing he claimed about Oswald was true.
>
> > As for trying for perjury, it would have been a waste of time,
> > personnel, and resources, without accomplishing anything. I realize that
> > is beyond your knowledge of government.
>
> Oh, you mean like Helms?
Huh? What "like Kelms"?
>
> > s/f Dolan
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fbOdnXXizcW1ubLV...@comcast.com...
Marsh writes in an attempt to salvage the cover-up;
> But they could have been contacted by phone.
I write;
PROVE IT ! ! !
Anthony Marsh
> On May 14, 10:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 74030.3...@compuserve.com wrote:
>>> On May 9, 11:31 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> "firefly" <firefly...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:vx0Vj.2885$17...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>> I used to think he was innocently working for the CIA, but judging by the
>>>>> testimony of his arrest in the theater, if it is accurate, he was guilty
>>>>> with the bad guys, even if he didn't do the actual killing.
>>>>> ---firefly
>>>> Oswald was paid by the CIA.
>>> Oswald was NEVER paid by CIA. All Wilcott's claims were contradicted by
>>> other witnesses. None of Wo;cott's testimony was supported by any other
>>> witness or documents. Some of his falsehood's were obvious, e.g., that
>>> Oswald was taught Russin and intel by the Marines at Atsugi. Never
>>> happened. A big falsehood is that CIA could not pay him as as Oswald was
>>> on active duty. He could not be cleared. Back to paying, after getting
>>> approval from CIA HQ to hire him, HQ would reject paying him as it is
>>> against the law. Active duty military personnel who work for CIA are
>> Some of what you say is true, but surely you of all people must know
>> that the CIA is not deterred from doing something just because it is
>> illegal. Remember the Family Jewels?
>
> Yes. I also recall the Church committee stated that "the CIA was not
> out of control., i.e., doing what higher authority ordered.
>
SO, you are confirming that every illegal action of the CIA was approved
by the DCI. And that's supposed to be comforting?
>> The CIA helped E. Howard Hunt when Hunt was working for Nixon.
>
> It was thought he was legit.
>
So, it was by definition a rogue operation, something which you claim
can never happen.
>>> considered on temporary assignment and paid by their organization, in
>>> Oswald's (if he was working for CIA which he wasn't, the Marine Corps.
>>> Thw HSCA did not believe Wilcott.
>> Almost nothing that Wilcott said was true. But that does not mean that
>> he lied about everything.
>
> Nothing he claimed about Oswald was true.
>
>>> As for trying for perjury, it would have been a waste of time,
>>> personnel, and resources, without accomplishing anything. I realize that
>>> is beyond your knowledge of government.
>> Oh, you mean like Helms?
>
> Huh? What "like Kelms"?
>
Helms was prosecuted for lying to Congress. They did not think it was a
waste of time, personnel, and resources. You obviously think CIA
personnel should never be prosecuted for anything.
>>> s/f Dolan
>
>
clarkw...@hotmail.com
I'm very much aware of Nagell. You can actually trace Nagell's
whereabouts by the VA hospitals he checked into while developing his
disability case. He evidently didn't think someone like me would
connect the dots (But then, he doesn't quite have all his marbles
either.).
I actually did confirm three of Nagell's claims and was able to find
another individual who did the same Mexico work Nagell claimed to do
but he did not know Nagell. But, having disproved other Nagell
claims, he has a credibility problem. If you wish to cite him as a
serious witness, Dave Reitzes is waiting. About the best you can do
with Nagell is cite him as a secondary witness and not as a primary
witness. You've just cited him as a primary witness to LHO being
paid. I'm willing to bet that pig won't fly.
>and those who saw LHO outside
> of Alba's garage would say different.
"Those" suggest more than one. Do you you have more than one?
I know the incident to wich you refer which may or may not have
happened. Lee was handed an envelope by a man in a car rented by the
gov't in a garage. Do I believe it contained money? No.
I have to ask how Lee, with no phone, knew he was supposed to be
waiting for a gov't agent in a green rental car in a garage to hand
him an envelope?
Because if they mailed him the instruction to meet the car, why didn't
they just mail the envelope to him?
>You might ask, how is one who
> basically has no way of obtaining 'outside money' be capable of traveling
> all these long distances, quite often, always seeming able to live
> comfortably and raise a family on minimum wage type jobs?
He "stiffed" his landlord for his September, 1963 rent in order to
travel to MC.
The WC looked for evidence that Lee was paid by an outside source in
order to meet his expenses and found none. I looked for evidence Lee
was paid by an outside source and found none. I'm convinced it does
not exist.
There is, indeed, outside aid provided Lee. It can be shown two
different ways but neither aid source involves money.
> I think you are
> trying to force a 'non-guilt' umbrella for LHO in this terrible
> assassination.
I don't know what this means. As a CTer, I believe in conspiracy. In
debating LNer's here, I'm holding a royal flush and the LNer's are
holding a pair of deuces. They have nothing. It's their own site and
they can't win a debate. But if I wish to claim Lee's innocence of
any part, then it's me that's holding the two deuces. I've got
nothing.
You have to consider both sides are holding plenty of evidence -
enough that neither side can prove the other wrong. When that
happens, you have to change the theory to fit the evidence of both
sides. Claiming Lee was an innocent "putz" won't fly. Did Subway
sell two foot long sandwhiches in 1963?
> I would say that he was set up for patsying purposes to
> shield the real perpetrators against JFK, but does this abslove one of
> complicity in this crime? Two things point to some complicity. The
> conspirators would sure like to have LHO out of the way within the
> confines of the TSBD to insure that guilt could be thrown his way. If not
> then they would have to deal with a small conspiracy potential, and a much
> more difficulty in covering up the case.
A conspiracy couldn't be sure he wouldn't be standing outside the TSBD
- say next to Billy Lovelady?
> The second is the fact that when
> he was taken home in the cab he could have been let off right in front of
> his abode, but chose instead to have the driver keep going and be let off
> a good half mile down the road. That was a 6.5 minute walk for me.
Lee wasn't stupid. He was well TRAINED. He knew where he lived. He
had the taxi take him past his roominghouse on purpose. It allowed
him to see if the police were there waiting for him. Had he not done
this, and his taxi had stopped to let him off at his roominghous and
the police had been there, Lee would have been in custody before he
could shoot Tippit.
And - Yes - even though I'm a CTer, I believe Lee shot Tippit in cold
blooded murder.
He shot him for the same reason he had the taxi take him past his
roominghouse. He was expecting patrol cars to be looking for him in
this area.
> Those two things, plus the fact that he was moving from seat to seat in
> the Texas Theater,
He knew there were police cars outside. It was while hiding in a shoe
store doorway from one that he drew attention to himself.
> and some of his subsequent actions and interviewing
> would lead me to believe he was at least knowledgable of the conspiracy.
There you go. Lee is not a "patsy". He's a voluntary "fall guy".
But, with $ 13, we can't claim he's being paid.
> (e.g. knowing about and volunteering about the Rambler and Mrs. Paine, and
> the "now they will know who I am" statement).
Lee made several key statements that should alert LNer's that they've
been had. They should paint the word "Sucker" on their foreheads,
admit defeat, and be done with it.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
clarkw...@hotmail.com
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Marsh writes in an attempt to salvage the cover-up;
>
> > But they could have been contacted by phone.
>
> I write;
>
> PROVE IT ! ! !
The proof is phones existed in 1978. Therefore, they could have been
contacted.
Just a thought.
::Clark::
Russ Burr
Clark, What key statements are you referring to? I can't comment on
these until you post them....I'm assuming you're smart enough not to be
referring to the "patsy" comment.....
Russ Biurr